IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

17
TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 10-048282 (18)

GRANT EINHORN and SANDRA EINHORN,
as husband and wife
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN
Defendants
_______________________________________/

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF AUGUST 8, 2011 AND DISMISS LAWSUIT USING
AUTHORITY ARISING FROM THE UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE

COME NOW the Defendants in this cause, STEVEN AND RENEE KOHN, by and
through their undersigned counsel, and move the Court to vacate the Order of August 8, 2011 in
accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), and dismiss this lawsuit using its
authority arising from the Unclean Hands Doctrine as a result of the infectious actions of
Plaintiff’s and their cohorts and further allege as follows:
1. That the Plaintiffs asked State Senator Eleanor Sobel to violate the Separation of Powers
Article of the Florida Constitution, which Senator Sobel acceded to on at least two occasions,
thereby causing serious injury to the Defendants, and causing a direct interference with the
nuisance injunction hearing of August 3-4 2011.
2. That the Plaintiffs knowingly made a false report to Hollywood Police Department, with
the intent and outcome of causing serious injury to the Defendants that directly interfered with
the nuisance injunction hearing of August 3-4 2011.
3. That Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath about the false report to Hollywood Police
Department.
4. That Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath about having been called by the Health
Department in July 2011, so that it would appear she was not attempting to stage an inspection to
interfere with the hearing in early August, 2011.
5. Either one of these events is cause for an order to vacate under Rule 1.540(b)(3) which
states that an order might relieve the Defendants from the judgment due to “fraud (whether
heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an
adverse party.” The misconduct that will be reviewed below also serves as a basis for a complete
dismissal of the lawsuit based on the unclean hands doctrine.
6. The United States and Florida Constitutions each establish a tripartite system of
government, in which the branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—are separate and
distinct. The Florida Constitution explicitly provides, in Article II Section 3:
“Branches of government.—The powers of the state government shall be divided into
legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall
exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly
provided herein.” [Emphasis added]

7. This principle of separation of powers is animated chiefly by the concern “that the fusion
of the powers of any two branches into the same department would ultimately result in the
destruction of liberty.” Chiles v. Children, 589 So. 2d 260, 263 (Fla. 1991) (citing Ponder v.
Graham, 4 Fla. 23, 42-43 (Fla. 1851); THE FEDERALIST NOS. 47, 51 (James Madison)).
8. The Florida Legislature is vested with the plenary authority to enact laws, subject only to
limitation by the state constitution. See generally United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607
(2000) (“Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated
in the Constitution.”); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 405 (1819); Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. 137, 176 (1803). Such laws are to apply prospectively and must be of general and uniform
application. [emphasis added] FLA.CONST.art. III, § 1; Bd. of Pub. Instruction v. Wright, 76
So. 2d 863, 864 (Fla. 1955) (en banc).
9. There are essentially two ways in which the principle of separation of powers can be
violated: (1) if one branch encroaches upon or nullifies the powers of another; or (2) if one
branch improperly delegates its own, or another branch’s, constitutionally-assigned authority to a
separate branch of government. Chiles v. Children, 589 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1991).
10. In Chiles, the Court wrote: “The separation of powers doctrine is expressly codified in
the Florida Constitution in article II, section 3: The powers of the state government shall be
divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch
shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided
herein”.
11. In Mistretta, the Supreme Court stated: “[O]ur Constitution mandates that "each of the
three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or
coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others," Humphrey's Executor v. United
States, 295 U. S. 602, 629 (1935) (emphasis added).
12. In Humprey’s, the Supreme Court stated “The fundamental necessity of maintaining each
of the three general departments of government entirely free from the control or coercive
influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others, has often been stressed and is hardly open to
serious question.”
13. A State Senator is a member of the Legislative branch of government. The Florida
Department of Health is a part of the Executive branch of government. Hollywood’s City
Attorney’s office is part of the local Executive branch of government.
14. Florida Statute 1003.428(2)(a)(4) requires "one half credit in United States government"
as a prerequisite for receiving a high school diploma. Plaintiffs Sandra and Grant Einhorn both
received high school diplomas from Florida public schools. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are surely
aware of our tripartite form of government and the separation of powers principle, and Plaintiffs
sought help from Senator Sobel, knowing the help they sought was illegal.
15. During the hearing on August 3-4, 2011, Sandra Einhorn admitted to having sought the
aid of Senator Sobel (pages 189 and 190 of the Transcript):
Q. Okay, let me rephrase. Can you think of
any other entity whatsoever that you called as a
result of the Kohns?
A. I would specify that all of my calls,
with the exception of the one with regards to
Child Protective Services, were all with regard to
either different harassment by the Kohns or the
chickens being on the Kohns' property and that
being a nuisance to me. With that said, yes I
made phone calls to every elected official that I
have wondering why the city and my elected
officials couldn't do more to help me and why I
was having to take this matter into my own hands,
and hire an attorney and go through this process.
Q. Okay, any other entity that you called
other than the ones I've named?
A. Umm --
MR. SILVERSTEIN: I think she answered
the question.
MR. LOW: I don't think she did.
THE COURT: I'll overrule it.
A. Okay, my city commissioner, my state
senator, my state representative, and my federal
house of representative congresswoman.

