In The Supreme Court of FloridaDr. Peter E. Pflaum, PhDDr. Peter E. Pflaum, PhD202007-08-21T03:29:00Z2007-08-21T03:29:00Z140387230210http://www.wiredbrain.net/mainpage.htm191854027005711.8125

In The Supreme Court of

FloridaCASE NO: SC07-655Lower Tribunal No. 1 D06-6618 (Trial court No: 2004-CP-0770)(Trial in Eighth Circuit court, Gainesville, Alachua County)Dr. Peter Pflaum, PRO SE 225 Robinson RoadNew Smyrna Beach, FL 32169386 428 9609 PETITIONERV. Leanne Pflaum, Esq. and Thomas Pflaum, Esq. respondents and co-conspirators17306 S. W. 10th Terrace Micanopy, Florida 32667-9802 Tele 352 466 0252 And Richard White, a respondent and co-conspirator,White & Crouch, P. A. 5303 SW 91 Drive, Suite 200 Gainesville, FL 32608 Board Certified in Wills, Trusts & Estates RESPONDENTSProbate of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM

PETITIONER’S INITIAL JURIS BRIEF

EMERGENCY RELIEF AND STATEMENT OF THE CASEiVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAOoAAAAYBAMAAAAG4HxvAAAAMFBMVEWuS1bw3uDpztH47/DTnaPE fISYGiinO0e2XGa9bHXarbKgKzjivsLMjZSRChn///80/02vAAAAAWJLR0QAiAUdSAAAAAxjbVBQ SkNtcDA3MTIAAAAHT223pQAAA5dJREFUSMftlV9oFFcUxheF+GS2+CCUZl1L8a1kSumDpSajIFRR s9BWaiGuSmnVWlapWEEaFf+9iBtLQSjY9KlIKbiUti8tQhvJQ8DsdatRa3d2Nmk2pupkd2Y3cRNn 9us5dyaZWfMHC0VBetmHu+f7zvntOXfmbghPY4X+pz6j1Neg2xqtbF/WD2/iSJMmaLs8Vpewol+8 WF+iokX9L9984e8dTUMlUDODyffUda8uYOrbjlL9yDEqu8qG79ipJF/K6a06bXPhIGLyOHo/fuSX XxTTW/N7IyikMBZIvY8XlulJLU9U8/OqUorZ97EagYQB5DCh15jaogQJDwXIW7/SPrXy17F64Tn/ G+W1rVRaYr1EtYdrgyWOlGBYlF7uZkeYqDZRX5b+Mgu4MnlKQS0FnEfZvOw5VwmPyhEaapGqcxVL kVRzn6c0RZmRA8bU33nCmyvHHY44KGw9qOLd3oVk0tmg1zbf3G/H9R4pfLf2p2YdD2i83ZHt/V0x 6Xx944YUFX9zRKzv20J5Vw1hHbqgRLbf/lFSI79cByuvnD9ADKcxi+5yzHuGTaaauKcuizkDoJ+H KFOjtR/MIdCYWTB3o2sJYCUuURcNojQgnTeUiSNUfEKYRVx1e10aq+xAQ0venXAIUjmNVt3t1XuG p2YOFIgwfgRxeZBsqG2jsyYqC46BHB/z84m8wCJUDOls6yROWrwFewhVl9oVNf9GaHJoisqKVcCD vXNQmdAcdou7VN2lGj7VRCV5l2vlpdNSfyXqhTDKiY6oS00Aw15ZSWWFkkuD81DTlzT5ls6gUgPn qC41ZN+TVOm0vuwj6klqbPnokEsdBX0CVFacvKZl5u/VXY9ScWPtzxQaV4Eupo5IZ1tMTvhT1Uqt SERn7ZWViOEy5qKOF8k2G9VaeAVuCH+658rOnRgrirRId9pfo1kEznWaarPSTc/WtXmodAITs/Za 6pTh2ifAYjSK6vvSuQdvFPW0GLtrD6JV9Z/haepRRyqNSnnbDKp5aySDnjvZeAdyXy3gSN/hrbDj HTLWc2dNvMMZHc3TEKpO9lsdof5zinS2nWwvXE+e6B1u7994gtJuFtz39cMMH3LyDC6+Y7Oy8oMt 6rqRTYfb63r1l3s3zVzm4j8aBuRYBN+j3t1k/oYlnqFJnbr5RCCN7yhWmqLBYo/9T/dQRfmzf501 x3p8agpm+IlTzbOapnr7SCjzhKj/6Xo61H8AZzrp5QKyNlIAAAAASUVORK5CYIJ= Independent iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAOoAAAAYBAMAAAAG4HxvAAAAMFBMVEXivsKuS1b47/Dw3uDEfIS9 bHXTnaOYGijpztG2XGagKzinO0farbLMjZSRChn////hEukIAAAAAWJLR0QAiAUdSAAAAAxjbVBQ SkNtcDA3MTIAAAAHT223pQAAAoxJREFUSMftlEtoE1EUhkulomAzRBAFpRFBuxCcgEhX03ShFbtI XBQUkQRBFy50mkIRKm2jO5+jIHFlslF3odC9Wbk1TdtolTiPNtZQmuYxeTApHX/nkWSiozIpLRXx MNzH4Zz78Z8797RhO6ztP/UfpQZEmmJZlmj2UuyHnwNlljVnnyNBG7s7d4NWqaKnRMLNSM/pZreb NEXGps3ZWQIeY8cdyFqlVmZPucABa6lmN2eOtBFm3ztg0tjlffesUuVl24QKKQhAQFHoJGtUsdiu HMSoMaRBLe5QBieO1POP5moL0gmZeWS5wsGSR9M6jPufX6NyPhHWqJQ/4aXFQ2+fgN3zxqCe6fCg PHYxTvmL8w45iplVPplT5mTmuu8YeKvUekEHGPEVYkQvZIfu2E8UUmVeHJK+4iZZp5Ym8RIcUR6C HQWHEibn1E+Zhcc5i0iDyg7wkDM4EbbR0LXiICqrhSnEi2kdqA29Pnhdt1ARTNRcj69lKvIZVAV8 m+hemauJtyO/IKcvAyeL3gaV48F9XED+F1TrzKYKr6CwxLK81JWlDSrms1Oggg2ttEqNbyK1S9UK PJTOphrUZVm8siSNGBUOb7bWEHFjFeA7IAlN9+rC0+oiYm06dd2h3eso1lXqmk4lFKB3o1QuPjtK 5mkbIy7WxBPV4UIYp6sphDpV6jSOO2r/sFKWS7DpVL6SEsc3QqWi/ehOkw8ig+js303rDnviAlO+ unOvdPtTzzOlD4ciiXGH9l6rkRcCbIMzY1S0rzjiEf3v3X3JL0TLWhUT2/XepHYkzezaahdwmBGN E7XeFFDuVVtA7VNKQCs6f6CazP6HrLzQKuevplL2ud9nXdtHb5HWrbTtoX4HjKAXp4PqUYkAAAAA SUVORK5CYIJ= Peter Pflaum, PRO SE225 Robinson Road, New Smyrna Beach , FL 32169Thursday, August 09, 2007The Florida Supreme Court has received on 3/20/2007 a Petition for Writ of Prohibition as an Appeal from the District Court of Appeal 1 D06-6618 (Defamation And Extortion Lower Tribunal No. CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 DIV. K) Former CASE NO. 1DCA06-3240, 1D06-2762, and 1DCA05-5830, DCA05-5212, 2005-CA-2363

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: (THE ISSUES IN A NUTSHELL)The case is brought under discretionary jurisdiction or “reviews,” as an “appeal,” constituting a broad type of “appellate” jurisdiction because the Court is reviewing actions taken by lower courts. Jurisdiction over discretionary review cases is invoked in the state constitution granting the Supreme Court of Florida authority to issue “all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction. ” Petition for Writ of Prohibition as an Appeal from the District Court of Appeal 1 D06-6618 is a Common-law certiorari authority to review and correct actions by a lower tribunal that violates the essential requirements of the law where no other adequate remedy exists.

Bar v. Segal Case on all fours corners with names and dates changed:Before Referee - Circuit Court Judge Philip Bloom SUPREME COURT THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. DIANE S. SEGAL, RespondentSUPREME COURT CASE NO. 83,352REPORT OF THE REFEREE The Respondent was charged with Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(a)(l) in that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal; and Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(d) in that in an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.The context of the charges is that Respondent as an attorney, thereafter ex-parte, that an estate in which Respondents are a principal beneficiary and personal representative.

In conclusion, this matter came about as a result of the Respondents obsessive, personal vendetta. The Estate of Melanie Pflaum was not a difficult Estate to administer; Mrs. Melanie Pflaum’s Last Will & Testament was clear, simple, and straightforward. However, Mr. Thomas Pflaum, personal representative, refused to carry out the testator’s intent and refused to comply with the explicit provisions of a Will he himself had drafted at his law firm (Paul and Thomson) in

Miami

in 1978. Specifically, the respondent, Mr. Thomas Pflaum refused to distribute any income or property to his brothers, the beneficiaries named in the Will, during a 4-year period; he refused to cause the Estate and Trust taxes to be honestly paid; he refused to cooperate regarding all routine administrative matters.

Mr. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum’s actions forced the petitioner as to seek his removal as personal representative in 2005 inasmuch as it was apparent that he would not receive any income or property distributions as long as Thomas was involved. It was Mr. Thomas Pflaum who chose to turn Petitioner’s resistance into a prolonged litigation.

Thomas could have made distributions or he could have resigned and the matter would have ended there, but he didn’t. Mr. Thomas Pflaum engaged Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe and the protracted litigation and pleadings began. The only possible explanation for Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pflaum’s behavior is obsessive greed on the part of the Respondents and, subsequently, their attorneys, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe” (at p 1)The conflicts of Interests led to violations by the Respondents of Rules 4-8. 4©, (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 4-8. 4(d), (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation). Thomas and Leanne should not profit by their bad behavior and his unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to an citizen of this state. The respondents must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise.

Here is the story:

Thomas and Leanne Pflaum would have you believe that his brothers, Peter and John suddenly became passionate about vexatious litigation and attacked Thomas and his wife with false and malicious slander and extortion. This is somewhat strange since Peter had never been involved with the courts in any way. Perhaps it had something to do with Thomas and Leanne announcing when Melanie Pflaum died (their mother in March of 2004) their intention to take all of the estate – and depriving Peter and John of their inheritance Melanie gave them in her will. Perhaps it has to do with Thomas and Leanne being lawyers and hiring two more “really mean” attorneys (White and Hoppe) and their knowledge of how to bend and abuse the legal system to torment people who have a clear claim to justice.

It is Egregious:

outrageous, flagrant, atrocious, monstrous. These adjectives mean grievously or conspicuously bad or appalling; the terms are often used interchangeably. Something outrageous is grossly offensive to decency, morality, or good taste: an outrageous lie; was subjected to outrageous cruelty. What is flagrant is glaringly or scandalously reprehensible: Atrocious means extremely wicked or cruel: Murder is an atrocious crime. Monstrous describes what is shockingly hideous or frightful: “There was no excess too monstrous for them to commit in pursuit of their greed” and they get away with it because the courts have never hear

the case or have read the record but are entirely tied up in procedures that do not protect justice but are used to pervert common sense and offer no protection from abuse. http://www.wiredbrain.net/fsc07-655.pdf Jurisdiction Brief by Petitionerhttp://www.wiredbrain.net/appealsfsc.xml BRIEF IN . XMLhttp://www.wiredbrain.net/appealsfsc.doc BRIEF IN WORD. DOChttp://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2007/601-800/index.shtml http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm

http://www.wiredbrain.net/ds_docket

Supreme Court Docket The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007

http://www.wiredbrain.net/docket.htm

Probate record TOC \o "1-6" \h \z \u

PETITIONER’S INITIAL JURIS BRIEFCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMQA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329119 \h 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: (THE ISSUES IN A NUTSHELL)CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329120 \h 2Bar v. Segal Case on all fours corners with names and dates changed:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgAxAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329121 \h 2Here is the story:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgAyAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329122 \h 3

AUTHORITIESCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgAzAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329123 \h 6

ARGUMENT:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgA0AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329124 \h 9

PROHIBITION, WRIT OF –CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgA1AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329125 \h 10

The Uniform Probate CodeCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgA2AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329126 \h 11

INTRODUCTIONCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgA3AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329127 \h 11

CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESSCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgA4AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329128 \h 12To quote the Last Will of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUMCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMgA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329129 \h 14“

Justice delayed is justice denied”.CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329130 \h 17

The history of the law, Inheritance:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwAxAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329131 \h 18

CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTSCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwAyAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329132 \h 19

733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty. –CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwAzAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329133 \h 23

ATTACKS ON THE PETITIONER:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwA0AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329134 \h 25

ISSUE: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATECNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwA1AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329135 \h 28The Story

BROTHER STEALS INHERITANCE THEN SUES FOR EXTORTION:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwA2AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329136 \h 32

SETTING FORTH THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT.CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwA3AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329137 \h 36

CONCLUSION:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwA4AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329138 \h 39

REMEDY: RELIEF:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAMwA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329139 \h 39

APPENDIX ONE COURT CASESCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329140 \h 41

CASE TWO: DEFAMATION and EXTORTIONCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAAyAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329142 \h 50

CASE THREE: CRIMINAL FALSE REPORT TO DCFCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAAzAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329143 \h 52

CASE FOUR: (and five) Civil complaint of False arrest and NegligenceCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAA0AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329144 \h 55

CASE SIX: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAA1AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329145 \h 55

