Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2012-07-18 - COLLETTE - Motion to Reconsider and Set Aside Transfer of Venue Ruling

2012-07-18 - COLLETTE - Motion to Reconsider and Set Aside Transfer of Venue Ruling

Ratings: (0)|Views: 107 |Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
Motion to Reconsider and Set Aside Transfer of Venue Ruling
Motion to Reconsider and Set Aside Transfer of Venue Ruling

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Jul 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/19/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
Civil Division
Collettev.Obama,
et al.Case Number:
512012CA 2041WSMotion to Reconsider and Set Aside Transfer of Venue Ruling
I, Jerry Collette, plaintiff, move for reconsideration and setting aside of the court’s recent ruling,transferring venue to Leon County, as follows:
Summary Overview
This motion for reconsideration and setting aside the court’s transfer of venue ruling is being brought to correct a clear error of law caused by a gross misstatement, by defense counsel, of the basis of the holding of a case which states the controlling Florida law for venue in tort claims.More specifically, at the last hearing, Mr. Mark Herron, counsel for defendants, in replying tomy citing of the venue holding in
Tucker v. Fianson,
484 So. 2d 1370, 1372 (Fla. 3rd DCA1986), a leading Florida case on the subject of venue in tort claims and a commanding precedentto my case, misstated to the court that the venue holding in
Tucker 
was based upon the locationof property which, according to Mr. Herron, was the underlying subject of the litigation.It turns out that property had
no bearing, whatsoever,
on the venue holding in
Tucker.
 
Therewas not even any property in the entire litigation!
Nonetheless, the court, upon hearing Mr.Herron’s blatant misstatement of the basis of the
Tucker 
court’s venue holding, then:1.Failed to properly apply controlling venue law to my case; and, 2.Thereby, made a clear error of law in ruling to transfer my case to Leon County.
Introduction
This is a case of national importance. Not only are many eyes following it now, it could becomefuture history. There is already a huge public perception that, although courts are supposed to
Page
1
of 
10
 
treat all litigants equally, in similar cases, defendant Obama has been given preferentialtreatment.Other issues commonly litigated in similar cases, such as standing or the definition of natural born citizenship, may be rather esoteric for the average person to understand. Venue, on the other hand, is quite simple, particularly in the way that the
Tucker 
court explained it.
1
For the sake of  public trust in the integrity of the justice system, it is imperative that the court correct the clear error made in the last hearing.I have ground for reconsideration because:
Clear Error Is A Valid Basis for Reconsideration
Many courts have stated the established rule for reconsideration, as recited in,
e.g.,
 
Underwritersat Lloyd's London v. Osting-Schwinn,
545 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (M.D. Fla. 2008):
There are three identifiable bases for reconsidering an order: (1) …,
2
(2) …,
3
and(3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.
As set forth below, the court has made a clear error of controlling Florida law for venue in tortclaims.The three venue options of:
Venue Statute § 47.011
Florida Statutes § 47.011 (2012) states:
4
 Actions shall be brought only in the county
[1]
where the defendant resides,
[2]
where the cause of action accrued, or 
[3]
where the property in litigation islocated.
1
The arrow analogy that the
Tucker 
court used could be understood by a child.
2
 
An intervening change in controlling law.
3
 
The availability of new evidence.
4
In relevant part.Page
2
of 
10
 
With multiple options:
Plaintiff May Choose Any Proper Venue Option
As stated in,
e.g., Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.,
388 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3rd DCA1980), the well established rule is:
When venue is proper in more than one county, as is the case here, the choice of where to file suit rests with the plaintiff.
More recently, the
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burns,
672 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 3rd DCA1996), court stated:
It is well established that where venue is proper in more than one county, thechoice of forum rests with a plaintiff and will not lightly be set aside.
With respect to my case:
The Residence of Defendants Has No Bearing on Venue
Defendants have submitted facts showing that no defendant resides in Pasco County and havechallenged venue based upon that sole ground. I hereby stipulate that no defendant resides inPasco County.However, I have chosen venue based upon where I suffered my alleged injury, not based uponthe residence of any defendants. Therefore, any facts or challenges relating to defendants’residences are irrelevant to determining venue for this case and must be disregarded.Accrual based venue is determined by:
The Controlling Law As Stated in
Tucker 
 
The
Tucker 
case is very short,
5
simple, and devoted exclusively to one issue — venue basedupon accrual in a tort cause of action. The holding is a commanding precedent to my case,setting forth the rule that it is county where the plaintiff first suffers the claimed injury where thecause of action accrues for venue purposes.
Tucker 
is a leading case which states the
controllinglaw
on this subject.
5
 
Three pages in length.Page
3
of 
10

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->