16. The only lawful powers that Senator Sobel have are legislative. (Fla Constitution Section
II Article 3). By asking Senator Sobel to cause pets to be removed from her neighbor’s property,
Einhorn asked Senator Sobel to use coercive influence or control over the normal operations of
an agency in the Executive branch of government. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs knowingly asked
Senator Sobel to violate the law on their behalf.
17. Plaintiff had access to Senator Sobel because the Senator is a personal friend of Steve
Einhorn, the father of Grant Einhorn. (See Exhibits, pp1-2 wherein Steve Einhorn, in a 5/17/11
email to Hollywood City Commissioner Linda Sherwood stated "I want to thank you for the time
you spend with me and my friend Eleanor Sobel today...").
18. Additionally, public records provided by the Florida Senate reveal that Senator Sobel’s
email account lists Sandra Einhorn as one of her personal contacts, listing her home address,
home phone, and mobile phone.
19. State Senator Eleanor Sobel (Legislative branch), acting on the requests of the Plaintiffs,
violated Article II Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, as well as the underlying principles of
the United States Constitution, by using her coercive influence to intervene with the operations
of the Florida Department of Health (Executive Branch) in such a way as to attempt to
circumvent, preempt, and/or influence the Judicial outcome in this case (Judicial Branch).
20. Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating the Health Department called her in July,
2011 and not vice versa, and Plaintiff’s witness, Lenora Chuchla, also appears to have played a
role in this misconduct.
21. On the afternoon of July 27, 2011, Department of Health investigators Anthony Vomero
and Luisa Oramas made a surprise visit to the Kohn residence saying that there was a report of
“unbearable smell causing a nuisance to the neighbors”, (See Exhibits p3), coming from an
accumulation of chicken manure. Mr. Kohn refused to allow them onto the property without a
search warrant and instead invited them to tour the perimeter of the property to determine if there
was a smell that could possibly cause a nuisance, since the nuisance was allegedly detectable
outside of the confines of the property. Neither Mr. Vomero nor Ms. Oramas could detect a
smell of any kind and stated so in his report (See Exhibits p3). Mr. Kohn allowed them to look
through the fence to see the chicken coop, but they were only interested in exploring the side of
the Kohn property that borders the Einhorns.
22. Earlier in the day on July 27, 2011, Carina Blackmore, (Chief, Bureau of Environmental
Public Health Medicine, State Public Health Veterinarian, State Environmental Epidemiologist)
had a telephone conversation with State Senator Eleanor Sobel, wherein Ms. Blackmore was
informed that Senator Sobel “is working with the Broward County Health Department
Environmental Health staff (Anthony Vomero) who is trying to get access to the property.” (See
email from Carina Blackmore dated July 27, 2011 8:36PM, Exhibits p4).
23. Ms. Blackmore’s email unambiguously indicates Senator Sobel’s personal involvement
in the administrative activities of the Department of Health and demonstrates that Senator Sobel
used her influence as a State Senator to gain action from the Department of Health; an activity
which is outside of her area of responsibility as a Senator, in direct violation of Article II Section
3 of the Florida Constitution.
24. At 6:39 PM on July 27, 2011 Richard Solze, Executive Office Director, Office of the
State Surgeon General, Florida Department of Health wrote an email to local Broward County
based Florida Department Of Health employees stating:
"Legal counsel has notified us that there are some people who live in the
Hollywood, Florida city limits who have chickens and goats that have become a
health nuisance to their neighbors. The neighbors have complained to our
Broward County Health Department who have referred the matter to legal
authorities for resolution. Depending on the legal ruling our CHD may be required to
survey the area for any potential health threat to the public. If the situation further
escalates there is also the chance that State Senator Sobel who represents the area might
become involved in the issue." (emphasis added) (Exhibits p4).

25. In this email, the State Surgeon General’s office indicates that this specific administrative
investigation of the Health Department is something that falls under the authority and scrutiny of
Senator Sobel. The implication is clear: take care of this problem or the Senator will get
involved, showing both control and coercive influence on the part of Senator Sobel.
26. The email from Mr. Solze unambiguously states that “neighbors have complained”,
which is consistent with the report attached (as Exhibits p3) that indicates a complaint was made.
It is not Department of Health procedure to call neighbors to ask if they smell anything bad on
their street, yet Sandra Einhorn testified that is what the DOH did:
From pages 253-255 of the Transcript (Exhibits pp5-8):

Q. And I'd just like to ask you another
question. Regarding the call that you made to the
Florida Department of Health; I remember you
saying you made that call about a year ago.
A. Uh huh.
Q. Is that true?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay, and have you placed any calls after
that to that same department?
A. No.
Q. As a follow-up?
A. No.
Q. Have you spoken to the Department of
Health in the last month?
A. I was contacted by the Department of
Health, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I did not call them. I was contacted by
them.
Q. And when was it that you were contacted
by them?
A. Maybe it was a couple weeks ago.
Q. And before a couple of weeks ago when you
were contacted by them; when was the last time you
spoke with them?
A. The initial time that I called.
Q. So your testimony is you've only spoken
with them twice. Once when you called last year
and once when they called two weeks ago?
A. I believe so, yes, regarding the Kohns,
yes.

27. Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating that the DOH called her and not vice versa.
Sandra Einhorn lied when stating that the contact had been a “couple of weeks ago.” Contact
was very recent, having taken place the previous week when the ‘investigation’ was opened. [See
the Department of Health’s letter of July 29, 2011 (Exhibits p9) to the Defendant, which stated in
part:
“In the current situation and based upon an alleged repeated violation pertaining to, yet
again, the accumulation of feces as a result of chickens, goats and sheep residing on the
property…”]

28. This Court personally visited both of the subject properties on March 24, 2011. It is an
undisputed fact that there were no goats or sheep on the Kohns’ property at that time, nor were
there any afterwards. Sandra. Einhorn lied to the Department of Health about the types of
animals that were being kept in July, 2011, as well as the condition of the property.
29. At 12:16PM on July 28, 2011, Paul Eicher, Chief Legal Counsel for Broward Department
of Health sent an internal email to a colleague stating:
“Please see attached draft letter as per our conversation yesterday afternoon. I
propose sending it both certified and regular mail. I inserted the date of August 9;
however, I am not sure what date would be appropriate. Please call me later, at
your convenience, so that I can share my thoughts. I also spoke with the
Hollywood City Attorney today and can share information re: injunction.
Please review the letter and let me know as I would like to have OGC approval
on it before I contact Sen. Sobel.” [emphasis added] (See Exhibits p11)

