You are on page 1of 24



Larry R. Bradshaw

vs. CASE NO._______________




Petitioner, Larry R. Bradshaw, pro se, pursuant to Fla. App. Rule

9.030(b)(3), and Rule 9.100(a), files this “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” to

direct Judge Joseph C. Fuller, and Michael McHugh, of the Twentieth

Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County Florida, Civil Division, to reinstate

case number 07-CA-011562 (Washington Mutual Bank F/K/A Washington

Mutual Bank FA, Successor by merger to BankUnited FSB F/K/A Bank

United of Texas FS), which was erroneously dismissed by Judge Elisabeth

Adams (substitute judge) without a written order on July 07, 2008, and order

Judge McHugh to dismiss case no. 08-CA-055974 (US Bank National

Association as Trustee for GSMPS 2004-4), under the doctrine of res

adjudicate and or collateral estoppel, and states:



This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article

V. Section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and Fla. App. Rule[s] 9.030(b)

(3) and 9.100(a). The Petitioner (Larry R. Bradshaw) seeks the

extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus as relief in regards to the

summary dismissal of Case No. 07-CA-011562 by Judge Adams, (Exhibit P-

1), without a written order signed, filed or served. But where, attorney

Cindy Runyun, filed the Form 1.998 Final Disposition on 7/3/08, indicating

the case was dismissed before hearing and that Plaintiff was the prevailing

party (Exh. P-6). This document is in conflict with the online Docket (Exh.

P-11) which shows the case was voluntary dismissed after hearing on 7/9/08.

A similar Form was attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss sent ex parte

to Judge Steinbeck (Exh. P-13) which resulted in a Judicial Memorandum

being issued by Judge Steinbeck (Exh P-14) where Judge Steinbeck

admonished attorney Cindy Runyun for asking her to sign an order in

chamber without a hearing (ex-parte) and advised attorney Runyun that

dismissal does not require an order of the court, it is done by filing a notice

pursuant to Rule 1.420(a). Petitioner would advise the court for clarity,

regarding the note at the bottom of the page, which mentions the return of

the original note. Plaintiff’s requested the return of the original note at 4. on

the ex parte Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the case and cancel Lis Pendens

(Exh. P-13) which Judge Steinbeck filed in the court and served on the

Defendant, to which defendant filed his verified motion to strike the motion

to voluntarily dismiss the case and cancel lis pendens on 6/17/2008. Judge

Steinbeck apparently responding to defendant’s motion issued the judicial

memorandum dated 6/18/2008. The following Notice of Voluntary Case

Dismissal contains the same request, to which Defendant/Petitioner agrees

with Judge Steinbeck that the original documents were never filed because

they were an issue for discovery that was never satisfied. It must be noted

that, in the succeeding case no. 08-CA-055974, Plaintiff counsel argued in

case no. 08-CA-055974 in a Memorandum of law in opposition to

Defendant’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing @ 7. that case no. 07-CA-

011562 had been voluntarily dismissed because it was brought in the name

of the wrong plaintiff. (Exh. P-15).

Notwithstanding, that the only motions set for hearing on 7/7/08 was

defendant’s motions to strike and summary judgment, Judge Adams,

(relying on statements of stand-in attorney Brian Hummel, that a notice of

voluntary dismissal had been filed, but had not been put into the docket),

summarily dismissed the case on July 07, 2008. Florida Default Law Group,

counsel for Washington Mutual Bank FKA et al, filed a notice of voluntary

dismissal on July 9, 2008 (Exhibit P-2) signed by attorney Cindy Runyun.