The central issue is a monumental act of betrayalCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAA2AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329146 \h 56

In 1986 Thomas and Leanne formed a joint enterpriseCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAA3AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329147 \h 58

APPENDIX TWO LEGAL ARGUMENTCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAA4AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329148 \h 60

REMOVAL OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE; CAUSES FOR REMOVAL. –CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANAA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329149 \h 61

PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATESCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329150 \h 61

COUNT FIVE: JTWROS the LAWCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQAxAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329151 \h 63

THE LAW The JTWROSCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQAyAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329152 \h 64

THE LAW: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCECNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQAzAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329153 \h 66

The Restatement (Second) of Torts recognizes the tort:.CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQA0AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329154 \h 67

ELEMENTS OF THE TORTCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQA1AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329155 \h 68

a. CAUSATIONCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQA2AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329156 \h 70

DamagesCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQA3AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329157 \h 71

POLICIES SUPPORTING THE TORTCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQA4AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329158 \h 72

CONCLUSIONCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANQA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329159 \h 73

APPENDIX TWO PART TWOCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329160 \h 73

NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGECNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgAxAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329161 \h 75

FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVECNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgAyAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329162 \h 75Additional Proposed $12,554. $183,140CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgAzAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329163 \h 78SUMMARY FOR MONEY in ESTATE is $100CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgA0AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329164 \h 79

PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEESCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgA1AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329165 \h 80

6. All of the services were necessary to the proper administration of the estate.CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgA2AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329166 \h 80[1] · Accountings Required by Statute.CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgA3AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329167 \h 82Probate of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM)CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgA4AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329168 \h 85

APPENDIX THREECNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANgA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329169 \h 85#EXHIBITSCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329170 \h 87HISTORY 2004-2005CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwAxAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329171 \h 89TIME LINE: DEFAMATION CIVIL SUITCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwAyAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329172 \h 94WHY THIS CASE IS OF IMPORTANCE TO YOUCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwAzAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329173 \h 96INHERITANCE:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwA0AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329174 \h 98Ancient tradition,CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwA1AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329175 \h 99HISTORY OF THE MONEYCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwA2AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329176 \h 101CONDITION OF MELANIE PFLAUM WHEN PAPERS WERE SIGNEDCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwA3AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329177 \h 103MORE FAMILY HISTORY:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwA4AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329178 \h 105JAMES MADISONCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEANwA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329179 \h 109IN THE TRIAL FRANZ KAFKA 1925CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329180 \h 110What a burden on the Petitioner.CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAAxAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329181 \h 111

UNFAIR PROBATE lCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAAyAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329182 \h 112

NOT FAIRCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAAzAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329183 \h 113

Where did Melanie Pflaum live?CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAA0AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329184 \h 114

REVIEW OF ALL THE ISSUESCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAA1AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329185 \h 116

A summary of argument,CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAA2AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329186 \h 117

THE REST OF THE STORY:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAA3AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329187 \h 117

BACKGROUND: OF CONTRARY INTENTCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAA4AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329188 \h 119PROCESS MATTERS:CNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOAA5AAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329189 \h 122

QUOTE FROM THOMAS PFLAUMCNDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAACAAAAA4AAABfAFQAbwBjADEANwA1ADMAMgA5ADEAOQAwAAAA PAGEREF _Toc175329190 \h 125

AUTHORITIESFlorida Statues: Chapter 733 PROBATE CODE: OF ESTATES 732. 6005 Rules of construction and intention 733. 504 Removal of personal representative; causes for removal. -A personal representative may be removed and the letters revoked for any of the following causes, and the removal shall be in addition to any penalties prescribed by law: (9) Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole 733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary dutyFLA. CONST. art. V, § 3(b)(7). For a discussion of the history underlying this provision and the case law, see Robert T. Mann, The Scope of the All Writs Power, 10 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 197 (1982).FLA. CONST. art. V, § 3(b)(7) with Couse v. Canal Auth. , 209 So. 2d 865, (Fla. 1968) (quoting FLA. CONST. of 1885, art. V (1957)).E. g. , State ex rel. Watson v. Lee, 8 So. 2d 19, 21 (Fla. 1942).209 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1968). (quoting FLA. R. APP. P. 4. 5(g)(1) (as amended)). Apparently, the new standard merely expanded jurisdiction. The Court still continued to issue ancillary writs in pending proceedings under its all writs power. See, e. g. , Booth v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1974).

DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216 (Fla.1981),

Schilling v. Herrera

, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 981627 (

Fla.

3d DCA Apr 04, 2007)RE: ESTATE OF LETTIE V. COMBEE, Deceased. LINDA RAE FARMER, et al. , Petitioners, vs. IRMA A. WALKER , et al. , Respondents. [May 28, 1992} Page 6Chase Fed. In a subsequent Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sullivan, 127 So. 2d 112 ( Fla. 1960) Appendix two page 5 Appendix twoSurvivorship Rights in Joint Accounts, 24 U. Fla. L. Rev. 476 (1972). Page 32 Appendix 2, page 5Richard e. Warner, Joint Accounts and Decedent’s Estates—An Update, Fla. B. J. , July/Aug. 1987, at Page 5 Appendix two5, 466 So. 2d 1055 ( Fla. 1 9 8 5 ) Estate of Gainer, 579 So. 2d 739 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1 9 9 1 ) Page 5 Appendix twoMeinhard v. Salmon, 249 N. Y. 458, 464 (1928) Page 20Fla. R. App. P. 9. 040©; People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement v. Reynolds, 571 So. 2d 493 ( Fla. 1 st DCA 1990). Page vDavison v. Feurerherd, 391 So. 2d 799 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So. 2d 825 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966). Page 28, appendix 2, page 7, 8Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 ( Fla. 1999) Page viiForms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be signed by the attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required by these rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of form impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of jurisdictional facts actually existing renders any proceeding void.

1DCA On the court’s own MOTIONS , the complaint/petition filed June 13, 2006 is hereby treated as a petition for writ of prohibition. See

Fla.

R. App. P. 9. 040©; People Against Tax Revenue Mismanagement v. Revnolds, 571 So. 2d 493 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1990).We reasoned that establishment of the joint account under these circumstances was an ineffectual attempt to do that which could only be accomplished by a last will and testament. In order for the survivor to prevail, it had to be shown that the creator intended a gift inter vivos at the time the account was opened. (1982 or 2003)732. 6005 Rules of construction and intention. --(1) The intention of the testator as expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the testator’s dispositions. The rules of construction expressed in this part shall apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will. (2) Subject to the foregoing, a will is construed to pass all property which the testator owns at death, including property acquired after the execution of the will. History. -s. 1, ch. 74-106; ss. 33, 35, ch. 75-220; s. 965, ch. 97-102; s. 49, ch. 2001-226.The complaint shows there is gross negligent damage to the petitioner by THE RESPONDENTS, individually or severally, as the enterprisers, and co-conspirators and therefore the enterprise (including Merrill Lynch) systematically and continually over the last four years have engaged in a fraudulent enterprise conducted for improper financial gain. They will be liable for all the damages to the injured party, if the court finds there were joint adventures that created several joint and collective liabilities. The result of this enterprise was to deny the plaintiff the just results of his inheritance from the estate of his mother, Melanie Pflaum.

ARGUMENT:ISSUE ONE:

HARASSMENT and ABUSE. . 1 Pages 3, 21WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE A MISTAKE AND ERRED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT AND DENIED THE PETITION DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN BEING GROSSLY BIAS AGAINST HIM AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT ARGUMENT 1: CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS (HARASSMENT and JUDICIAL ABUSE)ISSUE TWO: PETITIONER

DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW pages 5, 15, 20WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS MISTAKEN AND ERRED IN HOLDING EX PARTE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING, DENYING THE PETITIONER TIMELY RESPONSE TO CHARGES AND ALLOWING THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT TO WRITE COURT ORDERS INCLUDING UNJUSTIFIED SANCTIONS AND FINDING NOT BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW; SHOWING GROSS BIAS AGAINST PETITIONER AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENTISSUE THREE:

CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS. AND

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE Page 7, 16, 24WHETHER THE COURT WAS MISTAKEN AND ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE RESPONDENT AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND BENEFICIARY WAS HOLDING AND ACQUIRING CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS AGAINST THE ESTATE WHICH CRITICALLY INTERFERED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE (733. 609) AND WAS IMPROPERLY EXERCISING POWER; AND WAS IN BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES, THEREFORE MUST HAVE BEEN REPLACEDISSUE FOUR: CLEARLY

FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE. . Page 15, 23, 28WHETHER THE COURT ERRED AND WAS MISTAKEN WHEN IT ALLOWED A GROSS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. (PR) WHEN HE ANNOUNCED IN WRITING HIS INTENTION TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE AND DID SO WHICH CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AND FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE WISHES OF THE DECEASED.ISSUE FIVE: TORTUOUS

UNJUSTIFIED DELAY Page 19, 20WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS MISTAKEN AND IN ERROR IN NOT HEARING THE MATERIAL ISSUES OF THIS PROBATE CASE OR MAKING A DECISION ON ITS MERITS IN A TIMELY MANNER; A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY THAT CAUSED SERIOUS MATERIAL HARM TO THE PETITIONER.ISSUE SIX: INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE

USE_OF_JTWROS IN MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT. . Page 20, 30WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT COMPELLED THOMAS AND THE ATTORNEY MR. WHITE TO PRODUCE A REALISTIC INVENTORY INCLUDING A MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT AND A HOME IN SPAIN AND IS IN ERROR BY LETTING FOUR YEARS TO PASS WITH AN INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE.

PROHIBITION, WRIT OF –The name of a writ issued by a superior court, directed to the judge and parties of a suit in an inferior court, commanding them to cease from the prosecution of the same, upon a suggestion that the cause originally, or some collateral matter arising therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other court.The writ of prohibition may also be issued when, having jurisdiction, the court has attempted to proceed by rules differing from those which ought to be observed, or when, by the exercise of its jurisdiction, the inferior court would defeat a legal right.Last year the 1DCA 6618 (FSC05-2330) suggested to the 8th Circuit that they should be able to settle the case - After more than a year nothing has been settled. The District Court of Appeal sent to the 8th Circuit a mandate:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings, if required, be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of Court, and the laws of the State of

Florida

WITNESS the Honorable CHARLES J. KAHN, JR. , Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida , First District, and the Seal of said Court done at Tallahassee , Florida , on this 12th day of May 2006.The

FSC (FSC05-2330) said about this case last year ”The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby transferred, pursuant to Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1999), to the First District Court of Appeal. The transfer of this case should not be construed as an adjudication or comment on the merits of the petition, nor as a determination that the transferee court has jurisdiction or that the petition has been properly denominated as a petition for writ of mandamus. The transferee court should not interpret the transfer of this case as an indication that it must or should reach the merits of the petition. The transferee court shall treat the petition as if it had been originally filed there on the date it was filed in this Court. Any determination concerning whether a filing fee shall be applicable to this case shall be made by the transferee court. Any and all pending Motions in this case are hereby deferred to the transferee court. “

The Uniform Probate Codethe National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) in 1969. This was intended to facilitate uniformity in probate codes throughout the

United States

.In the face of widespread criticism of the present American probate institution, the adoption of a uniform, and in most cases, less expensive system of settling a decedent’s estate is deemed desirable. The UPC is based on the major premise that the probate court’s appropriate role is to be available to assist in the settlement of an estate when assistance is requested or required rather than to impose its unsolicited supervision to enforce every detailed formality upon completely non-contentious Probate Takes Time- It can take up to two years. (In this case four years) The beneficiaries generally get nothing in the intervening period unless the judge Okays an allowance for the family.

Interference with an expectancy is an unusual tort because the beneficiary is authorized to sue to recover damages primarily to protect the testator’s interest rather than the disappointed beneficiary’s expectations. The fraud, duress, undue influence, or other independent tortious conduct required for this tort is directed at the testator. The beneficiary is not directly defrauded or unduly influenced; the testator is. Thus, the common law court has created this cause of action not primarily to protect the beneficiary’s inchoate rights, but to protect the deceased testator’s former right to dispose of property freely and without improper interference. In a sense, the beneficiary’s action is derivative of the testator’s rights.

INTRODUCTIONHere comes Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, the Petitioner, with a prima facie, a legitimate complaint; evident with proof and reasoning; of what is obviously an excruciating violation of basic human decency, the principles of civil law, and in clear violation of common elements of proper procedures and rules. First, Petitioner should have received his share of the inheritance from his mother, Melanie Pflaum four years ago. Petitioner has hopes that the judicial system of Florida will hear the case on the facts and the law. If the case is heard on the facts and the merits there would be a remedy for the injustice and damages to the Petitioner. The Respondents (Thomas and Leanne Pflaum) and his attorneys, (Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe), also respondents and co-conspirators, have taken the road of attacking the Petitioner.

It’s the old adage that in any argument if the facts are on your side you argue the facts, if the law is on your side, you argue the law. If neither the law nor facts are on your side, you blame the Petitioner. It’s very easy to do and the best part is you actually get some people to believe you. It can even hide your own crimes and incompetence.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENTMore ARGUMENTS, ISSUES, CAUSES, and COUNTS: in Appendix three

CRITICAL FLAWS

IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESSHARASSMENT and JUDICIAL ABUSE in the PROCESS IN THE LOWER COURTS:IN the course of the proceedings, and the disposition in the lower tribunal; the judge in the probate case made it clear to all, since September 2005, that the law or the facts did not apply in his court. He ordered, in the face of all common sense, evidence, the law and reality, that Respondent Thomas Pflaum had no conflict of interest and Melanie was domicile in Micanopy. The court has allowed attacks on the Petitioner include a civil suit for defamation and extortion, and having the Petitioner arrested on felony charges resulting from Thomas’s false sworn police statement and the result of improper interference in the legal process by his attorneys, Mr. Hoppe and Mr. White.