30. This letter clearly indicates that Mr. Eicher is reporting to Senator Sobel, that he
coordinated Health department activities with Hollywood’s City Attorney, and that Hollywood’s
City Attorney shared information with him about the instant injunction lawsuit, to which
Hollywood City is not a party. Copied on the draft are Hollywood City Attorneys Joel Cantor
and Jeff Sheffel. (Exhibits p13).
31. The statement about information that needed to be shared regarding the instant
injunction lawsuit proves indisputably that there was a connection between the actions of
the Department of Health, the interests of Hollywood City government, and the instant
lawsuit; otherwise the injunction lawsuit would have been as irrelevant to DOH business as the
outcome of a ballgame.
32. The final version of the letter (Exhibits pp9-10) has the names of all three attorneys
removed and replaced by non-attorneys, suggesting that someone recommended the removal of
their names.
33. The final version of the letter, mailed on July 29, 2011, also falsely indicates that a
violation had previously been found in 2010, even though DOH records indicated that no
violation had been found (See report of September 2010 on complaint number 06-99-175282,
Exhibits p14).
34. After receiving the final copy of the letter, Mr. Kohn wrote a letter to Dr. Thaqi (the final
author) on July 31, 2011, explaining the reasons why the letter is inaccurate, and why a search is
not warranted. (Exhibits pp15-25)
35. At 6:31PM on July 31, 2011, Mr. Eicher wrote an email convening a meeting to discuss
obtaining a search warrant (Exhibits p26).
36. On August 2, 2011, the search warrant was applied for and granted. The warrant
affidavit (Exhibits pp27-33) contains a paragraph about the putative Code violation (Exhibits
p31) , which, being wholly irrelevant to whether said animals were being kept in a manner that
constitutes a health-endangering nuisance, demonstrates a connection between the interests of
Hollywood City and the search warrant being sought.
37. The search warrant affidavit indicates correctly that there were never any nuisance
conditions observed or detected, that previous complaints all resulted in an absence of a nuisance
being detected, and that there is no reason to believe a nuisance could exist.
38. Keeping in mind that the alleged purpose of visiting the Kohn property was to discover
the source of an “unbearable smell causing a nuisance to the neighbors”, it is noteworthy that the
stated purpose of obtaining a search warrant was because “The inspectors, due to the recurring
nature of this complaint have reason to believe that access to the property is necessary to
evaluate and determine the existence of a sanitary nuisance and related odors on the property.”
In other words, the Department of Health had already determined that there was no nuisance that
could be detected at all from the perimeter of the Kohn’s property, and were now limiting their
investigation to the inside of the Kohns property.
39. When the fact that the Department of Health could not possibly have been seeking a
public health nuisance (as per the warrant affidavit), is combined with the timing of the search on
the first day of a 2 day hearing on this matter, the obvious conclusion is that the incentive in
continuing the investigation were the unclean interests of Hollywood’s City attorneys and
Senator Eleanor Sobel, who was overseeing the ‘investigation.’
40. In addition, the search warrant was granted illegally. Florida statutes explicitly state the
only conditions under which a private residence can be searched, all of which are completely
absent from the warrant affidavit:
“933.18 When warrant may be issued for search of private dwelling.—No search warrant
shall issue under this chapter or under any other law of this state to search any private dwelling
occupied as such unless:
(1) It is being used for the unlawful sale, possession, or manufacture of intoxicating liquor;
(2) Stolen or embezzled property is contained therein;
(3) It is being used to carry on gambling;
(4) It is being used to perpetrate frauds and swindles;
(5) The law relating to narcotics or drug abuse is being violated therein;
(6) A weapon, instrumentality, or means by which a felony has been committed, or evidence
relevant to proving said felony has been committed, is contained therein;
(7) One or more of the following child abuse offenses is being committed there:
(a) Interference with custody, in violation of s. 787.03.
(b) Commission of an unnatural and lascivious act with a child, in violation of s. 800.02.
(c) Exposure of sexual organs to a child, in violation of s. 800.03.
(8) It is in part used for some business purpose such as a store, shop, saloon, restaurant, hotel,
boardinghouse, or lodginghouse;
(9) It is being used for the unlawful sale, possession, or purchase of wildlife, saltwater
products, or freshwater fish being unlawfully kept therein; or
(10) The laws in relation to cruelty to animals, as provided in chapter 828, have been or are
being violated therein.”

41. The fact that the warrant was granted does not make it legal or justified. In MALLEY v.
BRIGGS, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when
“no officer of reasonable competence would have requested the warrant,” a “magistrate
[who] issues the warrant [makes] not just a reasonable mistake, but an unacceptable error
indicating gross incompetence or neglect of duty.” Id., at 346, n. 9. In such cases, “[t]he
officer . . . cannot excuse his own default by pointing to the greater incompetence of the
magistrate.” Ibid.

42. The Department of Health does not have jurisdiction to inspect a private residence for
potential health hazards. While self-evident, the Broward DOH explicitly stated it when refusing
to inspect a home in March, 2012, after a decomposing human corpse had been found in it. Sun
Sentinel article of March 23, 2012 reported (Exhibits pp34-35) :
“A man who lived alone lay dead on the couch for about a month, until neighbors
alarmed by the odor called police.

County officials say they can't declare the house a health hazard, said Candy
Sims, a spokeswoman for the Broward County Health Department.

"We have no jurisdiction," she said. "It's a city issue."”

