• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
In
re:
MARK
A.
DAMS
Appellaat,
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
MIDDLE
DISTRICT
OF
FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISIONCASE
NO.:
:08-CV-01
570-RAL
CORPORATE
SPORTS
MARKT'EING
GROUP,
MC.,
T.
AL.,
Appellees.
I
APPELLANT'S
MOTION FORWHEARING
OF
ORDERENTERED
ON
ANUARY
28,2009
2
5.
4
i
gz
COMES
NOW,
the
Appellant,
Mark
A.
Adarns,
pursuant
to
Fed&
R&
of
Bankruptcy
-
-
Procedure
801
5,
and
files
this
timely
motion
for
rehearing
of
the
Order
entend
by
this
Court
on
January
28,2009
showing
the
facts
andcontrollingprecedent
which
ihis
Court
overlooked
or
ignored
as
foUows:
PROCEDURAL
RRORS
No
order
was
entered
revoking
any
discharge.
The
Order
enteredby
this
Court
on
January
28,2009
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
"Ordef')
(Docket
#
33)
armed
the
Default
Final
Judgmententered
againstthe
Appellant
in
a
bankruptcy
adversaryproceeding
in
Case
No.
8:06-ap-00
85-PMG
and
af5nne.d
the
"Order
entered
in
the
main
Chapter
7
ankruptcy
case,
Case
No.
:05-bk-29501-PMG
(Docket.
9-22),
revoking
Adams'
discharge
based
on
he
Default
Final
Judgment.
."
(Empbasis
added.)
However,
no
complaint
to
revoke
any
discharge
was
ever
filed
concerning
Case
No.
8:05-bk-
2950
I-PMG
as
the
Bankruptcy
Court
entered
an
Order
Denying
Dischargeof
Debtor
based
 
solely on it's erroneous entry of a default judgment against the Appellant Debtor
in
the adversaryproceeding. (B: 21)'
The Appellee, Timothy
W.
Weber, was improperly allowedto supplement the record after the Appellant's Initial
Brief
was
ded.
On
November 14,2008, the Appellee, Timothy W. Weber, appearing pro se, filed theAppellees' Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal and Extend the Time Period for Filing
an
Answer Brief
to
One Week Following the Transmittal of the Complete Record (Docket
#
19)
(hereinafter referred to
as
"Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record") with a certificate ofservice falsely claiming to have served a copy to the undersigned via
U.S.
Mail. The recordshows that no hearing was held on Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record before it wasgranted by entry of an order by the Honorable Richard A.
Lazzara
on November 14,2008(Docket
#
20).The Appellant filed a motion to vacate the Order allowing Weber to supplement therecord (Docket
#
25) showing that such Order was entered without notice or
an
opportunity to beheard and that it was untimely
as
it was filed 42 days past the deadline for Weber to file adesignation of additional items to be included in the record and
two
weeks after the Appellant's
Initial
Brief had been filed. The Appellant's motion (Docket
#
25) showed that Weber failed toshow good cause why
an
extension of time to supplement the record should
be
granted, that
'
All references to the Records on Appeal,
as
designated by the Appellant,
are
referred to
as
follows:
B
for the Records on Appeal fiom Bankruptcy Case No. 8:05-bk-29501-PMG found inthis Court's Docket
#
9;
AVl
for the
first
volume of Records on Appeal from Adversary
Case
No. 8:06-ap-00185-PMG found in this Court's Docket
#
10;
and AV2 for the second volume ofRecords on Appealfrom Adversary Case No. 8:06-ap-00185-PMG found in this Court's Docket
#
1
1
followed by this Court's docket number for the item referenced followed by the pagenumber or paragraph
if
necessary. The Appellees did not timely file any designation of items tobe included in the record on appeal.
 
Weber failed to show that his failure to act in a timely manner was the result of excusableneglect, and that Weber filed it on the Friday just before his answer brief was due.Furthermore, the Appellant's motion to vacate the Order allowing Weber to supplementthe record (Docket
#
25)
showed that Weber falsely claimed that no party would be prejudicedby granting Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record in an obvious effort to mislead this Courtand that Weber's false claim was absurd
as
the undersigned filed and served the Appellant'sInitial Brief (Docket
#
18) on October 3 1,2008, a fact which Weber failed to mention, andWeber sought to introduce documents not addressed in the Initial Brief, an action which wouldobviously cause prejudice to the undersigned Appellant. As usual, Weber did not verify hismotion or submit an affidavit in support of it because it was filled with blatant lies. (Docket
#
19).In spite of the foregoing, this Court entered an Order on December 23,2008, denying theAppellant's motion to vacate the Order allowing Weber to supplement the record without evenrequiring Weber to file a response. As a result, the Appellant suffered severe prejudice
and
wasdeprived of due process as he was deprived of his right to file an Initial Brief based on the recordbefore the Court, and therefore, the Court should have vacated the Order allowing Weber tosupplement the record, struck the supplemental items and Weber's Answer Brief fiom therecord, and proceeded with the determination of this appeal based on the Appellant's Initial Briefor the Court should have allowed the Appellant to file an amended initial brief based on theimproperly supplemented record.As the Court deprived the Appellant of his right to file an initial brief based on the recordbefore the Court, this Court's Order entered on January 28,2009 (Docket
#
33)
should bevacated, and as shown infra, this Court should either enter an order requiring the Bankruptcy
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
markadamsjdmba

If you want to know why the justice system is dominated by kangaroo courts, see Why Does the Government Ignore Our Wishes? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/w... and don’t miss my 18 minute speech.

reply06 / 24 / 2010
markadamsjdmba

If you take a look, you’ll learn why those in power and those who can influence them get away with violating our rights, abusing their power, and committing horrible crimes. My article on torture includes a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case which explains how one of our stolen rights makes the difference between justice and injustice, between freedom and slavery.

06 / 24 / 2010
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...