ISSUE ONE: HARASSMENT and ABUSEWHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT AND DENIED THE PETITION DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN BEING GROSSLY BIAS AGAINST HIM AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT ARGUMENT AND COUNT 1: CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS (HARASSMENT and JUDICIAL ABUSE)The trial court was in error and made a clear mistake when it’s Order of June 22, 2006, the Court erroneously found that Peter Pflaum rather than Thomas and the enterprise had engaged in a protracted conspiracy of willful, deliberate, persistent, and contumacious disregard and violations of the facts and the law and intentional abuse of the judicial process. To the contrary of Thomas Pflaum’s lies; Peter Pflaum honestly claims: Thomas Pflaum et al have engaged in a four year campaign of harassment of Peter and his wife as part of a conspiracy to steal his inheritance.REFERENCE [1] CASE ONE PROBATE 38 The Respondents have not made a substantive respond in an adversarial probate case: Peter Pflaum, Petitioner v. Thomas Pflaum, Respondent, and Personal Representative; in violation of the rules of : The Respondent have not replied to many interrogatives, discovery, petitions to coerce answers or many petitions and motions to have the PR removed for cause, including a gross conflict of interest.And Respondents have been unable or unwilling to make an affirmative case and have refused for four years to give any reasons why there are any legal and factual grounds for their stated belief that all the property belongs to them. This belief in the ownership of the property is clear in thePETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

70http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm the papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007:The central issue of the dispute is the claim is that the whole of the Estate belongs to Thomas and Leanne. Since they don’t have a legitimate case in law and the facts are painfully simple and clearly against them, therefore, they attack the Petitioner. Given the circumstances, of course, the court always has the authority to appoint an administrator ad litem to safeguard the estate if the court has reason to believe there are important conflicts of interests and/or that the estate assets and administration are endangered or being mismanaged. Thereafter, the court should promptly entertain the concerns on the merits with respect for the due process rights of all interested parties. The test is

” would a reasonable person find the case and process in the courts for the last four years, of Pflaum v. Pflaum rational and fair? The estate is being wasted in almost a million dollars of legal fees and expenses brought about in the process of Thomas Pflaum’s misconduct.The Petitioner claims that the behavior of the trial judge is clearly state action. The state in the form of the trial judge has aided and abetted the Respondents taking the Petitioner’s property. The court has grossly failed to provide that the laws are faithfully executed. The Petitioner has a claim against the Respondents for negligence, malfeasance, misconduct, or wrongdoing, especially aided by a public official. He claims against the State because he can prove his legitimating expectation that his mother’s estate would be distributed according to law; except for the willful actions of the Respondents in the conspiratorial abuse of the legal system, the Petitioner was deprived of his property by a joint enterprise of the Respondents, their lawyers and the Civil Courts of the State.

To quote the Last Will of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUMwho died (Aged 94) March 5th 2004, in her long term home in Javea Spain Article 4

I give all the residue of my estate, real and Personal, of whatever nature and wherever located, which I own at the time of my death, including the proceeds of insurance on my life which may be payable to my estate and I hereby exercise any and all powers of appointment which I have under any trust or otherwise and direct all property subject thereto shall also be disposed, to my husband Irving

Peter Pflaum

, if he survives me, and if not in equal shares to my sons Thomas Martin Pflaum, Petitioner Edward Pflaum and John Herbert Pflaum, per stirpes. Page 2 to Page 3Melanie’s estate is in an uncontested formal will and testament, drafted in Miami (1978) by the firm which was at the time was the employer of the Respondent Thomas, by Jordan Burt LLP who was at Paul and Thomson in 1978, signed and notarized at the American Council in Barcelona, Spain. He drafted at the same time the will of Irving Pflaum, which left all his property to Melanie when he died in 1986 and is being hidden and concealed by Thomas, so he can raise phony issue about the house in Spain, he lies about this and about POA from his mother. The WILL required her property to be divided in equal shares among her three sons, John, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a retired PhD clinical psychologist, born in Majorca, Spain, 1934; Petitioner Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, a retired professor of government, married to Mary Anne, born in Barcelona, Spain, 1936; and Thomas, a lawyer in private practice in his house in Micanopy, Alachua County, Florida, married to Leanne, Thomas was born in Evanston, Illinois, 1950, and was appointed Personal Representative (PR).The estate came from Melanie’s parents and from her grandparents and, if not perverted would be in the fourth and fifth generation. (see appendix three, The history of the money) The estate paid for higher education including the University of Chicago law degree Thomas has abused to violate more than a century of legal and family tradition. After four years, the material issues of this case have never been heard or decided ON ITS MERITS by any court at any time. History of the money 90The respondents have used and abused the court to dishonestly attack the petitioner’s clear claims to his inheritance. There is much more to this case than serious and grave faults of procedures – The Petitioner and his family are being injured every day by the lack of a family allowance of $2000 a month they received for decades. Peter Pflaum is indigent and filed for bankruptcy. They have been seriously damaged for over four years by this unfair legal process and the acts of the Respondents, Thomas Pflaum Esq. , (the greedy brother), Leanne Pflaum, (who put her name on the money that is absolutely not hers) Mr. White; respondents and co-conspirators (Thomas’ probate lawyer who has not only not done his duty but has conspired with Thomas to pervert the legal system for which he has charged more than $200,000) and Mr. Hoppe (Thomas’ and Leanne’s attack lawyer who is paid, at least $200,000 so far, to harass the Petitioner and his family, with legal tricks including civil and criminal cases). Thomas should not profit by his bad behavior and his lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to a citizen of this state. The respondent must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise.This joint enterprise of the respondents and co-conspirators have over the last four years systematically refused to carry out the testator’s intent and abused the legal system for unjustifiable and illegal financial gain. The Estate is worth about two million dollars. The Respondent have filed on June 22, 2007, a motion to discharge with an inventory of only $100 and expenses of $400,000, plus $200,000 more for Mr. Hoppe; And another for Thomas’s expenses of $200,000 for a total over 2/3 of a million dollars over an estate they claim has only $100 value.http://www. wiredbrain. net/probateclose. htm The papers to close the estate filed June 22, 2007

APPENDIX TWO PART TWO 64This makes no sense at all, unless they plan on claiming that they have used up all the estate’s assets in the process of stealing it. They have completely failed in their responsibilities to the law, the Florida bar, their profession, the administration of justice, Thomas’s mother, the deceased, and his brothers, the other beneficiaries. The Respondents know what they should have done but have chosen to instead to be dishonest and take all the money that testator’s intended to equally divide amongst her children.Mr. White wrote: “Second, please be clear in understanding that I represent the personal representative of the estate. I do not represent Tom individually, which is a large part of the reason Tom retained Mr. Hoppe in connection with the Florida Bar complaint you filed against him. In my capacity as the attorney for the personal representative,

(Mr. White wrote in 10/12/2004) it is my responsibility to guide the personal representative in making sure that all of the estate’s obligations are discharged, in particular that all estate taxes that may be due are paid, that all estate assets are marshaled and properly accounted for, and that proper distribution is made to the beneficiaries as required by the will which has been admitted to probate in Florida. I intend to fulfill that responsibility. However, I do not represent Tom, any more than I represent either of you. ”GOD only knows that IF he had done the right thing and what is expected and required by law, then many years of pain, suffering, legal and financial waste; ($700,000) would have been avoided and we all would not be where we are today. In reality, Mr. White only represents Thomas and Leanne, the joint enterprise of the respondents and co-conspirators in their nefarious schemes to take all the money and attacks the other beneficiaries. They were required to represent and protect the departed and her beneficiaries not attack them, the truth, the legal system and common decency and common sense.Since Mr. White said he is the petitioner’s representative and attorney there is a claim of malpractice and fraud as a respondent and co-conspirator since Mr. White has clearly been unethical, corrupt, and dishonest in joining a conspiracy to embezzle by fraud the beneficiary’s property.

“

DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAWWHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN HOLDING EX PARTE CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING, DENYING THE PETITIONER TIMELY RESPONSES TO CHARGES AND ALLOWING THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT TO WRITE COURT ORDERS INCLUDING UNJUSTIFIED SANCTIONS AND FINDING NOT BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW; SHOWING GROSS BIAS AGAINST PETITIONER AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENTl PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES

53The case is not fundamentally about who did what to whom in the process of litigation, or as the respondents claim, the faults of the Petitioner in seeking justice, but only the failure of the personal representative (PR), because of greed and a gross conflict of interests, to faithfully carry out the wishes of the deceased. who in not being represented to see the testator’s intent is honored since the PR refuses to comply with the explicit provisions of her Will. The central issue is a monumental act of betrayal where Thomas, acting as the PR for his deceased mother and with responsibilities for the other beneficiaries who are his brothers, announced in an e-mail days after Melanie’s death, that he and his wife, Leanne, (a Respondent) also an attorney, were taking everything in Melanie’s estate for themselves. Thomas stated in the same e-mail that they were hiring “really mean lawyers” to support the illegal ownership of the entire estate and to attack his brothers. The Respondent is clearly in a really big conflict of interest.

The history of the law, HYPERLINK "" \l "_Toc173993901" Inheritance: 87civil courts and judicial administrative code was largely based on inheritance. From ancient Babylon , through Greek and Roman law, ecclesiastical or Church Law, and the British Common Law the legal transfer of property after death was a major part of the legal system and a foundation of organized society. Transfer of property took up a major part of the pillars of American common law. This case is about the wishes of the departed, Melanie Lowenthal Pflaum, and the ability of the judicial system in the State of Florida to respect the ancient tradition of passing property from generation to generation.All the issues raised by the respondents are only blue smoke and mirrors trying to hide the basic reality, i. e. the Respondent and his wife taking all three shares of the estate (they value at $100 but in reality is two million) for themselves. The Respondents have actively encouraged the trial court from making a final judgment, which would be then be subject to appeal. The case could have been closed in the fall of 2005 or assigned to a impartial PR. The Petitioner, positive in the belief in his cause, the facts and the law, became aware of this “in his face” strategy of the Respondents and his compliant court to delay, harassment, threaten and use sanctions to advance his intention of intimidating the petitioner and never coming to a final judgment. The tactics of the Respondents have the clear intent of taking all the property and using legal tricks to keep what does not belong to them. The Petitioner has appealed for Justice PRO SE to the best of his ability. The Petitioner had no choice to seeking appeals or cases in other jurisdictions since there is no chance of a fair hearing in the lower court in Alachua County. The order by the Trial Court forbids the Petitioner from exercising his civil rights to justice.SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY ISSUE THREE: HISTORY 2004-2005 79

CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTSWHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE RESPONDENT AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND BENEFICIARY WAS HOLDING AND ACQUIRING CONFLICTING AND ADVERSE INTERESTS AGAINST THE ESTATE WHICH CRITICALLY INTERFERED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE (733. 609) AND WAS IMPROPERLY EXERCISING POWER; AND WAS IN BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES, THEREFORE BE REPLACED.Melanie Pflaum left an estate of about two million dollars which was clearly her money on the day she died, on March 5, 2004 in her long term home in

Spain

; Melanie had the absolute right to dispose of her property in a proper last will and testament. Her home of 35 years was in Private Community, El Tosalet, Javea ,

Spain

- a property that Thomas the Respondent has valued at $450,000 and has been unwilling to sell despite four viable offers. Her other property includes her Merrill Lynch (M/L) brokerage account in Tallahassee, Florida of about 1. 5 million dollars in 2003 (plus compound earning of about 30% is over two million in 2007) and other assets of over $100,000 and listed in the IRS estate taxes; (2005) and nothing is in the inventory of the Estate, (only $100 value of two prints)Northern Trust Checking Account Chicago - $11,689 (part of a trust account) set up by Melanie’s parents in 1964. * CAM (CAJA) de Ahorros de Meditarraneo Melanie’s bank in Javea - $19,133* Royal Bank of

Scotland

- Jersey GB - $30,573* Income tax refund - $10,985* Works of Art, page 10 - $19,230 (in Javea)Total - $91,610 * Also, Bank of

America

- Tampa , FL 33622 -5118- approximately $5,500 (This is not on the tax return, but did exist). Account 00127844 4076 The Respondent used a POA (power of attorney) to close the account, pocket the money, change the address from Spain to Micanopy, then claim the account at his home as evidence that his mother lived in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pflaum, where in fact she had no property or even a room of her own. The evidence that Melanie Pflaum lived and was resident, domiciled in

Spain

not Florida, is beyond a reasonable doubt.NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE June 22, 2007

APPENDIX TWO PART TWO 64 shows costs of over $400,000 (not including Mr. Hoppe, and a claim by Thomas the PR for $200,000 so a grand total of $700,000) has been spent on a estate they claim is of $100 value. DO YOU HAVE EYES, can you see, DO YOU HAVE EARS, can you hear, DO YOU HAVE A VOICE, can you speak? The Estate is over two million dollars and includes a substantial property in

Spain

. The Financial Statement was only made June 22, 2007 and is a year late!The respondent’s claims made on June 22, 2007 by Mr. White who erroneously and falsely stated under oath in the PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES (He has been paid $173,145. 98 so far) and in the face of all reality, truth, evidence and the law nevertheless claims about the million dollars wasted from the estate that:

“

All of the services were necessary to the proper administration of the estate.

Petitioner has expended professional time for the preparation and filing of this petition and will expend further professional time and costs in this proceeding.