Senator Sobel’s coercive influence was enough to cause the DOH to knowingly exceed their
jurisdiction in seeking a search warrant of a private residence.
43. When the Department of Health arrived to execute the search warrant on August 3, 2011,
during the first day of the two day evidentiary hearing in the instant case, Local10 News
Reporter Jeff Weinsier, a personal friend of Grant and Sandra Einhorn, was present with a
professional TV videographer to film the search. (See stills from the video taken from Kohn’s
security system, Exhibits pp36-37). It was subsequently broadcast on the evening news on
August 3, 2011 on Local10 News.
44. The only way Mr. Weinsier could have known to be there would be if he was specifically
tipped off about the occurrence and exact time of the inspection. All other members of the press
that had an interest in this case were at the Courthouse at that time, covering the first day of the
hearing live. Only the Department of Health, Senator Sobel, and presumably her friends [the
Einhorns] could have known in advance when the search was to take place, thus giving Mr.
Weinsier enough time to call his videographer and get to the house for the 10 minute search.
45. Although the search warrant only covered the outside of the property, the Department of
Health inspectors unconstitutionally broadened the search by demanding access to the inside of
the house as well. Their entry and exit of the house was captured on the Kohns’ automated
security system and stills are included as Exhibits pp38-42. Video of the entire encounter is
included on CD.
46. After Mr. Vomero left with Luisa Oramos, she wrote a report stating in part (Exhibits
p3)

“The inspector did not notice any bad odor or conditions that will create any
Sanitary Nuisance. Also, there were no conditions conducive to the propagation
of insects at the time of inspection. During the inspection we observed 20 ducks
and 16 chickens running around, however the backyard was well kept and clean.”

Just as this Court observed on March 24, 2011, the property was well kept and clean. The report
of an ‘unbearable’ odor was yet another false call (in addition to the previous false calls the DOH
knew of from the Einhorns, in 2010).
47. The August 3-4, 2011 hearing in the instant case was a high profile event at the
Courthouse and on the news. Vast numbers of people were discussing the case.
48. This Court would have been expected to consider the existence of a search warrant
granted by the 17
th
Circuit Court as a factual declaration that probable cause that a public
nuisance existed at the Defendant’s property and this Court could have—and some might say
should have—been influenced by its existence.
49. The combination of the well-timed false report of Sandra Einhorn, unconstitutional
coercive influence of Senator Sobel [requested by the Plaintiffs], and collusion of Hollywood’s
City attorneys [customers of Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn], caused a search to be executed and
broadcast on the news, caused a needless invasion of the Kohn’s home, and was deliberately
timed to interfere with the outcome of the hearing of August 3-4, 2011.
50. On July 26, 2011 at 3:12PM, Hollywood Police Department Crime Prevention Specialist
Kathy Skinner informed Major Joseph Healey (head of code enforcement) via email that "Lenora
Chucla wanted info on the raid recently done there, and to let you know the trial is next week
8/3." (Exhibits pp44-46). Ms. Chuchla was one of the Plaintiff’s witnesses who testified at trial
and knew when the hearing was taking place.
51. The aforementioned Department of Health report states that the initial complaint was
received on 7/26/2011, the same day Lenora Chuchla contacted Hollywood Police Department.
52. It would be an astounding coincidence that Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn, two of her friends,
(Senator Sobel and Lenora Chuchla), and Hollywood’s City Attorney, within the span of 24
hours, could have independently (without coordination of some sort) all made contacts with
authorities who ultimately participated in the unconstitutional search of August 3, 2011.
53. In response to Ms. Chuchla's request for information, Major Healey asked Danzell
Brooks to call Ms. Chuchla to give her information about a search warrant executed against the
Kohns on June 8, 2011. At the time, Mr. Kohn himself could obtain no information about the
search or investigation because it was an 'open investigation,' yet HPD appeared to have had no
problem sharing information with a disinterested 3
rd
party.
54. The combined efforts of Hollywood Police Department, Code Enforcement, the City
Manager, City Commissioner, and Sandra Einhorn is the subject of a Federal investigation under
HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8, Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6, Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-
1099-9, alleging violations of Sections 818 and 810(g)(2)(C) or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. (Exhibits pp47-53)
55. The preceding arguments, along with Ms. Chuchla’s call and HPD’s handling of it,
demonstrates an environment of coordination and cooperation between Senator Sobel, Ms.
Chuchla, a Hollywood Police Department felony investigation (to be reviewed later in this
Motion), Code Enforcement, Hollywood City Attorney, and the Department of Health, with the
focal point of this cooperation being the date of the August 3-4, 2011 hearing.

56. State Senator Eleanor Sobel (Legislative branch), acting on a request from the Plaintiffs,
intervened with the Executive branch activities of Hollywood’s City government, causing a
frivolous lawsuit to be filed by Hollywood City against the Defendant, which was part of an
overall plan to influence these proceedings and handicap the Defendant.
57. The 5/17/2011 10:54PM email message from Hollywood City Commissioner Linda
Sherwood to Hollywood City Attorney Jeff Sheffel and Steve Einhorn (father of Grant Einhorn),
which includes in its body an email message from Steve Einhorn, is shown as Exhibits pp1-2.
The emails paint a very disturbing picture, wherein Steve Einhorn thanks Commissioner
Sherwood for meeting with his friend Senator Eleanor Sobel at a funeral, and the result of this
meeting was for Senator Sobel and Commissioner Sherwood to visit City Attorney Jeff Sheffel
on May 17, 2011 to find out what could be done on behalf of the Einhorns, against the Kohns.
The email message clearly states that Senator Sobel is acting on behalf of Sandra and Grant
Einhorn, which is consistent with Sandra Einhorn’s testimony that she had personally asked
Senator Sobel for help.
58. The very next day, on May 18, 2011 City Attorney Jeff Sheffel authorized a lawsuit (see
Hollywood v. Kohn, CACE 11016210(18), 4D12-12 FL 4
th
DCA, 4D-1548 FL 4
th
DCA) to
collect from the Defendants more than $161,000 for a code violation fine that by law cannot
exceed $100. This Court has already ruled (on December 6, 2011) that the statutory maximum
fine was $100, and the case has been subsequently dismissed (Exhibits pp54-61). Exhibits p62
shows James Jeffers indicating when the lawsuit was approved.
59. FSS 162.09(3) states in relevant part:
“After 3 months from the filing of any such lien which remains unpaid, the enforcement
board may authorize the local governing body attorney to foreclose on the lien or to sue
to recover a money judgment..."