Defendant/Petitioner in response filed, Defendant’s Motion to

Disregard Judge Adams order dismissing the case without prejudice and

motion to strike Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary case dismissal and reinstate

case no. 07-CA-011562 and enter default on Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment (Exh. P-3), and Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s

notice of voluntary case dismissal for fraud (Exh. P-4). To which Judge

Fuller refused to hear the motions on jurisdictional grounds (Exh. P-5)

where he assumed without reading defense motion, that the case had been

legally dismissed by a valid notice of voluntary dismissal. It must be noted

that the record contains Court Minutes dated 9/29/08 which indicate another

hearing was held (Exh. P-7), where no one appeared and no action was


This case is rich with discrimination against the pro se litigant who

has diligently followed the rules of court, only to be blindsided time and

again by unscrupulous attorneys and wayward judges who embellished the

occasion to violate the rules of court and this litigants rights to due process

of law. Acts including placing a microphone in the gallery and restricting

the pro se litigants access to the hallowed bar to present his case. And the

acts of Judge McHugh and Judge Richards, both claiming to have heard

defendants arguments at hearing on plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Exh. P-

18) that was set for hearing in Judge McHugh’s Court on February 22, 2010

at 11:00 A.m. EST, but was not heard by Judge McHugh, evidenced by

Defendant personally being in McHugh’s court room, where upon checking

in with McHugh’s judicial assistant discovered the case was not on

McHugh’s docket. At that discovery McHugh’s assistant directed defendant

to go to Judge Richards Court on a lower floor where the case had been

transferred. Defendant and his father hurried to Judge Richards Court room

only to find the door was locked, but there were two attorneys in the court

room alone. Defendant recognized one attorney as being Gregg Goetz.

Defendant immediately returned to Judge McHugh’s court where his

assistant personally escorted defendant to Judge Richards Court Room to

find the door locked. She asked defendant and his father to wait as she

searched for someone with a key to get into the court room. Upon returning

the door was unlocked by a bailiff and all went inside where the assistant

checked the computer in Judge Richards Court. The assistant after observing

the computer told defendant that Judge Richards had heard the case and

denied plaintiff’s motion to compel, which is consistent with the minutes

from Judge Richards Court dated 2/22/10 (Exh. P-19). However, on 3/15/10

Judge McHugh issued a “corrected Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in

which he stated, “ This cause having come before the Court on February 22.

2010, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and having reviewed the

aforementioned documents and having heard the arguments of Plaintiff

counsel and the Defendant, and being otherwise fully advised in the

premises, it is ordered and adjudged as follows: 1. Plaintiff Motion to

Compel is hereby granted. 2 Defendant has twenty (20) days to respond to

discovery”. (Exh. P-20). There are no minutes recorded in Judge McHugh’s


Defendant filed an objection to the corrected order (Exhibit 22) and a

Motion to Disqualify Judge McHugh with affidavit which he denied as

legally insufficient, but the docket only shows the objection being filed on

3/25/10. Defendant amended his Motion to disqualify Judge McHugh and

refilled it on 4/5/10, with a similar denial on 4/14/10. The pro se Petitioner

is confused as to how two different judges heard the same arguments at the

same time on the same day when they were on two different floors of the

Court House. Defendant’s verified Motion to Disqualify Judge McHugh in

case no. 08-CA-055974 explains in painful detail, the fraud on the court by

deceitful actions on the part of Judge McHugh. (Exh. P-16 and affidavit Exh.

P-17, incorporate herein as though fully set forth in this Petition), which

Judge McHugh denied as legally insufficient.

The Courts failure, for whatever reason, (See Exhibit P-21 for a

possible reason), to follow the Rules of Court and prevailing case law, is a

departure from the requirements of due process of law and has cause

Petitioner (Larry R. Bradshaw) irreparable financial and emotional distress,

in which there are no other adequate remedies.


(a) This Petition for Writ of Mandamus is filed as a result of the same

case having been filed three times, against the Petitioner by two different

plaintiffs, retaining the same law firm, each claiming to be the holder in due

course of the original note, from which all three actions arose. Case No. 06-

CA-004271 was filed on 10/2/2006, by Washington Mutual Bank FKA, et

al, and voluntarily dismissed on 1/11/2007. Case No. 07-CA-011562,at

issue in this Petition, was filed on 9/27/2007 and recorded as voluntary

dismissal after hearing on 7/9/2008 pursuant to the online docket,

notwithstanding there was no hearing on 7/9/08, and the case was dismissed

without cause by the Court on 7/7/08 as recorded in the court minutes by

Judge Adams at defendant’s motion for summary judgment hearing, but no

written order was ever signed, filed or served. The Third filing by plaintiff

US Bank National Association ATF GSMPS, on 6/26/2010 is also at issue,

and presently ongoing as a result of the McHugh Court’s refusal to Stay the

case under Rule 1.420(d) pending Defendant’s Motion for Costs, which

must be filed within 30 days of a final order. Leaving Petitioner (Larry R.