Inasmuch as the probate assets were insufficient to pay any legal fees, all the impact of legal fees will be borne by Thomas M. Pflaum, who does not object to this petition. If there had been additional probate assets, the impact of legal fees would be borne by the residuary beneficiaries named below. Because the legal fees are being paid by Thomas M. Pflaum, individually, if assets come into the estate in the future, the legal fees should be appropriately borne by the residuary beneficiaries and paid from such estate assets.

The only persons other than petitioner having an interest in this proceeding and their respective addresses are:

Thomas Martin Pflaum, Personal Representative and residuary beneficiary 17306 S. W. 10th Terrace Micanopy, FL 32667

Peter Pflaum

, residuary beneficiary 225 Robinson Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 John H. Pflaum, residuary beneficiary 2400 E Bradford Ave, Apt 905 Milwaukee, WI 53211-4172

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief. ” Signed by Mr. WhiteThe plot of the enterprise is clear: To dissipate all the estate in legal and administration then “DISCOVER” there is money BUT SURPRISE ! it has been used up by these corrupt practice and there is nothing left for the other beneficiaries. The expenses were NOT legal costs but used in the dishonest effort to take everything for the enterprise and defraud the petitioner.Further, the Court was in error when it found that PETER PFLAUM had willfully attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court and upon the parties to this case by proffering as real a forged document containing a purported signature of the deceased which is, in fact, a signature which was traced from another document containing the deceased's signature. The facts are that the signatures do NOT match and the finding was based on perjured evidence of a paid “expert” Handwriting analysis $1,625 without notice or time to respond.

APPENDIX ONE COURT CASES 1

50As a result of the above the Court erred when it ordered that no further pleadings, motions, or papers may be filed herein by PETER PFLAUM.WHEREFORE, PETER PFLAUM moves that THOMAS PFLAUM, LEANNE PFLAUM, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe be ordered to pay $875,000 damages and as full and final settlement of Peter Pflaum’s just claims on the estateHere comes the PETITIONER, Dr. Peter E. Pflaum PhD (PRO SE) at the age of 70 years, a retired professor of Public Administration and government. The Petitioner has never before been involved in litigation and has been PRO SE from necessity only. Melanie Pflaum, her son Petitioner and his wife Mary Anne trusted Thomas, as a son, a brother, and as an attorney to do the right thing as administrator of the estate. He was completely trusted by his mother to carry out her wishes when she died. It came as a great shock, after months of taking care of his 94 year old dying mother, Petitioner returned from Spain in March of 2004 (Melanie) to be informed (March 27, 2004) by his brother (Thomas) and his sister-in-law, Leanne (both attorneys) that the Respondents were going to take for themselves, everything in the estate.They said in e-mails in the record that they would “play for the whole deck” and hire at great expense “really mean lawyers” to attack Petitioner’s rights to an equal share of the property their mother left to her three sons in her will. This is exactly what has happened, Thomas and Leanne have kept two million in assets, and four years later there is made in the probate of the estate.The attacks on the petitioner include a civil suit for defamation and extortion, and having the Petitioner arrested on resulting from Thomas’s false sworn police statement.The Petitioner has moved for the removal of the PR for cause over several years. An alternative has been a petition to the trial court since 2004 to consider MOTIONS for removal of the PR for cause as he no longer qualified because of overwhelming conflict of interests, and gross neglect of legal responsibilities under law. The Codicil of Melanie’s appointed the Lewis State Bank in the case Thomas and Leanne are not able to serve. The Lewis state bank was bought by the Nation’s Bank which was bought by Bank

America

which accepts its duties as successor institution and would do a professional job.The court has refused to act on this and all other of the Petitioners Motions and petitions. The court has been begged to act because of the extensive evidence of misconduct that cries out for the court to appoint a curator with or without notice and hearing to take hold of the property in contest and report to the court on how to quickly and with due diligence and proper process; the new PR could close the estate and distribute the results to the beneficiaries.Thomas and Leanne owe Petitioner extensive damages to remedy the harm they has caused. This is a claim against Thomas as PR and as a lawyer and as a person. • Specifics- The respondent has done (and not done and left undone) the facts and the law.UNREASONABLE ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS.

APPENDIX ONE COURT CASES 1

37 In the Probate case the judge has ruled that ”All claims, Motions, and other pleadings or papers filed herein by said Peter Pflaum are hereby considered stricken and of no force or effect. 4. Except appropriate appellate filings pertaining to this order, no further pleadings, Motions or papers may be filed herein by said Peter Pflaum pro see Any further actions by said Peter Pflaum herein, including the filing of any papers whatsoever, shall only be taken by an attorney authorized to practice law in Florida. Should said Peter Pflaum violate the provisions of this order, he shall be assessed a fine of $300 per violation which shall be taxed upon MOTIONS of any party or by the court’s own initiative. Continued violations may be punishable by contempt and may result in incarcerationIn the civil case (by the same judge) without a hearing ordered “As to Defendants Peter Pflaum and Mary Anne Pflaum, the Court has entered a default judgment against said Defendants on the defamation and civil extortion claim. Thus, as to said Defendants, their liability having been established, the trial will proceed on the issue of damages only. This was based on sanctions not a hearing of the facts. (Sanctions were based on events in 2005 and clearly set up to sandbag the defendants. ALL NOT TRUE and not based on any hearing of the facts) SEE APPENDIX TWO CASES

733. 609 Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary

duty. –Motions were denied for the Judge to recuse himself, based on gross prejudice for the Respondents and bias against the Petitioner, The case presented by the plaintiff is sufficient evidence to show that two or more people are involved in a joint enterprise.BASIC RIGHTS: A UNJUSTIFIED DELAYWHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HEARING THE MATERIAL ISSUES OF THIS PROBATE CASE OR MAKING A DECISION ON ITS MERITS IN A TIMELY MANNER; THAT CAUSED SERIOUS MATERIAL HARM TO THE PETITIONER.MORE SAD FAMILY HISTORY:

94 “

Justice delayed is justice denied”. The Petitioner appealed the lower courts denial of his claims as beneficiary to his mother’s estate. The Petitioner is being denied justice by the lack of any hearing on the merits of the case, a chance to present the facts and the law about the dispute. Over the last four years, there has been a complete lack of any meaningful judicial decisions on the critical issues. The lower courts have made no substantial decisions. The way to discover who is right and who is wrong is to hear the facts and review the law.The Petitioner claims this is equal to having his complaints dismissed without a hearing. The case for jurisdiction is about protecting the integrity of the Judicial System in the State of Florida. The issue of is the ability of the courts to fairly adjudicate probate in accordance with the law and the rules. The Petitioner has been denied his inheritance for over four years. The review of the record will show a pattern of abuse and harassment. The system of justice must do better in providing a fair and timely resolution of what is in this case, not a complex problem. The trial court has ignored statuary time limits, rules, and laws requiring an inventory and has filed completely incomplete progress reports, and has refused to provide required statements of assets.A Practice that must be stopped: Judicial Abuse using the same court to bring cases that attack one of the parties;The public policy issue is that the baby boomers’ parents are dying and leaving estates This case is an example of how the system does not properly work. The rights of beneficiaries are not protected and estates are exploited by unscrupulous agents, lawyers, relatives, financial advisors without proper regulation or supervision. This probate crisis undermines the public trust in the whole judicial system and the rule of law, as more people discover how complex, absurd and unfair the process can become. One in five boomers has horror stories about inheritances. Having experienced the stress of taking care of elderly parents, then the painful death of their parents and sometimes faults of the medical system, they now often face years of litigation at great expense as the estate is exploited by the legal and financial services systems. Inheritance: 87

ATTACKS ON THE PETITIONER:44. ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ALLOWING HARASSMENT and ABUSE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT AND DENIED THE PETITION DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN BEING GROSSLY BIAS AGAINST HIM AND PROJECTIVE OF AND PREJUDICED FOR THE RESPONDENT.The Trial Court has allowed the Respondents to freely operate a campaign of harassment to force the plaintiff to surrender his claims. This campaign included a civil suit for defamation and extortion, a case basically dismissed by a civil jury and a judgment has been entered as of Saturday, August 03, 2007. AND for four years the Respondents have attacked the Petitioner with complaints as to an imagined false report to the Department of Family and Children Services (DCF), claims of invasion of privacy, monetary sanctions, forced mediation, fines, and a long record of judicial abuse.HISTORY 2004-2005 79 TIME LINE: DEFAMATION CIVIL SUIT.. 84A criminal case was filed and the petitioner was arrested based on a false affidavit by Thomas and Leanne at the sheriffs office and the State Attorney Office in Alachua County. May 2005 case was dismissed in August but Mr. Hoppe continued to use it as evidence in November, December and January 2006. There is no such offence in civil or criminal law. That the report made May 16th of 2005 by Teresa Oldenburg (DFCS) Gainesville of was not a False Report of Child abuse using FS 39. 205 (which does not apply) or a felony was in error. The sworn complaint of the victims was false and without evidence.CASE THREE: CRIMINAL FALSE REPORT TO DCF

44The offer by the state of PTI, (pre trial intervention or diversion) or pretrial settlement in the criminal case was not made in writing but was reported to Petitioner and Mary Anne by the public defender as including conditions set by the alleged “victims. ” Thomas and Leanne Pflaum. It included an admission of guilt by Petitioner . The offer included a condition of a default in a probate case. The offer included the condition that Petitioner drops all claims for his right to his inheritance and that Petitioner drops all other civil claims against Thomas and Leanne Pflaum regarding their taking the estate for themselves. It is highly improper for the state to take sides in a civil case and become a tool of blackmail of one of the parties. It is clear this criminal case is being used to further the economic interests of Thomas and Leanne. This offer was then denied by a false statement by the state attorney in open court.The petitioner, Dr. Peter E. Pflaum was offered a material incentive and threatened with material harm by the plaintiff’s lawyers and the State Attorney; State of Florida, by way of State Attorney, Mr. Colaw appeared to have conspired with Thomas Pflaum, his attorney Mr. Hoppe in an improper and illegal collusion to blackmail the Petitioner.Mr. Hoppe has raised a false forgery charge and other issues from the probate case. This complaint is based on a which has denied the Petitioner his basic civil rights. In the furtherance of the tortious interference with the Petitioner inheritance of his one third share of (Melanie Pflaum) his mother’s estate of two million dollars, the Respondents committed a series of action to deny the Petitioner his civil rights, due process, and equal protection of the laws.CASE TWO: DEFAMATION and EXTORTION

41MORE DETAIL: FAULTS IN THE PROCESS:ISSUE FOUR: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATEWHETHER THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED A GROSS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. (PR) WHEN HE ANNOUNCED IN WRITING HIS INTENTION TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE AND DID SO WHICH CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AND FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE WISHES OF THE DECEASED.When Thomas acknowledged that he has no case - that the law and the facts require a just distribution of his mother’s estate - he adopted a policy conducted by Mr. Hoppe to attack the petitioner. The Judge was in error in allowing this policy full space to operate. It must have worked before for these lawyers to file false cases, without merit, cause or jurisdiction (poorly reasoned: frivolous, flimsy, foolish: shallow, superficial) but then use the cases to make a series of demands, motions, petitions, sanctions and general harassment with interrogatives, discovery, as threats and battement of the opposition. The court was in clear error to allow this constant irritation or allow one party to torment persistently the other side. The Judge was in error in allow Mr. Hoppe to wear out; exhaust, to impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks to go forward over four years.The Judge allowed the misuse of Case Management meeting where the Respondents lawyers discussed a wide range of non germane issues without the inconvenience of opposition and signed orders not related to the subjects heard. Peter Pflaum was not on the notice list even after he made a specific request to get notice. Here is a short list of some of the other faults in the supervision of the cases by The Hon. Toby

Monaco

. While the judge is responsible for the civil process in their court the lawyers are also to be held accountable for improper or even illegal behavior even when allowed by a court bent over in their favor. The process has not been even close to fair and equal. The court has shown a clear preference and favor for Thomas and his team and strong prejudice against Petitioner . The Judge should have rescued himself more than two years ago. EXHIBITS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.. 77The Judge should have compelled Thomas and Mr. White a respondent and co-conspirator to produce a real inventory and is in error by letting four years to pass with an outrageously false inventory of $100. The Judge was in error and prejudiced in allowing Thomas Pflaum to act as Personal Representative when he is disqualified by law because of his claim to the whole estate.The Judge was in error and prejudiced in accepting a false affidavit that Melanie Pflaum lived in Micanopy. The affidavit contained perjured (The Bank of America Statement) and tampered documents (The M/L forms) and IRS estate tax forms, (where the Respondent claimed Melanie lived in Micanopy since 1987) the evidence to the contrary was beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing. A letter by Melanie in November 2002 proves she did not even have a room in Thomas’s house in Micanopy, in direct contradiction to Thomas Pflaum’s lies. The petitioner submitted overwhelming evidence proving the domicile issue.See http://www. google. com/search?hl=en&rls=com. microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=Melanie+Pflaum&btnG=Search

III CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

ISSUE: CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATEWHETHER THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT ALLOWED A GROSS CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE. (PR) WHEN HE ANNOUNCED IN WRITING HIS INTENTION TO TAKE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE AND DID SO WHICH CLEARLY FAILED TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AND FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE WISHES OF THE DECEASEDl PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES 53 The Personal Representative. (PR) Thomas is who also a beneficiary and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect the estate and in fact have stolen all the assets. The cause of the litigation is the

failure of the personal representative (PR), because of greed and a gross conflict of interests, to faithfully carry out the wishes of the deceased who cannot represent herself.