Having never received the required authorization, City Attorney Sheffel lacked the authority to
approve the lawsuit, as a matter of law.
60. The lawsuit was filed at such a time as to almost guarantee maximum interference with
the Defendant’s ability to concentrate fully on his defense in the instant lawsuit. It was filed on
July 13, 2011. Had the Defendant been served in a timely manner, his Response would have
been required by August 3, 2011; the day the two day hearing in the instant case began.
61. This Court twice openly wondered during hearings on the aforementioned lien lawsuit
why Hollywood City waited as long as they did to file their lawsuit, and why they were pursuing
the lawsuit even after the Defendant no longer had any pets and after the Defendant
demonstrated that there were no funds to be gained. The circumstances show that Hollywood
City filed their lawsuit when they did as a result of the influence and suggestion of Senator
Eleanor Sobel, who orchestrated a perfect storm of onerous lawsuits, illegal health department
inspections, and bad press coverage hoping to cause sufficient harassment to the Defendant to
cause him to voluntarily give up his pets; influence the Court’s decision; and/or disable the
Defendant from mounting a fully competent defense due to the harassing distractions and
excessive legal expenses.
62. Hollywood City government, acting in collusion with Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn, conspired
to interfere with the outcome of this lawsuit by handicapping the Defendant’s ability to mount a
proper defense.
63. This was accomplished on June 8, 2011 via an unconstitutional search and seizure of the
Defendant’s business, legal strategies, and all evidence that was to be used in his Defense in the
instant lawsuit.
64. The search warrant was based upon a false report made by Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn,
which Einhorn lied about under oath in these proceedings.
65. After Hollywood City was indisputably made aware of the illegal seizure, they held onto
the evidence and money-earning capability of the Defendant until the very same day that the
hearing concluded on August 4, 2011. Hollywood City filed the aforementioned lawsuit CACE
11016210(18) three weeks after the time that Hollywood City was indisputably made aware of
the illegal seizure, at a time when they knew they were unlawfully holding the entirety of the
Defendant’s records and income earning capability.
66. On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn petitioned (DVCE 11-134) to obtain an
injunction for a protective order against Defendant Steven Kohn. A hearing date was set without
a temporary injunction being granted. (Exhibits p63). On January 18, 2011, the hearing was
continued until April 15, 2011. Hon. Judge Michael Kaplan explained to both parties that the
order merely maintained the status quo, and that since no temporary restraining order had been
granted, there was no temporary order to extend. (Exhibits pp64-66)
67. Plaintiff Einhorn understood Hon. Judge Kaplan’s explanation as indicated on a January
25, 2011 Police Report authored by HPD Officer Ferguson, which reported Plaintiff Sandra
Einhorn stating "that she will go to court to obtain an injunction order from the judge." (Exhibits
p67). Officer Ferguson is available to testify to this fact.
68. On January 27, 2011, following up on a complaint from Defendant Kohn who expressed
concern that Plaintiff Einhorn could use the January 18 order for nefarious purposes, Hon. Judge
Kaplan vacated the order (Exhibits p68) and then used a different form to reschedule the hearing
for April 15, 2011, at which time the Petition was dismissed (Exhibits p69).
69. Sometime before February 23, 2011, Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn provided Hollywood
Police Department with a copy of the January 18, 2011 order: On January 5, 2012, Defendant
Steven Kohn made a public records request of Hollywood Police Department, specifically asking
for “the complaint from Sandra Einhorn stating she had a restraining order that was being
violated.” (Exhibits p70, last paragraph under item 3). On January 11, 2012, Hollywood Police
sent an email stating “Attached please find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part
of your public records request.” (Exhibits p71-74). Comparing Kohn’s copy (Exhibits p66) to
the copy that Hollywood Police provided (Exhibits p74), it is unmistakable that the court stamp
is in a different location on HPD’s copy, and there is no time stamp showing it was a copy of the
one entered into the file. Therefore, the only possible source of the HPD copy is Sandra Einhorn.
70. Sandra Einhorn committed perjury on August 3, 2011 when she stated on the record that
she never told Hollywood Police that there was a restraining order. They could not have obtained
Sandra’s copy without her having provided it.
71. Additionally, on April 24, 2011, Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn told Hollywood Police Officer
Plummer that she had a valid restraining order under case 11-2439 (Exhibits p75). This is false,
as the cover sheet (Exhibits p76) shows.
72. On February 23, 2011, this Court held a hearing on the instant case, and elected to not
grant a temporary injunction at that time. Immediately after the hearing, at 1:46PM, Hollywood
Police Department ran an NCIC report and found the aforementioned erroneously entered
temporary restraining order. (Exhibits p77).
73. The NCIC report explicitly states
"Do not search, detain, or arrest based solely on this record. Contact entering
agency to confirm status and terms of protection order."

74. Had the officers verified the ‘status’ of the order, they would have seen that even if there
had been a valid restraining order, it was vacated on January 27, 2011—almost four weeks
earlier.
75. Nevertheless, Hollywood Police Detective Robert Knapp’s report of December 15, 2011,
submitted as testimony to Hon. Judge Martin J. Bidwill on December 16, 2011, stated that he had
ignored the admonition and relied exclusively on the NCIC printout in order obtain a search
warrant (Exhibits p78):
“After reading the teletype indicating the effective date of the restraining order
issued by Judge Michael G. Kaplan, I authored a search warrant of the Kohn’s
residence seeking any and all electronic equipment or storage devices capable of
accessing the internet and/or the sending and receiving of electronic mail."

76. Detective Knapp was fully aware that a business was being seized, stating on page 6 of
the search warrant affidavit (Exhibits p79):
"In light of concerns that might arise that the listed home business may be
hindered without the use of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination
is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that every effort will be made to
expedite the forensic examination and return any system(s) expeditiously if after
the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).”