Bradshaw) without a remedy, wherein Judge Adams never signed an

appealable order, the Notice of voluntary dismissal is a legal nullity, as it

was signed by an attorney not of record, who had not complied with Judge

Steinbeck’s order dated April 18, 2008 (Exh. P-8), to rectify the issue of

attorney of record, after being alerted to the fact, that the Attorney of record

Kiersten Jensen, had abandoned the case soon after filing the original

complaint. Neither plaintiff nor plaintiff counsel made any attempt to

comply with substitute judge, Judge Steinbeck’s order, leaving the case

without counsel, and every document, pleading and Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal a legal nullity. However, Florida Default Law Group, Inc., re-

filed the same action the third time on 12/23/2008 under the name of US

Bank National Association AFT GSMPS. The present case while filed by

attorney William Malone, who has apparently abandoned the case as

attorney of record, because all other documents filed in that case were signed

by other attorneys who have not made the required notice of appearance.


The Petitioner is requesting that his Writ of Mandamus be

granted and that this Court direct Judge Fuller to reinstate case no. 07-CA-

011562 and grant defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis

of a egregious default by plaintiff and plaintiff counsel, and order Judge

McHugh to dismiss case no. 08-CA-055974. Petitioner request that the

records of both cases referenced be called up and considered by this

honorable court, and order the judges and or Clerk of Courts to remove the

gallery microphones, and reinstate the pro se dignity and deserved respect to

the court rooms, and order restitution as allowed by law in both cases.



Petitioner is between the proverbial “rock and a hard place” where

case No. 07-CA-011562 was dismissed without cause by Judge Adams, or a

written appealable order, and the legally deficient, Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal, filed by an attorney not of record, who at the time of filing the

notice was in contempt of Judge Steinbeck’s order, to rectify the issue of

attorney of record, and Judge Fuller’s refusal to consider defendant’s Motion

to disregard Judge Adams order dismissing the case without prejudice and

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary case dismissal and reinstate

case number 07-CA-011562 and enter default on the defendant’s motion for

summary judgment.

The instant case is the third action filed by Florida Default Law

Group Inc., purportedly representing Washington Mutual Bank FKA

Washington Mutual Bank FA in cases’ 06-CA-004271, 08-CA-011562, and

US Bank National Association as Trustee for GSMPS 2004-4 case no. 08-

CA-055974. The instant action was filed after case number 07-CA-011562,

was wrongfully dismissed by Judge Adams without cause and without the

signed, written, (appealable) order required for a final judgment, which

clears the way for the prevailing party to file his motion for costs. See State

v Siegel, 662 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 1995) where the Court

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the record on appeal did

not contain a signed, written order of the trial court, citing Fla. R. App. P.

9.020(g), and 9.140(c)(2); State v. Smith, 557 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st. DCA

1990). Where the Defendant has 30 days to file his motion for costs

pursuant to Rule 1.525 “Motion for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees” absent a

final order of the court the time has not begin to run (Rule 1.525- Any party

seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys; fees, or both shall serve a

motion no later that 30 days after the filing of the judgment, including a

judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal). In

the instant case, the record is void of any final order, signed, written or

judgment entered. And the notice of voluntary dismissal filed by Cindy

Runyun was moot, because it was filed two days after the case was

dismissed without cause by Judge Adams. Notwithstanding the Notice

being moot when filed, the Notice of voluntary dismissal was a legal nullity,

because the attorney of record in the case as of the hearing dated 7/7/08, on

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, had abandoned the case, and

no substitute counsel had been legally admitted, and no additional attorneys

could be legally added where there was no supervision of an attorney of

record. See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Prop., 693 So. 2d 82 (Fla. App.