General fiduciary dutiesWere The Courts, Merrill Lynch and or Thomas doing their General fiduciary duties? Benjamin Cardozo, while sitting on the Court of Appeals of New York made perhaps the most famous description of fiduciary duties in Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N. Y. 458, 464 (1928):Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of behavior. In its essence this case makes a distinction between form and substance. Generally, the law recognizes three major fiduciary duties:1. duty of loyalty, i. e. a fiduciary must not place his own interests ahead of the departed and the beneficiary’s interest;2. duty of care, i. e. a fiduciary must exercise an amount of care appropriate to manage the beneficiary’s interest; and3. duty of disclosure, i. e. a fiduciary must disclose certain information to the beneficiary. Fiduciary law is particularly relevant to the law of trusts, partnerships, agency, and corporate officers and directors. Fiduciary duties are always particularized to the actual relationships they occur in, and often they can be modified (or even waived) by contract. (1) A personal representative’s fiduciary duty is the same as the fiduciary duty of a trustee of an express trust, and a personal representative is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from the breach of this duty. In all actions for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise of or failure to exercise a personal representative’s powers, the court shall award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorney’s fees.By 2003, Melanie, aged 94, could no longer handle her affairs. Thomas being fully aware of her condition had her sign papers (including power of attorney) without the ability to consent. He has used these documents to take everything of her property, including $100,000 reported to IRS as bank accounts, art works, government payments, without any inventory going to the estate. Respondent Thomas Pflaum clearly has a conflict of interests as big as all outdoors. He can not fairly administer the estate while at the same time claiming the whole amount. He is attacking the other beneficiaries while he is required to look after their interests. Thomas (PR) and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect the estate, in fact, have stolen all the assets.Melanie Pflaum’s long time residence in Javea,

Spain

, is part of the estate. She lived in her home there since 1969. The home could have been sold for cash (300,000 euros free and clear after expenses) FOUR times since her death, but Thomas and Leanne blocked all sales each time. The house (from recent descriptions from the neighbors to us personally) is in disrepair; some windows are boarded up and some are broken out - Squatters squat frequently. This is an abomination and an embarrassment to Petitioner and his family and to our country. MORE FAMILY HISTORY: 94The trial judge ordered in the face of all the fact and the law and all reality and the requirement justice that Respondent Thomas Pflaum had no conflict of interest and Melanie was domiciled in Micanopy. The Judge ordered mediation without agreement and with no hope of progress, in a case of extortion that was not proper, in a manner that was improper, and he has allowed the Respondents attorneys to write court orders, and based on their manipulations order false sanctions against Petitioner . The trial court would not compel or require Respondent Thomas Pflaum or Leanne to answer interrogatives or discovery while compelling the same against the petitioner. The court allowed Mr. Hoppe to harass Petitioner and his wife Mary Anne in endless procedures and complaints, sanctions and motions. Decisions were made before hearing both sides. The court allowed the Respondent Thomas Pflaum and his lawyers to write the court orders before the Petitioner had time to respond or even before hearing and before the facts were known. These cases include a false charge of forgery, a false charge of contempt, a false criminal case, and a false civil case.EXHIBITS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 77 There were several private meeting ex parte (case management) without notice and many other violations of simple due process. Here comes Dr. Peter E. Pflaum with the claim that the court has no discretion in removing the Personal Representative (PR), Thomas Pflaum for a gross conflict of interest. The respondent has not done anything to see that the Estate is managed according to law and on the other had has done everything to take it all for himself and his wife. The bulk of the estate was in an account with Merrill Lynch. It is the duty of the PR to see this property of the deceased is included in the estate as it should be according to law. At the same time Thomas claims it as his property. IT is impossible that Thomas can act on both sides of this dispute and must be removed according to law. Thomas is clearly holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole disqualifies the Thomas as the PR33. 504 The respondent has failed to account for the sale of property or to produce and exhibit the assets of the estate when so required. Thomas Pflaum has committed perjury when he signed a sworn statement notarized by Mr. White who committed subordination of perjury as a respondent and co-conspirator in the bold faced lie that Melanie Pflaum lived (resided, domiciled) in Alachua County at the Pflaum home in Micanopy, claimed in the case of IRS since 1989. The venue for the letters of administration in probate (2004) was based on this false sworn claim of residence, domicile or even presence in the county. This is completely untrue. They further argue that Melanie Pflaum was competent to sign and make an informed decision to agree to the JTWROS on the Merrill Lynch Client Relationship Agreement in November 2003 and to was competent to execute several powers of attorneys (POA). [exhibit C in May until Nov. 2003 Thomas sends Melanie several POA which she signs without the ability to read or understand, a copy of address and return envelope Thomas Pflaum, Attorney at law used sends and provides for Melanie to return to him. . Petitioner was in Javea from late Aug to end of Oct 2003 and sees Melanie sign long detailed POA as was the caregiver Tulia. Petitioner has asked for theses POA in discovery, and has tried to subpoenaed from Thomas and Northern Trust, without success. #EXHIBITS 77 Thomas Pflaum must have believed the POA Melanie signed and he submitted as evidence of her domicile were valid and were signed when Melanie was competent. If she was competent the POA was unnecessary if she since she was not competent then there should have been a conserver who would have had a clear duty to protect Melanie’s assets. Thomas Pflaum clearly believes that he has the legal right using these powers obtained by fraud, POA used to take and hold all of the property including bank accounts, tax refunds and all other of Melanie’s assets. CONDITION OF MELANIE WHEN PAPERS WERE SIGNED.. 91 After Melanie died on March 5th 2004 he declared in e-mail (in exhibits) on March 27th that he and Leanne intended to take everything Melanie owned and would abuse the legal process to keep it all with a crack and expensive legal team. [exhibit E page 32] This is exactly what has happened with the guidance of Mr. White a respondent and co-conspirator and the friendly help of a Judge that bent over in their direction. Mr. Hoppe’s role is to run along the sidelines and throw sand in the face of the petitioner and try to trip the opposition with legal tricks. So far it has been working but a great expense, ($700,000) pain and suffering, waste of resources and abuse of the judicial process.“If you have the facts on your side and honest conviction in your heart, you rarely lose by fighting for your idea all the way. ” WIT & WISDOM FROM LEO BURNETT

The Story

BROTHER STEALS INHERITANCE THEN SUES FOR EXTORTION:ISSUE FIVE: A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HEARING THE MATERIAL ISSUES OF THIS PROBATE CASE OR MAKING A DECISION ON ITS MERITS IN A TIMELY MANNER; A UNJUSTIFIED DELAY THAT CAUSED SERIOUS MATERIAL HARM TO THE PETITIONER.The grounds for tortious interference with inheritance include the lack of possibility when a probate proceeding does not have the potential to provide full redress of any damages suffered by a plaintiff, and some courts will require that the probate court proceeding be completed before a tort action may be brought. The attached order of the probate court in the 8th circuit bars Petitioner from further claims and denies all the issues, so it is over as far as the petitioner is concerned. Some fundamental questions:The core of a functional civilization is self regulation, either guilt or shame and professional and social pressures creating a context of good social behavior. Despondently, the legal system has become for some lawyers, a game of only what you can get away with - the only issue is the material damages of getting caught. It is not how you play the game but only winning by any means necessary. If the law is against them (the estate should be divided three ways within four years) they argue the facts, and since the facts are also against them (there is a clear conflict of interests, and Melanie did not live with them in Micanopy) they attack the other side.#INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE;THE LAW: Tortious Interference 58 ARGUMENT_4:_TORTIOUS_INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE; ISSUE FIVE: WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT COMPELLED THOMAS AND THE ATTORNEY MR. WHITE TO PRODUCE A REALISTIC INVENTORY INCLUDING A MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT AND A HOME IN SPAIN AND IS IN ERROR BY LETTING FOUR YEARS TO PASS WITH AN INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE. See APPENDIX THREE THE LAW

When do probate proceedings bar a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance?

Schilling v. Herrera

, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 981627 (

Fla.

3d DCA Apr 04, 2007)

DeWitt v. Duce

, 408 So.2d 216 (Fla.1981), the Florida Supreme Court articulated the governing rule in

Florida

as follows: a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy of inheritance is barred by

F.S. 733.103(2)

if the plaintiff had an adequate remedy in probate with a fair opportunity to pursue it.

By implication, when the plaintiff did NOT have a fair opportunity to pursue his or her claim in probate, the claim is NOT precluded by the rule in

DeWitt

.The Petitioner seeks damages including attorney fees, the value of the Petitioner’s work time, compensation for the mental anguish incurred from the will contest, and punitive damages based on the intentional and malicious conduct of the Respondents. Huffey, 491 N. W. 2d 518. The court allowed the Petitioner to proceed in tort because the probate court could not address these damages Proponents of the theory that “every wrong should have a remedy” believe that the tort of intentional interference with inheritance is a necessity. Here comes Petitioner Peter Pflaum, with motions to direct a finding of jurisdiction and order default the Personal Representative, Thomas Pflaum for the sum of $850,000 in the lower court case.There is sufficient evidence in the exhibits of our plea to preserve the assets under contest. The Law[1] The Petitioner has a valid claim is tortious inference with inheritance, and a number of states are now recognizing the claim. This is a claim that one will beneficiary intentionally interfered with the free will of the decedent so that he or she made a testimentary disposition in the JTWROS that wrongfully excluded the claimant from an inheritance, and that the claimant would have inherited absent the wrongful conduct.USE_OF_JTWROS IN MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNTISSUE SIX: INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATECOUNT FIVE: JTWROS the LAW 55 73. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT COMPELLED THOMAS AND THE ATTORNEY MR. WHITE TO PRODUCE A REALISTIC INVENTORY INCLUDING A MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT AND A HOME IN SPAIN AND IS IN ERROR BY LETTING FOUR YEARS TO PASS WITH AN INVENTORY OF $100 ON A TWO MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE. See APPENDIX THREE FOR THE LAWWhen Melanie died (March 5, 2004) the account was changed again to 719-46275 from 719-46081 the account at the time of Melanie’s death because Melanie was removed and now shows only Thomas and Leanne. Madrid sent the report of the death of American Citizen on April 21 2004, - during May the account was changed. The document showing the change Client relationship agreement has a forged address claiming Melanie living in Micanopy where she had not been for years (not since 9/11 2001) and never lived, resided or was domiciled. (NOTE: Florida - Davison v. Feurerherd, 391 So. 2d 799 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So. 2d 825 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966).The property in question is in a Merrill Lynch account which was held jointly with rights of survivorship (JTWROS) and now claimed as the sole property of Thomas Pflaum. (Was 2. 5 million in 2000) JTWROS is not under some conditions a probate asset; the first and most important issue is to ask the court to rule that it is included in the estate for the reason of fraud given in this document. Probate has venue in Leon County Florida because the money is in Merrill Lynch (M/L) (Broker Robert Hayward of a Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship (JTWROS) account in Tallahassee , Leon County, Florida, Melanie signed this arrangement without any understanding of the difference, when or if it was changed. and how it was done. There is no evidence of gift tax consequences upon the creation of a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship (JTWROS). Banking law does not apply to broker accounts- stocks and bonds.In 1985 or 1986 after Irving Pflaum, Melanie’s husband of over 50 years and father of Petitioner and Thomas, died the initials JTWROS were added to the account. M/L has no record of this transaction. In 2003, Melanie is now 94 years old, Thomas sends to her in April and she signed in May a “Merrill Lynch Client Relationship Agreement. ” [exhibit A] This document is of a legal size (or bigger) multi- page document with pages with several carbon copies of a form – self cc. Thomas and Leanne signed this document in November, of 2003, some six months after Melanie signed it. The first copy goes to M/L and ends up in storage in New Jersey; the second copy goes to the financial advisor, Mr. Robert Hayward. ; the third is kept by the client, Thomas and Leanne Pflaum. After many requests, subpoenas, deposition, threats of contempt of court M/L has not provided readable copies of this document.In July and August 2005 the petitioner subpoenaed the documents and went to deposition in Tallahassee that established the account which existed at the time of Melanie’s death (the one set up in November 2003 that added Leanne) If Thomas and Leanne argue that the JTWROS was long standing (it appears to be added to the account about the time of father’s death in 1985) they have to overcome the fact there is no record that could show how it was set up and if any of the legal requirements to override a last will and testament were followed. Mr. Hayward testified that it was for convenience only (clearly if Melanie was injured or sick and needed emergency funds, Thomas would be in a position to help after the death of his father). Thomas NEVER made a single transaction on the account from 1985 to 2003. (Phone call to Mr. Hayward) It had no joint function except in case of emergency and there was no emergency until late in 2003.The records provided by M/L could not be read – were reduced more that 150% and repeated requests (starting at the deposition on Aug 2nd 2005) to provide legible copies have had no response. Finally in Sept 2005, Peter Pflaum called to local M/L office and asked for the form that arrived the next day. We could see that the JTWROS box WAS NOT CHECKED on either copy though you can’t read the text, you can clearly see if a box is checked. JTWROS was not applied for but granted regardless – on this Thomas took 1. 4 million of money not belonging to him. This is called in common language theft and the method fraud. [exhibit A] #EXHIBITS 77 MOTIONS to review and declare inventory in the estate - including the Merrill Lynch Account because there has been a clear attempt at a testamentary devise without complying with the strict requirements of the statute and would be a nullity. Therefore the Merrill Lynch account was simply in the name of Melanie Pflaum at her death and as such is an asset of the estate. The PR files taxes and has a duty to ask for an extension of time if there are delays. They have only done so June 22, 2007 a year late and Petitioner has complained for four years about endless delays and stalling tactics. Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole makes Thomas ineligible to serve as PR.[2]This complaint is based on a pattern of legal and judicial abuse over four years which is based on a pattern of legal and judicial abuse which has denied the Petitioner his basic civil rights. In the furtherance of the tortious interference with the Petitioner inheritance of his one third share of (Melanie Pflaum) his mother’s estate of two million dollars, the Respondents committed a series of action to deny the Petitioner his civil rights, due process and equal protection of the laws. MOTIONS FOR a petition for writ of prohibition November 5, 2006