77. On the morning of June 8, 2011, Defendant Steven Kohn’s birthday and the Jewish
Holiday of Shavuot, while the Kohn family was preparing their holiday meal, 12 armed
Hollywood Police officers executed the search warrant based on the alleged violation of a non-
existent restraining order that Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn had presented to HPD as a valid
restraining order. (Search warrant and affidavit are shown as Exhibits pp80-91) Plaintiff Einhorn
had claimed that the “order” had been violated via the sending of emails to her—emails that were
sent via an open unsecured wireless network housed in Kohn’s home, which Einhorn had access
to due to the close proximity of the houses. During the June 8, 2011 execution of this warrant,
all records that Kohn had which could have been used in his Defense in the instant case were
taken, including all backups. Also seized were Kohn’s entire business, all telephones, all
handheld cameras, home movies (including Kohn’s wedding video), and all of the Kohn
children’s school work as well as all of the personal computers, cameras, telephones, and records
(financial records, medical records, etc.) of everyone living in the house, both adults and minors.
(see Exhibits pp92-96 for inventory list).
78. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn was on the sidewalk during the execution of the search warrant,
jumping and clapping her hands joyfully.
79. The search warrant was quashed as unconstitutional due to the absolute nonexistence of
probable cause, by the order of Hon. Judge Martin Bidwill, on December 16, 2011, without any
objection from Hollywood Police department. The Motion to Quash and the Order are both
shown in full in Exhibits pp97-104. Included in the Motion is an excerpt from Sandra Einhorn’s
testimony from the August 3-4, 2011 hearing in the instant case, wherein she lied under oath to
this Court stating:
“Q. And did the police officers of the
Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if
you have a restraining order against Steve
Kohn?
A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had
been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining
order against Steve Kohn.
Q. So they knew that you were
unsuccessful?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did they -- did they --
A. Or that's what I told them.
Q. And did you ever lead them to believe
to believe you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A. No, it would be foolish to lead police
into something that they could very easily
figure out for themselves one way or another.
Q. So your testimony is that you never
told police you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A. That is correct.

80. The aforementioned December 15, 2011 report authored by Detective Knapp and
presented in Court the following day, stated (Exhibits p78)
“On August 04, 2011, I confirmed that the listed restraining order against Mr.
Kohn had erroneously been issued by the Courts and also that the entered teletype
confirmation had remained in the system even after an order to vacate the
restraining order had been issued. This was confirmed by Broward Clerk of
Courts Domestic Violence Manager Tonya Green. She advised that the listed
restraining order teletype information was issued in error and to prove that it was
issued in error, she showed me a copy of the listed order vacated on 01/27/2011.
Based upon this information and the fact that the listed search warrant relied on
the active restraining order, I prepared for the release of all of the listed seized
items to Mr. Kohn on 08/20/2011.”