2 Dist 1997). Nor did any additional attorneys’ file any notice of appearance

in that case. The Notice of Voluntary dismissal was not served on defendant

prior to the hearing.

The record shows substitute judge, Judge Adams, presided over the

hearing set by defendant on his motion to Dismiss with prejudice or Motion

for Summary Judgment on 07/07/2008, where plaintiff nor plaintiff counsel

was not in appearance. Notwithstanding, Judge Adams, dismissed the action

without cause, (did not grant or deny any motions set for hearing that day)

and retained jurisdiction to consider defendant’s oral motion for costs, in the

event the case was refilled. The record shows that both attorneys’ of record,

Kiersten Jensen, and Barbara Leon, abandoned the case, See Order setting

case management conference dated March 18, 2008 (Exh. P-9), an order

dated 4/25/08 (Exh. P-8), and Court minutes dated 4/25/2008 (Exh. P-10).

Judge Margret Steinbeck, after being made aware of the improper status of

counsel, issued an order on April 18, 2008 directing Plaintiff and Plaintiff

counsel to resolve the issue of who represents Plaintiff, by means of a

Motion or Stipulation of Counsel, prior to the Final Summary Judgment

hearing on May 9, 2008. Judge Steinbeck amended her 4/01/08 order on

4/25/08 to allow 30 days from the amended order, after Plaintiff noticed the

court to cancel the hearing on summary judgment set for 5/9/08. (The court

will notice a conflict between the Court minutes, orders and the online

docket) (Exhibit P-11) The record is void of any, “motion to withdraw from

attorney Kiersten Jensen, or entry of appearance by Hollan Fintell as ordered

by the Court. Notwithstanding, that attorney Kiersten Jensen and Barbara

Leon, had abandoned the case, and Plaintiff nor Florida Default Law Group

inc., the firm claiming to represent plaintiff, had not complied with the court

order. Substitute judge, Judge Adams (another substitute judge), being

unfamiliar with the history of the case, was reminded by of Judge

Steinbeck’s order, however, defendant’s noticing the new judge, of the status

of the case, fell on deaf ears. Evidenced by Judge Adams allowing (over

defendant’s objection), attorney Brian Hummel a “passer-by” in the court on

another case, to come forward to represent plaintiff in defiance and or

disregard of Judge Steinbeck’s order for plaintiff and plaintiff counsel to

rectify the issue of who represents the plaintiff. Judge Adams also

disregarded, Rule 2.060(j), which requires additional attorneys to file a

notice of appearance with the court and serve a copy of the notice of

appearance on all parties in the proceeding. Judge Adams not only allowed

attorney Brian Hummel to stand-in for plaintiff without the required notice

of appearance, but also granted him a 15 minute recess, so that he could

contact attorney, Cindy Runyun, regarding her absence. Although the record

does not contain evidence of compliance with the Court order, Cindy

Runyun had purportedly been assigned the case by the Firm (Florida Default

Law Group Inc.), who was aware of Judge Steinbeck’s Order to rectify the

issue of attorney of record, but who had not complied with the order.

Attorney Cindy Runyun, had not made an appearance in the case, nor had

attorney Jensen filed her motion to withdraw. At that time attorneys’

Jensen, Runyun, Leon and Fintell were in violation of both the rules of court

and a court order, which has not been rectified to this day.

Upon re-convening, the hearing set by defendant on his motion for

summary judgment on 7/7/08, attorney Hummel, told Judge Adams, that

Cindy Runyun had filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on Friday the 4th but

it had not been placed in the docket as of the time of hearing.