SETTING

FORTH

THE PRECISE RELIEF SOUGHT.Here comes Peter Pflaum , Petitioner, with MOTIONS to remove the Personal Representative, Thomas Pflaum and with evidence in the attached annex of our plea to preserve the assets under contest. The mental condition of the Respondent Thomas and Leanne Pflaum create additional doubts of their fitness to manage and preserve the assets of the estate. Thomas Pflaum suffers from illusions and delusions. In the attached e-mails he claims he was empowered by the decedent who had transferred all of her estate to him and his wife. Thomas and his wife Leanne, both attorneys, were fully cognizant that documents obtained when the decedent had no ability to give consent were fraudulent. He imagined Melanie lived with him in his home in Micanopy. He displayed paranoid tendency in a belief that the Petitioner schemed against him, was in fact extorting him from his money, and the Petitioner conspired with others creating a great danger, defamed his and Leanne’s character, and, therefore, the behavior of others explained why he and Leanne were entitled to all of the estate. These statements are so far from the truth, objective reality, and common sense as to bring his judgment and capacity into serious doubt.The basic principle of American governance in our Constitution is separation of powers, because concentration of power in any one person or institution is dangerous to freedom. To adapt James MadisonJames Madison 97

If judges were angels, no appeals would be necessary. If angels were to judge men, neither external nor internal controls on courts would be necessary. In framing a judicial system which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the judges to control the courts; and in the next place oblige them to control themselves. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions

Dr. Peter E. Pflaum web siteAn independent judiciary is critical to a constitution system that protects individual rights. The basis of the lack of external supervision and the quality of respect for judicial decisions, the behavior of trial judges and just outcomes depends on the professional self-regulation. The internal balance of power in the judicial system depends on the appeals process from lower to higher courts. It is up to appeals courts to control unfair courts run by corrupt, prejudiced, bad judges or some outside powers will begin to intervene.MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: I, Petitioner Edward Pflaum PRO SE, son and heir to Melanie Sophia Pflaum’s estate MOVE that the personal representative of the deceased be ordered by the COURT to disclose and reveal to his or her best knowledge and belief all assets past and present of the late Melanie Sophia Pflaum and as her personal representative all assets and income received from the late Melanie Sophia Pflaum. Prior and previous inventory has not been forthcoming and is still only $100. 00. The deceased had a residence in

Spain

. She had several bank accounts, investment accounts, and valuable personal possessions, MOTIONS to review and declare inventory in the estate - including the Merrill Lynch. THE REST OF THE STORY: 104Sanctions: Respondent and his attorneys have lied and deceived the court in matters of critical substance in order to pervert the course of justice, he has tampered with documents (Bank of America Account) he has illegally used POA, and with the intent to obstruct justice. The Bank of America (attached) would be a respected, competent and neutral replacement. Thomas is claiming an asset of the estate that places him in a conflict as personal representative and he should be replaced. Mr. White and Thomas Pflaum have failed in their duties and described by Mr. White. MOTIONS to restore to my family an allowance of $2000 a month because of serious financial stress and bankruptcy.MOTIONS to compel Mr. Hoppe to return Melanie Pflaum’s letter of intent of June 2003. Background: of contrary intent 106The Petitioner makes MOTIONS for the court to affirm and agree there is a danger that the decedent’s property is likely to be wasted, destroyed, or removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court and therefore orders Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith, Inc. to freeze or suspend the account’s) of Thomas and Leanne Pflaum and demand Merrill Lynch to verify what is currently in the account’s).Since the Respondents are holding and acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that have interfered with the administration of the estate as a whole, the court can protect the assets while the case is under litigation. When it is necessary, the court may appoint a curator after formal notice to the person apparently entitled to letters of administration. The curator may be authorized to perform any duty or function of a personal representative. If there is great danger that any of the decedent’s property is likely to be wasted, destroyed, or removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court and if the appointment of a curator would be delayed by giving notice, the court may appoint a curator without giving notice. The core of Petitioner’s argument is that Thomas’s strategy is to avoid a final judgment and just keep the money by fraud, making appeal difficult. Summary judgment for relief; An alternative the court could consider is MOTIONS for removal of the PR as no longer qualified because of conflict of interests, and gross neglect of legal responsibilities under law. The Codicil of Melanie’s will appoint the Lewis State Bank in the case Thomas and Leanne are not able to serve. The Lewis state bank was bought by the Nation’s Bank which was bought by Bank

America

which accepts its duties as successor institution and would do a professional job. PROBATE CODE: ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES. 53 Because of the extensive evidence of misconduct the court should appoint a curator without notice and hearing to take hold of the property in contest and report to the court on how to quickly and with due process close the estate and distribute the results to the beneficiaries. Thomas and Leanne owe Petitioner extensive damages to remedy the harm he has caused. The claim by the Petitioner is for $1,500,000 in direct financial damage AND PAIN, SUFFERING and punitive damages. This includes but is not limited to the original amount in the estate divided three ways, including a fair assessment of the house in Spain, with interest over four years and direct costs over the last four years. The damages in pain and suffering by the Petitioner and his family over these years have been real and substantial and will require a remedy.

CONCLUSION:

PETITION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF:A motion for damages of $875,000 against a joint enterprise of Thomas Pflaum, Leanne Pflaum and their attorneys, Mr. Hoppe and Mr. White assessed by this court because the outrageous abuse of the facts and the law by the joint enterprise perpetrated on of the trial court which is shocking to the judicial conscience—The gross conflicts of Interests led to violations by the Respondents of Rules 4-8. 4©, (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 4-8. 4(d), (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation). Thomas and Leanne should not profit by their bad behavior and unethical lawyers should not be paid to pervert, corrupt, and abuse the legal system to the harm and damage to an beneficiary citizen of this state. The respondents must be made to disgorge the profits of their malevolent enterprise. It constitutes a miscarriage of justice—when it appears that the trial judge was influenced by prejudice, corruption, passion, or is clearly in error and mistaken.The estate is being wasted by almost a million dollars of legal fees and expenses brought about in this enterprise of Thomas Pflaum’s and his attorney’s misconduct. Thomas has filed papers on June 22, 2007 to close the estate with a total value of $100 thereby showing the extent of mismanagement, abuse, fraud, lunacy, displayed in his role of personal representative in his mother’s estate of two million dollars left in equal shares to her children. REFERENCE

APPENDIX TWO PART TWO 64

REMEDY: RELIEF:PETER PFLAUM, PRO SE makes a claim against the Petitioner, THOMAS M. PFLAUM, his claims for damages against them the for One and one half millions dollars ($1,500,000) for Summary: $861,000 as Petitioner’s share of his mother’s estate in 2004 ($500,000) plus interests over four years is 25% ($125,000) and INCLUDES $140,000 claims on one third of the abandoned the property in Spain . Another $100,000 for legal and other direct expenses, loss work, and mental distress, $380,000 in false arrest, pain and suffering, and time spent on these cases. They are charged with grand larceny of a million dollars or more by fraud. In the furtherance of a joint enterprise they have committed perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice and public corruption. Allowing the presentation of false testimony rises to the level of subornation because the attorneys used the material as part of the testimony to make the case and forward the enterprise. Punitive damages made up the total of $1. 5 million. There are additional claims against Mr. White of $200,000 as all the fees he has charged in the enterprise and the same for Mr. Hoppe. All the respondents should be stripped of their ill gotten gains.PETITIONS AND MOTIONS FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF $861,000 FOR THE Petitioner FROM THE RespondentsRULE 5. 020. PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION; MOTIONS Forms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be signed by the attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required by these rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of form impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of jurisdictional facts actually existing renders any proceeding void. The Petitioner moves the records be included as correspondence because almost everything put in evidence is in the record and does not need to be copied.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail this Saturday, Thursday, August 09, 2007 to Bill Hoppe, P. A. d/b/a The Hoppe Law Firm 2313 N. W. 7th Road Gainesville , Florida 32607 Signed ________________________________________date____________Certificate of Compliance This brief was prepared in Times New Roman 14-point font. Signed __________________________ An electronic copy of brief must be provided in accordance with AO04-84. See Administrative Order In re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, (. XML) dated September 13, 2004. In the Supreme Court of FloridaDr. Peter Pflaum, PRO SE 225 Robinson RoadNew Smyrna Beach, FL 32169386 428 9609 PETITIONERV Leanne Pflaum, Esq. and Thomas Pflaum Esq. 17306 S. W. 10th TerraceMicanopy, Florida 32667-9802352 466 0252 fax 1 352 466 0251And Richard White Esq. of White & Crouch, P. A. 5303 SW 91 Drive, Suite 200 Gainesville, FL 32608 Board Certified in Wills, Trusts & Estates RESPONDENTSCASE NO: SC07-655 Supreme Court of Florida(Lower Tribunal No. 1 D06-6618(Trial court No: 2004-CP-0770)(Trial court in Gainesville, Alachua County,Probate of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM)

APPENDIX

ONE COURT

CASESDr. Peter E. Pflaum, PRO SE225 Robinson Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 386 428 9609The Florida Supreme Court has received on 3/20/2007 a Petition for Writ of Prohibition as an Appeal from the District Court of Appeal(Defamation And Extortion Lower Tribunal No. CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 DIV. K) Former CASE NO. 1DCA06-3240, 1D06-2762, and 1DCA05-5830, DCA05-5212, 2005-CA-2363 HYPERLINK "" \l "_Toc173993872"

APPENDIX ONE COURT CASES 1

. 37[1] CASE ONE PROBATE. 38CASE TWO: DEFAMATION and EXTORTION.. 41CASE THREE: CRIMINAL FALSE REPORT TO DCF. 44CASE FOUR: (and five) Civil complaint of False arrest and Negligence 46CASE SIX: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. 46CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 49

[1]

CASE ONE PROBATE

The Petitioner (Dr. Peter Pflaum ) focuses on what has and has not happened in the probate court (IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA PROBATE DIVISION File No. 2004-CP-0770 Division A RE: ESTATE OF MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM Deceased: Honorable Toby S. Monaco ) since March, 2004. Referred to as PROBATE Case # 2004CP770 Div. A PETER E. PFLAUM, Petitioner vs, THOMAS PFLAUM, as Personal Representative of Melanie Sophia Pflaum, deceased, Respondent

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONSThe following is just wrong. The petitioner is innocent of the charges and never had a hearing. There is no record of violations and the forgery charge is based on only one side of the case.This order is an extreme example of the bias of the trial court.This cause came before the Court on the personal representative’s MOTIONS for sanctions, including dismissal of claims. Upon review of the evidence proffered, and after a review of the court file, including the submissions of Peter Pflaum therein, the Court finds (wrongly and not in accord with the facts and the truth) that said Peter Pflaum has engaged in a protracted pattern of willful, deliberate, persistent and contumacious disregard and violation of court orders and intentional abuse of the judicial process. In addition, said Peter Pflaum has willfully attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court and upon the parties to this case by proffering as real a forged document containing a purported signature of the deceased which is, in fact, a signature which was traced from another document containing the deceased’s signature. Such conduct cannot and will not be tolerated.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

1. The subject MOTIONS for sanctions is hereby granted as more specifically set forth below. 2. Peter Pflaum shall pay all mediator fees, legal fees and other costs in connection with the scheduling, preparation for, and appearance at mediations arranged pursuant to court order and which he failed to attend in person, and those costs and fees incurred in attempts to address his failure to attend. The amount will be set after further hearing. 3. All claims, Motions, and other pleadings or papers filed herein by said Peter Pflaum are hereby considered stricken and of no force or effect. 4. Except appropriate appellate filings pertaining to this order, no further pleadings, Motions or papers may be filed herein by said Peter Pflaum pro see Any further actions by said Peter Pflaum herein, including the filing of any papers whatsoever, shall only be taken by an attorney authorized to practice law in Florida. Should said Peter Pflaum violate the provisions of this order, he shall be assessed a fine of $300 per violation which shall be taxed upon MOTIONS of any party or by the court’s own initiative. Continued violations may be punishable by contempt and may result in incarceration Leanne Pflaum pending review by the 1DCA case Appellant / Petitioner(s),Dr. Peter E. Pflaum v. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum

IN THE

CIRCUIT

COURT

FOR

ALACHUA

COUNTY

FLORIDA

PROBATE DIVISION

File No. 2004-CP-0770 Division: A IN RE: ESTATE OF

MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM

REPLY TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PETER PFLAUM

HERE

COMES

PETER PFLAUM, pro se, individually and as beneficiary of the estate and files this REPLY TO motion for sanctions by THOMAS PFLAUM; and as grounds would state he has the right as a beneficiary to object to:

NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR DISCHARGE

PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

PETITION FOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE’S FEE

FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

It would be absurd (in this absurdism of the absurd) to deny Peter Pflaum’s rights as a beneficiary the right to make his claims based on the will and the facts and the law. But the ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable has been the history of this case.

Last year the 1DCA 6618 (FSC05-2330) suggested to the 8th Circuit that they should be able to settle the case - After more than a year nothing has been settled.