Detective Knapp, as well as City Attorney Jeff Sheffel and City Attorney Joel Cantor, had
already repeatedly received the very same information (the copy of the 1/27/2011 vacating order)
from Defendant Kohn on 6/27, 6/28, 6/29, 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, and 7/20/2011 (Exhibits pp106-124).
On 7/5/2011 City Attorney Jeff Sheffel asked City Attorney Joel Cantor and Police Chief Chad
Wagner to show him the alleged restraining order. (Exhibits p119). The meeting took place on
7/7/2011 (Exhibits p123).
81. These are the unpleasant and indisputable facts:
a) After Hollywood officials already had the proof they would later rely upon to return the
property of the Kohn family, they waited 6 additional weeks until the day the hearing
concluded on August 4, 2011 to make the decision to return the property.
b) This Court issued the Order granting injunction on August 8, 2011.
c) Hollywood officials elected to keep the property until exactly after the 10 day time period
had expired during which the Defendants could have filed a Motion for Rehearing under
Rule 1.530. Hollywood’s City Attorney, after knowing for certain that they were
illegally holding Kohn’s property, business, and records, filed a lawsuit for $161,437.02
against Kohn on July 13, 2011 (the same one that was approved on 5/18/11, right after
Senator Sobel intervened at Einhorn’s request) and then moved for Summary Judgment
on the $161,437.02 on August 16, 2011, while knowingly still illegally holding all of
Kohn’s records.
82. After City Attorney Sheffel asked the Chief of Police and City Attorney Joel Cantor (on
7/5/11) to show him “whether there was a restraining order in place at the time the actions
alleged in the warrant took place”, after he was confronted by a political activist by phone about
the illegal search and seizure, Mr. Sheffel again asked Police Chief Wagner and Attorney Cantor
on 7/28/11 “When I met with your guys to confirm the validity of the warrant, I did not take a
copy of the Temporary Restraining Order. (Exhibits p117) Could you please have it scanned and
e-mailed to me.” By 7/5/11 all three people had already seen the Vacate order of 1/27/11 at least
4 times.
83. It is simply inconceivable that two experienced attorneys, a police chief, and an
experienced detective, individually and collectively could not have understood that a vacated
injunction was not valid, and that it took them almost two months, [conveniently until the very
day these proceedings ended], to realize this fact. Their actions and the timing thereof must have
been intentional, and were obviously undertaken to influence the outcome of these proceedings.
84. Hollywood City is a customer of Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn, who is the sole salaried
employee of Rebuilding Together Broward County. RTBC works very closely with Code
Enforcement, which in turn is part of the Hollywood Police Department.
85. Plaintiff Einhorn, in her capacity as Director of RTBC, asked for help from the city
government, specifically Commissioner Blattner, in a matter that was clearly personal and that
did not involve city business.
86. Commissioner Blattner subsequently convened a meeting consisting of the Chief of
Police, City Attorney, City Manager, City Commissioner, and Code Enforcement Chief. A week
after the meeting was convened, the City of Hollywood entered a contract with Plaintiff Sandra
Einhorn, and the day the contract became effective was the very same day the instant lawsuit was
filed.
87. RTBC was ultimately paid more than $25,000 above and beyond the costs of services
provided to Hollywood City; an amount approximately equal to Plaintiff attorney costs in this
lawsuit. Plaintiff Einhorn appears to have lied when stating she was not being assured
reimbursement for her legal expenses.
88. Hollywood City officials, including Commissioner Blattner and City Attorney Sheffel
were annoyed that the Defendant refused to surrender his pets, and entered into an agreement
with Rebuilding Together Broward County, whose sole employee was Sandra Einhorn, to
provide services for which Sandra Einhorn was going to be overpaid by an amount
approximately equal to the cost of a lawsuit.
89. Einhorn was going to benefit because this would herald the beginning of a relationship
which was visibility business with the city which would surely have follow-on business. The
City was going to benefit because they could not sue for an injunction, due to the fact that they
would first have to establish that Hollywood Ordinance 92.02(a) actually forbids the keeping of
poultry.
90. This Court has already ruled in Hollywood v. Kohn CACE 1101-6210(18) that the City
disregarded the language of said ordinance when attempting to enforce it.
91. On November 27, 2010, Grant Einhorn was witnessed circulating a pamphlet called “Are
the Kohns Jewish?” These pamphlets were specifically distributed to the guests who had arrived
for the engagement part of one of the Kohns’ daughters. Defendant Kohn, attempting to find a
way to make peace with their neighbors, wrote a letter to Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn (Exhibits
pp125-126) and also left a gift for Einhorn as a peace offering.
92. Einhorn reported the gift as an act of harassment, documented in HPD report number 33-
1011-187374. (Exhibits pp127-128). This is the case number as that of the quashed
unconstitutional search warrant.
93. On December 1, 2010, Sandra Einhorn wrote a letter to Commissioner Blattner of
Hollywood City, showing him the Facebook message that Defendant Kohn sent. (Exhibits
pp129-130). The letter, signed by Sandra Einhorn in her professional capacity, both opens and
closes reminding Commissioner Blattner of their professional relationship, and then asks him for
several forms of intervention that are not legal for him to provide, after implying that a quid pro
quo is in place:
a) Language that implies that favors are being traded: "Grant and I have gone out of
our way to work with the City and Code Compliance in order to help the situation
from the City's end, with code violations and such. I would expect the same
support from the City for us." [emphasis added]
b) Language that directly requests Commissioner Blattner use coercive influence to
cause the police to target the Defendants: "As our City Commissioner I plead for you
to please help my neighbors and I in bringing these people to justice."
c) Implied request for financial help in securing an attorney: "We have been forced to
hire an attorney we really can't afford." "Please help us!"
94. The next morning, December 2, 2010, Commissioner Blattner arranged a meeting
consisting of the Chief of Police, City Attorney, Code Enforcement Chief, City Manager, and
himself, in order to find a way to help Sandra Einhorn. (Exhibits pp129, 131-135). The specific
subject of the meeting was apparently the Facebook message, the context of which is clearly not
official business of the city. City Attorney Jeff Sheffel stated in an email the morning of
12/2/2010 that “I am anxious to meet to discuss an appropriate strategy.” (Exhibits p135).
95. Since no reasonable person would consider the giving of a peace-offering gift to be an act
of harassment, it would seem that as a result of the aforementioned meeting, Hollywood Police
department opened a criminal investigation of the gift that Kohn gave, which ultimately resulted
in the illegal search and seizure described above.
96. Commissioner Blattner, City Manager Benson, and Code Chief Clay Milan have been
named as co-Respondents in HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8, Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6,
Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9 for their role in this matter. (Exhibits pp47-53).
97. On December 13, 2010, Sandra Einhorn entered into a contract with Jeff Sheffel, City
Attorney for Hollywood City, which had an effective date of December 22, 2010. (Exhibits
pp136-143). December 22, 2010 is the SAME DAY the instant lawsuit was filed.
98. The contract calls for $55,000 in funds to be disbursed, and Paragraph 3.3 states
"Said funds shall be used solely for the purpose specified in the Program Project,
including but not limited to fees to contractors, building materials, project
management, project furnishings, and costs associated with volunteer
management."

99. Sandra Einhorn stated in deposition on 5/6/11 that she is paid a salary for her work, and
that her compensation does not come from grant/project money:
Q. How many people work at this nonprofit?
A. I'm the only full-time salary.
Q. How many paid employees are there to
this nonprofit organization?
A. One.
Q. Who is that?
A. Me.
Q. What was the most recent grant given to
your organization by the city, the nonprofit
organization?
A. There's only one.
Q. How much was it for?
A. We don't know the amount yet.
Q. Is it a six figure amount?
A. No. It's a matching grant.
Q. And part of that money is used to pay
your salary?
A. No. It's project money.
Q. So how does your salary get paid?
A. Through donations that come in.

100. Pursuant to Einhorn’s testimony about her salary, managing the volunteers is not
something the project money should have been used for.
101. Paragraph 3.3 is clear that costs and expenses are to be reimbursed, and there is
no indication that Rebuilding Together Broward County is to be paid a fee. A 9/15/2010 email
from Victoria Johnson of Hollywood City to Sandra Einhorn (Exhibits p144), spelled out
specifically what the money is to be used for:
"The contact must specifically state that all of the funds will benefit income
eligible families, and if not, you will have to repay the funds." [emphasis added]

102. To gain a more complete understanding of the contract, Hollywood City wrote a
staff summary request (Exhibits p145) explaining in part
"The City commitment includes approximately $55,000 of expenses to help pay
for building materials and debris disposal fees." It is expected that between six
and twelve homes will be repaired. The total estimated value of the repairs,
including the in-kind value of the volunteer labor will be $225,000."