Notwithstanding, that there was no notice of voluntary dismissal in the

record, or that Rule 1.420(a) does not allow the Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal to be served at the hearing on summary judgment, or that attorney

Cindy Runyun had not complied with Judge Steinbeck’s order to resolve the

issue of counsel of record, nor had attorney Kiersten Jensen or Barbara Leon

complied with Rule 2.060(i). (See Pasco County v Quail Hollow Prop., 693

So. 2d 82 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1997)), or that attorney Hummel had no

standing to speak on behalf of plaintiff, Judge Adams dismiss the case

without prejudice, and reserving jurisdiction to hear defendant’s oral motion

for costs. Judge Adams also ordered Brian Hummel to prepare the order.

Notwithstanding that not one attorney could legally represent plaintiff, Judge

Adams refused to perform her ministerial duty to grant defendant’s motion

to dismiss with prejudice or in the alternative Motion for Summary

judgment, and that record is void of any such order having been entered

on the record or served on the defendant.

On 7/9/2008, two days after the hearing, a notice of voluntary

dismissal was filed and served, signed by attorney Cindy Runyun, with the

certification of service dated July 3, 2008. Defendant filed a Motion to

Disregard Judge Adams Order Dismissing the case without prejudice and

motion to strike plaintiff’s notice of voluntary case dismissal and reinstate

case No: 07-CA-011562 and enter default on defendants Motion for

summary judgment, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice of

voluntary case dismissal for fraud. Judge Fuller the originally assigned

judge, declined to rule stating in court minutes dated 9/15/08 ( “This case

was previously voluntarily dismissed. The court does not have jurisdiction to

address the motions.”). Judge Fuller did note there plaintiff attorney was

Mitchell Rothman, who was also in violation of the rules before stated.

Judge Adams and Judge Fuller seem to be unaware that Florida appellant

courts are unanimous that such actions, by an attorney not of record, are a

legal nullity. See Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Prop., cited above and

Boca Burger, Inc., v Forum, SC01-1830 (Fla. 2005) with regard to

compliance with the judicial administration rules which multiple other

courts have found to operate to render noncompliant pleadings a nullity. And

Hicks v. Hicks, 715 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); and Bortz v. Bortz, 675

So. 2d 622-624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), “We regard the Department of

Corrections’ motion for rehearing or certification, which was filed by an

attorney who is not of record in this case, because it is a legal nullity.” The

last document in the docket of case number 07-CA-011562 is the court

minutes dated 9/29/2008 (Exh. P-7) of a hearing that was not set or noticed

by either plaintiff or defendant, and no motion had been noticed for hearing,

but Judge Fuller noted the Plaintiff attorney to be, Kiersten E. Jensen.

Florida’s’ 2nd District Court of Appeals in Service Experts v.

Northside A/C. 2D09-5416 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 9-22-2010) addressed the issue

of limited exceptions to a plaintiff’s “absolute” right to take a voluntary

dismissal as a matter of right: (1) if there is fraud on the court, (2) if the

defendant can establish the common law exception to the right of voluntary

dismissal, or (3) if the plaintiff dismisses the case at a stage which is deemed

the equivalent of a summary judgment. Id. The common law exception to a

voluntary dismissal was articulated by the Fifth District in Ormond Beach.

In that case, the parties were embroiled in litigation for ten years. 835 So.2d

at 194. Defendant Ormond Beach filed a summary judgment motion and the

matter was set for hearing. Id. Three days before the scheduled summary

judgment hearing, the plaintiff served a notice of voluntary dismissal

without prejudice. Id. The trial court recognized the voluntary dismissal and

found the pending summary judgment motion moot. However, the Court

recognized that; “Other courts have interpreted the fraud exception to apply

where the notice of dismissal itself is considered an attempt to commit fraud

on the court. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 790 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla.

2d DCA 2001) (concluding that trial court was required to accept notice of

voluntary dismissal where “the court made no finding of fraud, and there is

no basis in the record to find that the notice constituted a fraud on the court”)

(emphasis added); Romar Int’l Inc., v. Jim Rathman Chevorlet/Cadillac,

Inc., 420 So.2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) ( “A narrow exception [to the

plaintiff’s right to voluntary dismiss his lawsuit] exist where a fraud on the

court is attempted by the filing of a voluntary dismissal….”) (emphasis

added). Defendant asserts that, in case 07-CA-011562 the notice of

dismissal was not filed or served until after the summary judgment hearing,

by an attorney not of record, who was in violation of a court order, as well as

numerous rules of court stated above. Defendant asserts that plaintiff and

plaintiff’s counsel’s, refusal to comply with the rules of court or the order of

Judge Steinbeck to rectify the issue of counsel of record ,combined with

attorney Brian Hummel misleading Judge Adams regarding when the Notice

of Voluntary Dismissal was filed constitutes a fraud on the court.