The District Court of Appeal sent to the 8

th Circuit a mandate:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings, if required, be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of Court, and the laws of the State of

Florida

1. The following motions for sanctions, costs, and fees have been filed against PETER PFLAUM involve appeals to the 1DCA and the Florida Supreme court and not in the jurisdiction of this court;

1DCA On the court’s own MOTIONS , the complaint/petition filed June 13, 2006 is hereby treated as a petition for writ of prohibition. See

Fla.

(a) 11/9/05 motion for assessment of costs for filing excess pleadings and failure to attend mediation WAS called in a different case with Judge Roundtree;

Peter E. Pflaum, Pro Se Appellant/Petitioner v.

Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, Appellee/Respondents

Case No. 1 DCA06-6618

Former CASE NO. 1DCA06-3240 1DCA05-5212 and 1DCA05-5830

1D06-2762

LC No. 2005-CA-2363 Defamation IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 8™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND

FOR ALACHUA COUNTY

FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 DIV. K THOMAS M. PFLAUM and LEANNE J. PFLAUM, Plaintiffs, vs. PETER PFLAUM, MARY ANNE PFLAUM, and JOHN PFLAUM, Defendants.;

(b) Peter Pflaum denies as not germane 12/14/05 motion for sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's orders (filed in companion defamation case);

(c) Peter Pflaum denies as not germane 2/7/06 motion for sanctions for failing to follow the Court's orders and contacting THOMAS PFLAUM and LEANNE PFLAUM IN regular order to appeals and issues not in the jurisdiction of this court; Peter Pflaum has charged since September 2005 that Judge Toby Monaco is grossly prejudiced and biased and should recuse himself in line with the code of judicial ethics.

(d) Peter Pflaum makes a counter motion for sanctions for THOMAS AND LEANNE PFLAUM’S FAILURE to answer discovery; AND INTERROGATIVES; and BILL HOPPE, P.A 2313 N.W. 7"" ROAD • GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32607 • TEL 352-870-5134 • The trial court was in error and made a clear mistake when it’s Order of June 22, 2006, the Court erroneously found that Peter Pflaum rather than Thomas and the enterprise had engaged in a protracted conspiracy of willful, deliberate, persistent, and contumacious disregard and violations of the facts and the law and intentional abuse of the judicial process. To the contrary of Thomas Pflaum’s lies; Peter Pflaum honestly claims: Thomas Pflaum et al have engaged in a four year campaign of harassment of Peter and his wife as part of a conspiracy to steal his inheritance. Thomas and his gang IS charged with Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(a)(l) in that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a tribunal; and Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(d) in that in an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

The context of the charges is that Respondent as an attorney, thereafter ex-parte, that an estate in which Respondents are a principal beneficiary and personal representative.

(e) Peter Pflaum denies as not germane 1/4/07 motion for sanctions for failing to follow the Court's orders WAS NOT WITHIN Court's injunction of 10/31/05 against contacting THOMAS PFLAUM and LEANNE PFLAUM in cases IS in the jurisdiction of THE court OF APPEALS AND THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.

2. PETER PFLAUM denies he has continuously and contemptuously violates the Court's order and injunction of 10/31/05 which can only apply to a case in the jurisdiction of this court. PETER PFLAUM sends e-mails with attachments as copies of appeals to THOMAS PFLAUM and LEANNE PFLAUM on a need to know daily basis. Attached hereto as composite Exhibit "A" are e-mails from PETER PFLAUM to THOMAS PFLAUM and LEANNE PFLAUM dated 5/1/07, 5/8/07. 5/10/07, 6/20/07, 6/25/07. The attached complaint is to represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate:

exaggerate the size of the issue; exaggerated his own role in the episode.

And is a sample of the constant efforts to rouse, to exasperation or anger; to provoke and play loose with the facts and the truth

3. On 6/22/06, this Court illegally and unconstitutionally ordered PETER PFLAUM to file no pleadings in this estate unless represented by an attorney which is a nonentity and void. PETER PFLAUM has an absolute right to remains Pro Se. The Court's order which stated that PETER PFLAUM would be assessed a fine of $300 per violation of this Order IS ABSURD. Further, the Court held that "continued violations may be punishable by contempt and may result in incarceration.'" THIS ORDER on appeal to the 1DCA and the Florida Supreme court. CASE NO: SC07-655 Supreme Court of

Florida

500 South Duval Street

Tallahassee

Florida

32399

4. PETER PFLAUM on August 2, 2007 filed a pleading wherein he attached a self-prepared docket sheet where PETER PFLAUM admits filing 47 documents in violation of the Court's Order. Attached as Exhibit is filing by PETER PFLAUM dated 8/2/07.

WHEREFORE, THOMAS PFLAUM HAS VASTLY OVERREACHED WHEN HE moves that the Court fine PETER PFLAUM at least $14,100.00 (47 x $300) and consider incarceration as the only remedy for PETER Pflaum’s contempt of court.

SIGNED ______________________________________Date

DATE \@ "dddd, MMMM dd, yyyy"

Monday, August 20, 2007

Copies sent to BILL HOPPE, P.A. 2313 N W. 7"' ROAD •

GAINESVILLE

FLORIDA

32607

• TEL 352-870-5134 - FAX 352-384-9898HERE COMES PETER PFLAUM, individually and as beneficiary, appeals on the grounds, clearly stated at the time, 6/23/2006 that the trial order was made in error, based on perjury, prejudice, bias and clearly was a denial of due process. The order was written in haste by Mr. Hoppe and signed by the Judge (the hearing was on Monday June 19th late afternoon and the order was in the mail Wednesday June 21st and received on Friday June 23rd and docketed on June 26) i. e. was made before Petitioner had time to respond in writing to the false evidence and phony material presented without prior notice by Mr. Hoppe at the June 19th hearing late in the afternoon including the SURPRISE charge of forgery made by a SURPRISE witness, $1625. 00 paid to Language Services, Inc. Don Quinn, Inc. Peter informed the court of these problems in the following documents;06/26/2006 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 06/22/06 / TSM06/26/2006 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, THOMAS PFLAUM - 06/22/06 / TSM06/26/2006 COPY OF NOTICE OF HEARING - PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIM AND FOR SANCTIONS AND PETER PFLAUM’S MOTION FOR THE RETURN BY MR. HOPPE OF THE ORIGINAL JUNE 2003 LETTER OF MELANIE PFLAUM 06/19/06 @ 3:00, TSM06/23/2006 DOCUMENTS FROM PETER PFLAUM 06/22/2006 DOCUMENT FILED BY: PETER PFLAUM 06/15/2006 MOTION FOR HEARING JUNE 19, 2006 FROM PETER E. PFLAUM 06/14/2006 RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE 06/14/2006 MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIM AND FOR SANCTIONS 06/14/2006 NOTICE OF HEARING - PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIM AND FOR SANCTIONS AND PETER PFLAUM’S MOTION FOR THE RETURN BY MR. HOPPE OF THE ORIGINAL JUNE 2003 LETTER OF MELANIE PFLAUM 06/19/06 @ 3:00, TSM 06/14/2006 COVER LETTER DATED 06/12/06 06/12/2006 COMPLAINT FROM PETER E. PFLAUM 06/08/2006 PETER PFLAUM DOCUMENT TO JUDGE MONACOCASE NO. : 1 DO6-6618The appeal of this case is part of an ongoing enterprise to deprive the defendant, Peter Pflaum and John Pflaum of their share of their mother’s estate. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum should not be allowed to benefit from their improper legal maneuvers or Petitioner and Mary Anne suffer more from this abuse.The heart of Petitioner’s case is that Thomas, Leanne and his legal team (Mr. White, a respondent and co-conspirator for the PR and Mr. Hoppe as a personal attorney) are abusing the legal process by endless delays, diversions including a civil case for defamation and extortion.HERE comes Peter Pflaum, PRO SE with MOTIONS for the removal of the personal representative PR (Thomas Pflaum) for cause. The PR maybe under criminal investigation by the IRS. He has huge conflicts of interest. He has perjured himself. (Melanie’s domicile, Petitioner’s assets, false evidence in the defamation case)There is sufficient evidence to show bad faith, unethical conduct if not fraud by using documents signed by Melanie Pflaum after a time when she could no longer read or comprehend the contents, that Thomas Pflaum just took assets that belonged to the estate, Thomas Pflaum as Personal Representative had a gross conflict of interest doing everything in his power to take everything and give nothing. That Thomas Pflaum misused large amounts of estate assets (about $700,000 in this useless case) in his efforts to take everything, paying vast legal fees and fighting every step of the way with a stubborn passion that became unreasonable and illogical. There is a clear finding of fault by Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, Thomas White a respondent and co-conspirator and Robert Hayward as individuals and Merrill Lynch as a company.It is now absurd for the respondents to charge the petitioner with causing delay. The whole effort of the respondent has been delay and harassment. The cases listed in the appendix one are all inactive and demonstrate a desperate effort to find some court somewhere that will actually hear the case on its’ merits and apply the facts and the law in a reasonable and fair manner. There is one best way to know who is right and who is wrong in this dispute about family money is to actually hear the case based on the facts and the law. The trial judge has and will not, the 1DCA has not, nor has any other court. The facts and the law cry out for justice!The respondents have not replied to several years of interrogatives, discovery, petitions to coerce answers or petitions and motions to have the PR removed for cause, (gross conflict of interest) and the respondent has:The effort of the criminal prosecutor to interfere with the civil case is serious and makes a fair trial impossible. Mr. Hoppe, working for the plaintiffs, has used the criminal system to blackmail Dr. Pflaum by conspiring with Mr. Colaw to have Dr. Pflaum arrested, held on $50,000 bail, and threatened with 20 years in jail. Mr. Hoppe created trumped up charges as a part of his campaign of harassment conducted by the Respondents. These actions are evidence of a tight relationship between the state and the respondents (Thomas and Leanne) and his lawyers. This unholy alliance makes it impossible for Petitioner to have a fair trial. The civil case is part and parcel of this plot by the plaintiffs to steal Dr. Pflaum’s share of his mother’s estate. The real meaning of the criminal case became clear when they offered to exchange an offer to drop the criminal case in exchange for Dr. Pflaum’s surrender of his civil and material rights.Mr. Hoppe has raised a false forgery charge and other issues from the probate case. This complaint is based on a pattern of legal and judicial abuse which has denied the Petitioner his basic civil rights. In the furtherance of the tortious interference with the Petitioner inheritance of his one third share of (Melanie Pflaum) his mother’s estate of two million dollars, the Respondents committed a series of action to deny the Petitioner his civil rights, due process, and equal protection of the laws.

CASE TWO: DEFAMATION

and EXTORTION

The conditions where the defendants were denied the basic rights to defend themselves was dated Jan 30th received on Feb 1st says THIS MATTER came before the Court on January 23, 2007, for pretrial conference. Bill Hoppe, Esq. , appeared as attorney for plaintiffs Thomas M. Pflaum and Leanne J. Pflaum. Defendant John Pflaum appeared by telephone pro se. Defendants Peter Pflaum and Mary Anne Pflaum failed to appear. The Court finds that this case is ready for jury trial as previously scheduled to commence on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2007, AT 9:00 A. M. at the Alachua County Family/Civil Justice Center, 201 e. University Ave, Gainesville , Florida . It is hereby:(IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 8™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY , FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 DIV. K THOMAS M. PFLAUM and LEANNE J. PFLAUM, Respondents, vs. PETER PFLAUM, MARY ANNE PFLAUM, and JOHN PFLAUM, Petitioners) went to trial February 5th and 6th 2007, a judgment by the court as of Friday, August 03, 2007. Referred to as Civil Case; Mr. Hoppe has filed this completely worthless suits designed only to harass Petitioner and his wife Mary Anne that the court should not have allowed in the same COURT AT THE SAME TIME. He has continually lied to the court on matters of great importance with the clear intent to subvert justice.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGEDas follows: (without the trouble of hearing the case from both sides) done Jan 30th and received Feb 1st TALK ABOUT EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW?a. Counsel and all pro se parties shall appear in person on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2007, AT 9:00 A. M. ready to commence trial. Two (2) days have been reserved. The parties shall contact the undersigned’s judicial assistant on the Friday before trial to verify who the presiding judge will be and in which courtroom the trial will take place. b. The matters for jury trial include:i. Plaintiff’s claim for defamation against all defendants;ii. Plaintiffs claim for civil extortion against all defendants. Plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants are not only for their individual acts, but also as joint ventures. Plaintiffs have withdrawn any claim for lost wages or inability to earn money in the future and seek only recovery for intangible losses herein. The cross claim and counterclaim filed by Defendant John Pflaum is hereby stricken, said Defendant not having obtained leave of court to file same. c. As to Defendants Peter Pflaum and Mary Anne Pflaum, the Court has entered a default judgment against said Defendants on the defamation and civil extortion claim. Thus, as to said Defendants, their liability having been established, the trial will proceed on the issue of damages only. This was based on sanctions not a hearing of the facts. (Sanctions were based on events in 2005 and clearly set up to sandbag the defendants. ALL NOT TRUE and not based on any hearing of the facts)d. Without objection, there shall be six (6) peremptory challenges per side. The six challenges for the Plaintiffs shall be exercised jointly, and each peremptory challenges for the Defendants may be exercised jointly or, at their discretion, maybe exercised separately by dividing the total number of Defendant’s challenges equally. In the event that the Defendants all fail lo appear for trial, Plaintiffs shall have three peremptory challenges. In the event that only one Defendant appears for trial, the parties shall have three peremptory challenges per side. In the event that only two Defendants appear for trial, there will be six (6) peremptory challenges per side which may be exercised jointly or separately (divided equally). e. The Defendants having failed to comply (not true but papers filed were ignored) with this Court’s order requiring pretrial exhibit lists and witness lists, the Defendants shall not be permitted to call any witness or use any exhibit other than those listed on Plaintiffs witness and exhibit lists. f. The Defendants having failed to comply with this Court’s pretrial order regarding submission of jury instructions, no jury instructions will be used other than those proposed by Plaintiff, subject to the Court’s ruling on objections, if any, to said instructions.TRIAL ON FEBRUARY 5 AND 6 2007 and a JUDGMENT on Aug. 3rd 2007.The process has not been even close to fair and equal. The court has shown a clear preference and favor for Thomas and his team and strong prejudice against Petitioner . The Judge should have rescued himself more than a year ago.As to Defendants Peter Pflaum and Mary Anne Pflaum, the Court has (improperly) entered a default judgment against said Defendants on the defamation and civil extortion claim The appeal will revisit the judgment based on lack of due process and denial of basic civil rights. The defendants claim they were denied due process because of an improper default judgment where they were found guilty before the trial began. They could not submit evidence or witnesses. The summary judgment was improper because the defendants were denied basic dueFurther harassment is a worthless criminal case