The question for this court is: if case no. 07CA-011562 is still

open, due to fraud or gross incompetence by both the attorneys and the

rainbow of judges, does the trial court in case no. 08-CA-055974,

notwithstanding the mandatory stay of Rule 1.420(d), have jurisdiction

to proceed? Based on the foregoing facts contained in the court records

and the applicable rules, statutes and common law applied, there appears to

be two separate and distinct cases, (1) case number 07-CA-011562 listing

plaintiff as Washington Mutual Bank, FKA Washington Mutual Bank FA,

and (2) case no. 08-CA-055974 listing U.S. Bank National Association as

trustee for GSMPS 2004-4) (Exh. P-12), both suing as “owner and holder”

of the same note and mortgage, but absent an unbroken chain of

assignments, and both cases are plagued with the same defiant attorneys who

appear to scoff at the rules of court, evidenced by a multitude of different

attorneys who have appeared in the past and present action, without filing

any notice of appearance and especially the present Motion for Summary

Judgment filed in case no. 08-CA-055974, another legal nullity, having been

signed by attorney Frances Johnson, another attorney not or record, as

required by Rule 2.060(d) and common law authorities.

The records of case no. 07-CA-011562 and 08-CA-055974 contains

sufficient evidence of what appears to be collusion between the attorneys of

Florida Default Law Group and certain judges, who have seen fit to conduct

their courts in manner that defies the rule of law, and Petitioner’s

Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of law. Judge

Fuller and Judge McHugh have neglected their duty of care, and allowed or

furthered an egregious discrimination against the pro se Petitioner to occur,

by commission or omission, resulting in a legal quandary resembling “Fraud

on the Court.”

This Court in 2007 addressed and clarified the issue of fraud on the

court which seems to fit here. In Miller v Nelms, 966 So. 2d 437 (Fla. App. 2

Dist 2007) this court acknowledged that fraud that warrants dismissal of a

complaint arises when it is clearly and convincingly demonstrated “that a

party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to

interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter

by improperly influencing the trier of facts or unfairly hampering the

presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense. “ Howard, v Risch,

959 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Where as here there is sufficient

evidence to suggest a high degree of collusion and partiality, where ex parte

communication was done on a regular basis, between the attorneys of

Florida Default Law Group, and certain judges in the Lee County Circuit

Court, Petitioner/defendants’ rights to due process of law has been trampled

on, pursuant to the explanation of the 5th District Court of Appeals in Luckey

v State, 5D06-3851 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 4-11-2008 citing Scull v. State, 569

So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 1990).

Petitioner contends that the plaintiff, plaintiff counsel and members of

the court have abused judicial and professional discretion and in so doing

has constructed a fraud on the court, resulting in a constitutional (both State

and Federal) violation of due process of law. The 1st Circuit Court of

Appeals in Independent Oil & Chem., v. Procter & Gamble, 864 F. 2d 927

(1st Cir 1988) stated, “Judicial discretion is necessarily broad-but it is not

absolute. Abuse occurs when a material factor deserving significant weight

is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and no

improper factors are assessed but the court makes a serious mistake in

weighing them.


Petitioner, Larry r. Bradshaw, pro se has been denied his right to due

process of law by the both court’s, Fuller and McHugh, where the two cases

have seen at least five different judges and at least 10 different attorneys,

none of which are in compliance with the Rules of Court, even William

Malone attorney of record in 08-CA-055974, has signed only the original

petition, all other motions have been signed by other attorneys not of record,

raising the issue of abandonment by William Malone as Kiersten Jensen in

case no. 07-CA-011562.