CASE THREE: CRIMINAL

FALSE REPORT TO DCF(STATE OF FLORIDA -vs- PETITIONER EDWARD PFLAUM Division: 3 Judge: GLANT, DAVID A. for making an alleged false report to Department of Children and Families (DCF) State Filed Case Number: 01-2005-CF-002238-A) which is still in case management after an alleged incident of two years ago. Referred to as Criminal Case after two years still in case managementAnd there is now evidence that at Mr. Hoppe a lawyer for Thomas Pflaum directly contacted prosecutors regarding ongoing criminal investigations. This is ethically wrong and may even be illegal. In either case, such secret pressures cuts to the very core of prosecutorial independence, without which the state judiciary system cannot function. There’s a lot more to come on this story.Dr. Pflaum a citizen of Volusia County has made ten trips from his home in New Smyrna Beach to Gainesville and is being ordered to make ten more trips. He is held on $50,000 bail with a payment of $5,000 bail bond fee.The trip is 250 miles round trip and takes up a whole day for what has been an appearance of less than a few minutes. His wife Mary Anne has suffered extreme mental anguish and loss of income. Professor Pflaum complains that he is being punished without probable cause.No crime has been committed.There is no evidence Peter Pflaum made a report to DCF at all.A report found not to require further action is not a false report.A false report has to be done with knowledge it is false.Therefore, to prove a case the state must show that Petitioner made a report and he knew the report was false.The evidence shows that Petitioner in fact never made any report at all (a fax of an e-mail is not a report). There is no evidence that he knowing caused the High School Counselor to make a report. Clearly Petitioner is fully protected by the shield law. This is clearly impossible to show this case at all not to say beyond a reasonable doubt.The offer by the state of PTI, PDR (pre trial diversion) or pretrial settlement was not made in writing but was reported to Petitioner and Mary Anne by the public defender as including conditions set by the victims. It included an admission of guilt. The offer included a condition of a default in a probate case. It is highly improper for the state to take sides in a civil case and become a tool of blackmail. It is clear this criminal case is being used to further the economic interests of Thomas and Leanne.On the crime report the “victims” are named as Petitioner’s brother and sister in law, Thomas and Leanne Pflaum. The victims are the plaintiffs in a civil case. This criminal case is part of a pattern of harassment conducted by Thomas, Leanne, and their lawyers, Mr. White a respondent and co-conspirator and Mr. Hoppe as a stratagem in a probate case over the last four years to steal Petitioner’s inheritance. THERE IS NO CRIME COMMITTED:The Florida Department of Children and Families CSA Abuse report ABUSE REPORT 2005-341973-01 3/10/2005 by Jean Warner called to Wilmaelaine Kennan – Wilfredo Gonzalez says on page two that the reporter is the school counselor at East side high school.The defendant is not identified as a reporter see 39. 205 (4) and (5) below – THESE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS DID NOT HAPPEN(4) The department shall establish procedures for determining whether a false report of child abuse, abandonment, or neglect has been made and for submitting all identifying information relating to such a report to the appropriate law enforcement agency and shall report annually to the Legislature the number of reports Referred .(5) If the department or its authorized agent has determined after its investigation that a report is false, the department shall, with the consent of the alleged perpetrator, refer the report to the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction for an investigation to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to refer the case for prosecution for filing a false report as defined in s. 39. 01(28). During the pendency of the investigation by the local law enforcement agency, the department must notify the local law enforcement agency of, and the local law enforcement agency must respond to, all subsequent reports concerning children in that same family in accordance with s. 39. 301. If the law enforcement agency believes that there are indicators of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, it must immediately notify the department, which must assure the safety of the children. If the law enforcement agency finds sufficient evidence for prosecution for filing a false report, it must refer the case to the appropriate state attorney for prosecution.Anyone making a report who is acting in good faith is immune from any liability under this subsection.

CASE FOUR: (and five) Civil complaint of False arrest and NegligenceSEVENTH CIRCUIT: Judge Robert K. Rouse, Jr. Division 02 101 N. Alabama Ave. DeLand , FL 32724 CASE NO. 2006 20441-CINS False arrest, harassments, and lack of due process, and tortious interference with inheritance PETITIONER E PFLAUM v. THOMAS PFLAUM, ET AL Case Number: 2006 20441 CINS Category: Other Negligence Case Type: Circuit Civil Filing Date: 11/15/2006 Case Status: Open Related Cases: NO Venue Information - 02 - Robert K. Rouse, Jr. Processing Location: New Smyrna Beach Annex Court Location: New Smyrna Beach Annex Disposition Information - Pending Disposition Date:Jury Trial: YES Case Style: PETITIONER E PFLAUM v. THOMAS PFLAUM, ET ALCase Number: 2005 20356 CINS Category: Other Circuit Civil Case Type: Circuit Civil Filing Date: 10/19/2005 Case Status: Closed Related Cases: NO Venue Information - 02 - Robert K. Rouse, Jr. Processing Location: New Smyrna Beach Annex Court Location: New Smyrna Beach Annex Disposition closed Information - Other Disposition Date: 04/06/2006 Jury Trial: NO dismissed on jurisdictionAPPEAL to 5th DCA withdrawn Fifth district court of Appeals Case Number 5D06-787 Fifth District Court of Appeals the Clerk of the Court 300 South Beach Street Daytona Beach, FL. , 32114

CASE SIX: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALMr. Jon S. Wheeler 301 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32399-1850 Peter E. Pflaum, Pro Se Appellant/Petitioner v. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, Appellee/Respondents Case No. 1 DCA06-6618 (Trial court No : 2004-CP-0770 Defamation Lower Tribunal No. 1 D06-6618) Former CASE NO. 1DCA06-3240, 1D06-2762, and 1DCA05-5830, DCA05-5212, 2005-CA-2363

CASE SEVEN: CASE NO: SC07-655 Supreme Court of

Florida500 South Duval Street Tallahassee , Florida 32399 Peter E. Pflaum Pro Se Appellant/Petitioner v. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, Appellee/Respondents Lower Tribunal No. 1 D06-6618 (FSC05-2330)CASE EIGHT: (and nine) dismissed;Arthur B. Briskman United States Bankruptcy Judge The Central District of Florida, Bankruptcy filed Feb. 28th 2006 dismiss for lack of credit counselingCase Number 6:06-bk-00358-ABB Bankruptcy Trustee Gene T. Chambers Post Office Box 533987 Orlando, FL 32853 Telephone number: 407-872-7575Federal court central district of Florida (Orlando) because of international jurisdiction letter sent Feb 26th 2006 Case Number 6:06-cv-244-Orl-28KRS Case 6:06-cv-00244-JA-KRS filed 3/24/2006 George C. Young U. S. Courthouse & Federal Building 80 North Hughey Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 407-835-4200 John Antoon II Judge The Honorable Patricia C. Fawsett Chief United States District Judge Sheryl L. Loesch Clerk of Court

The central issue is a monumental act of betrayalwhere Thomas, acting as the PR for his deceased mother and with responsibilities for the other beneficiaries who are his brothers, announced in an e-mail days after Melanie’s death, that he and his wife, Leanne, (a Respondent) also an attorney, were taking everything in Melanie’s estate for themselves. The grounds for tortious interference with inheritance include the lack of possibility when a probate proceeding does not have the potential to provide full redress of any damages suffered by a Petitioner, and some courts will require that the probate court proceeding be completed before a tort action may be brought. The attached order of the probate court in the 8th circuit bars Peter from further claims and denies all the issues. The trial court has not reviewed or acted on uncontested evidence submitted proving the Respondent used a friendship with Mr. Hayward, the financial advisor at Merrill Lynch, (M/L) to falsely put the Respondents name on 1. 5 million of estate assets. M/L was guilty of gross neglect of duty in putting the JTWROS falsely on the account and refusing to produce a readable copy of the contract evidence. The Respondents never presented an affirmative case for his claim to the 1. 5 million dollars. The court did not seriously review the issues, of great and critical importance, but accepted the Respondents case as a given. The Petitioner has a overwhelming case of why the money is part of the estate and must be in inventory.

Thomas abusing the trust the family had in him,had Melanie sign a blank M/L Client Relationship Agreement in May 2003, forged her address as being in Florida at his house, and fabricated a JTWROS account in November 2003 when Melanie was on her deathbed. The account executive, Mr. Hayward, testified in a deposition in August 2005 that this was Melanie’s money and Thomas was added only for convenience.The Respondents claim all of the (M/L) account of 1. 5 million dollars based on it being a joint account (JTWROS). We reasoned that establishment of the joint account JTWROS at ML under these circumstances was an ineffectual attempt to do that which could only be accomplished by a last will and testament. In order for this claim to prevail, it has to be shown that the creator intended a gift inter vivos at the time the account was opened. Subsequent cases produced such diverse results that one commentator was prompted to characterize them as a “muddle. “Richard B. Stephens, Jr. , Survivorship Rights in Joint Accounts, 24 U. Fla. L. Rev. 476 (1972).

The inventory could raise concerns of fraud,either through a significant transfer of money all of a sudden or disputes filed by the Respondents. The “Merrill lynch client relationship agreement” is a contract that is required to establishes the account. Melanie Pflaum, the deceased, signs these papers (in blank) on May 11, 2003, and Thomas and Leanne sign on November 10, 2003, to create Account #719-46081 which added Leanne without a contract or approval of the principle owner, Melanie Pflaum. (or anyone) Since the Respondents cannot produce a real readable copy of the contract, it does not have a real legal existence. An illegible fax of a microfiche of one page of a multi-page complex contract is not a binding contract. Without a contract the ownership is in complete doubt and no party should have the opportunity to waste, destroy, or spend on excessive legal fees in a attempt to keep money obtained by fraud or have the money removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court while the issue is before the court.CHAPTER 678 UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: INVESTMENT SECURITIES and 517. 121 Books and records requirements (1) A dealer, investment adviser, branch office, or associated person shall maintain such books and records as the commission may prescribe by rule.

In 1986 Thomas and Leanne formed a joint enterprisewith Mr. Hayward of Merrill Lynch office in Tallahassee Florida where Thomas worked and Leanne was in Law school. The money in the account came from Melanie’s parents and grandparents was moved from Chicago to Mr. Hayward’s care as financial advisor. They put JTWROS on the account without Melanie’s understanding what was involved. In May 2003 as Melanie was sick and dying they had her sign a blank “Merrill Lynch Client Relationship agreement” a long multiage document. Mr. Hayward conspired with Thomas and Leanne to have Leanne added to the account in November without any authorization from Melanie (or anyone). Thomas had Melanie sign Power of Attorney when she had no idea of the content. If she could manage her affairs she would have, (as she had done for 50 years) and if she couldn’t she had no ability to consent.In March 2004 Melanie Pflaum (94) died in her long term home in Javea

Spain

. She left a formal and uncontested will (1978) giving equal shares of all he property among her children. The will was drafted at the law firm of Thomas Pflaum and sign in the counsel in Barcelona. She appoints her son Thomas Pflaum as personal representative. Thomas and his wife Leanne are attorneys and live in Micanopy Hammocks south of Gainesville Florida. After the death Thomas and his wife decided to take the whole estate and so notified Peter Pflaum.Thomas appointed Mr. White a respondent and co-conspirator as attorney for the estate and filed letters of administration in the 8th Circuit Court (July 2004) in Gainesville based on the perjured claim that Melanie lived with them in Micanopy. Since then there has never been a hearing of the will and the claims of the descendents.Peter Pflaum has filled inches of motions, petitions, pleading and arguments, documents and evidence with no effect. He has gone to appeal and filed cases wherever he can. Petitioner seeks a hearing on what is the intent of the deceased, and what should be done. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by U. S. Mail this Saturday, Thursday, August 09, 2007 to Bill Hoppe, P. A. d/b/a The Hoppe Law Firm 2313 N. W. 7th Road Gainesville , Florida 32607Signed ________________________________________date___________ In the Supreme Court of FloridaDr. Peter Pflaum, PRO SE 225 Robinson RoadNew Smyrna Beach, FL 32169386 428 9609 PETITIONERV Leanne Pflaum, Esq. and Thomas Pflaum ESq. 17306 S. W. 10th TerraceMicanopy, Florida 32667-9802352 466 0252 fax 1 352 466 0251And Richard White Esq. of White & Crouch, P. A. 5303 SW 91 Drive, Suite 200 Gainesville, FL 32608 Board Certified in Wills, Trusts & Estates RESPONDENTS