Petitioner (Larry R. Bradshaw) has been dragged through the mire of

incompetence or knowing malfeasance, or just simply “Fraud on the Court”

by collusion between the wayward judges and the conspiring attorneys, who

have egregiously defiled the integrity and impartiality of the Judicial System

in Lee County. In so doing, has left this petitioner with a non-final, un-

appealable order of dismissal in case no. 07-CA-011562. To which Judge

Fuller chose to ignore by or otherwise refused to hear defendant’s (Larry R.

Bradshaw) Motion to disregard Judge Adams Order Dismissing the Case

without prejudice and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Case

Dismissal and reinstate Case no. 07-CA-011562 and enter default on

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, based on a valid notice of

voluntary dismissal filed two day after defendant’s Summary Judgment

hearing was scuttled by Judge Adams without cause. Petitioner is prevented

from filing his motion for costs without a signed final order, and likewise

prevented from filing an appeal without a signed final order. Whereas the

notice of voluntary dismissal is not only a legal nullity it is moot because it

was filed after the case was dismissed by the Court, if that was legally

possible, has further boxed the Defendant/Petitioner into a legal corner

without remedy.. Petitioner cannot invoke the mandatory stay under Rule

1.420(d) in case no. 08-CA-055974 until he files his motion for Cost in 07-

CA-011562, which he cannot file without a final order. Petitioner asserts

that plaintiffs and plaintiff’s counsels have conspired with the Lee County

Court judges with intent to discriminate against a class of litigants called

“pro ses,” of which Larry R. Bradshaw is a member.

Petitioner contends that prohibiting a litigant from approaching

the bar or otherwise having the same rights and privileges as bar licensed

attorneys in prosecuting or defending their action, is a demeaning public act

of partiality and discrimination, wherein the court is conveying the message

that pro se litigants are an inferior class, that has now, been “outlawed” from

meaningful self-defense, or access to the Court, which speaks volumes about

the Courts impartiality, notwithstanding the court house, literally, belongs to

the people, and the Judges who sit in those court rooms are their servants,

not their masters. Petitioner further contends that to allow such

discrimination at the hands of bar licensed attorneys, would have the same

impact as allowing professional truck drivers to “outlaw” the private use of

our highways.


Petitioner asserts that the musical judges (different judge at every

hearing) has deprived petitioner/defendant of due process of law and has

prejudiced the pro se litigant who has diligently attempted to follow the rules

of court, but has found complacency or deliberate prejudicial behavior, in

the Lee County Judicial System. Petitioner asserts that the court order, by

Judge Adams in case no 07-CA-011562 is a non-final order, issued without

merit or basis in law, and that the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is both a

legal nullity and moot, rendering the case still pending, having no final

appealable order. And that case no 08-CA-055974 should be dismissed as a

matter of law. Petitioner request this Court grant the petition for Writ of

Mandamus ordering the Fuller Court to reinstate case no. 07-CA-011562

and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and order the Mc

Hugh Court in case no. 08-CA-055974 to dismiss that case under the

doctrine of res adjudicate or collateral estoppel. And order the judges and or

Clerk of Courts to remove the gallery microphones, and reinstate the pro se

dignity and deserved respect to the court rooms, and grant petitioner (Larry

R. Bradshaw) any other relief just due and owing.

Submitted by
Larry R. Bradshaw
18291 Useppa Rd.
Ft. Myers, Florida 33967
Ph# 239-770-7393


I, Larry R. Bradshaw, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been sent by U.S. Mail or hand delivered by private server to
the following parties on the _______day of November, 2010:

Florida Default Law Group P.L at P.O. Box 25018 Tampa, Florida 33622-
5018 Counsel for:



Judge Joseph Fuller,

Judge Margret Steinbeck,
Judge Elisabeth Adams,
Judge Michael McHugh,
Judge Hugh E. Starnes,
Judge George C. Richards
The Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court,
Justice Center, 2nd Floor
1700 Monroe Street
Ft. Myers, FL 33901.