103. Records presented to Hollywood City by Einhorn in June 2011 showed $15,457
in actual expenses, for work that Einhorn said had a “retail value” of $83,875. The City
“reimbursed” Einhorn $42,563 for these services, thus producing a profit for RTBC of $27,106.
(Exhibits pp146-154).
104. After Defendant Kohn reported the overpayment to Hollywood Officials, the city
officials elected NOT to enforce the contract and demand return of the money.
105. These facts give the appearance that Hollywood City intentionally provided
funding for Einhorn’s legal expenses by causing her to be grossly overpaid on the contract.
However, Einhorn testified at the deposition and at the trial that Hollywood City was not
covering her legal expenses. From Sandra Einhorn’s testimony August 3, 2011:
Q. Did you ever receive any legal advice
from any Hollywood City Attorneys?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever attempt to raise money for
your attorney's fees?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever promise you they would
reimburse you for your attorney's fees?
A. No.

106. Plaintiffs Grant and Sandra Einhorn both sought illegal intervention from State
Senator Eleanor Sobel.
107. As a result, State Senator Sobel unlawfully intervened in the operations of the
Florida Department of Health and directly caused a baseless search warrant to be obtained and
executed against Defendant Kohn, in the presence of the Press, intentionally timed to prejudice
the Court in the August 3-4, 2011 hearing.
108. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating she had not called the
Department of Health in 2011.
109. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied to the Department of Health when describing the
conditions on Kohns’ property.
110. State Senator Sobel unlawfully intervened in the operations of Hollywood City
government (after being asked to by the father of Grant Einhorn) by causing the City Attorney to
file a lawsuit he lacked legal authority to file, for an amount of money the City lacked the legal
authority to claim. The timing of the filing of the lawsuit was designed to directly interfere with
Defendant Kohn’s ability to fully and competently execute his defense.
111. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating that she did not lead
Hollywood Police Department to believe there was a valid restraining order against Defendant
Steven Kohn.
112. The direct result of Einhorn’s falsely reporting that a valid restraining order
existed was the execution of an unconstitutional search and seizure warrant against Defendant
Steven Kohn and his entire family, causing extreme emotional distress to all members of the
Kohn family, disrupting the family’s observance of a major religious holiday, causing the
complete confiscation of Mr. Kohn’s business, financial records, legal strategies, medical
records, the school work of his children, his adult children and minor children’s online job
materials, all of the defendant’s records and plans that were going to be used in his defense, and
all of the telephones, cameras, pictures, and diaries of every member of the household.
113. Hollywood City officials, working in collusion with the Plaintiffs, held the seized
materials for precisely the amount of time necessary to prevent the defendants from properly
defending themselves in the instant lawsuit.
114. Hollywood City, in following through with the request made by Senator Sobel,
filed their $161,487.02 lawsuit against Defendant Steven Kohn at a time when they knew they
were holding Mr. Kohn’s records illegally, and subsequently filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment at a time when they knew they were continuing to hold Mr. Kohn’s records illegally.
115. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn appears to have lied under oath when stating that
Hollywood City was not covering her legal expenses.
116. All parties named in this Motion can provide testimony in person if this Court
determines there is insufficient information in this filing to Grant the Motion to Vacate.
WHEREFORE, as a result of the Plaintiffs’ numerous successful attempts to interfere with
the normal prosecution and defense of this lawsuit, Defendants pray this honorable Court grant
their Motion to Vacate the resulting Order of this Court dated and dismiss this lawsuit using the
Court’s authority arising from the Unclean Hands Doctrine, due to the gross misconduct of the
Plaintiffs.


Respectfully Submitted,



David Low, Esq.



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed this ____ day of July,
2012 to Keith Silverstein 1177 Kane Concourse Suite 230, Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154.

DAVID LOW, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendants
28 West Flagler Street, 10th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: (305) 728-1931
Fax: (305) 675-2685


By: __________________________
DAVID LOW, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 67957

1
1
2
2
State'of Florida Department of Health
Broward County Health Department
COMPLAINT RECORD
FLORIDADPARIMBII OF
TIEAL
COMPLAINT NUMBER
PERMIT NUMBER
06-99-187699 Office
Assigned to
Env Eng
Luisa Oramas
Log #
Name
Date Reported
Complaint taken by
Emerald Hills 68-26 B
07 t26t2011
Luisa Oramas
Lot 12 Address
Status
Complaint
3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood
New Complaint Type Other
65 Sanitary Nuisance/Dog Feces/Sewage
Description of condition Buildup of chiken manure and bad odors creating a nuisance.
Owner / Agent
Address
City
Occupant
Address
City
Reported by
Address
City
Steven Kohn
3841 N 51 Avenue
Hollywood
Steven Kohn
3841 N 51 Avenue
Hollywood
Telephone
Extension
Telephone
Extension
Telephone
Extension
Date first investigated 07 t27 t2011 Date corrected 08t03t2011 Legal notice No
CONDITIONS FOUND AND ACTION TAKEN
Date Remarks on Follow up visits lnitials
07 t27 t2011
08t03t2011
Visited location accompanied w/ officers Phil Archer and Derek Cormier. The officers knocked at the L.O.
door and explained to Mr. Kohn the reason of our visit. We explained to him that the Health
Department received a complaint about build up of chicken manure and unbearable smell causing a
nuisance to the neighbors, and that we needed to inspect his back yard, but he refused. He
requested a search wanant in order to let us in his back yard. We indicated to him that based on the
Florida Statutes that we had the right to access his property,
but he still refused. He suggested that
we peecked thru a hole in the fencE from the front of the house and also try to sniff at any smell'
Unable to do a full acc€ssment at this time.
On August 3,2011, visited the location at 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida 33021. Health L.O.
Department inspector was accompanied by three Hollywood Police Officers (Levy, walker, Fregin).
Officer Darryl Levy knocked at the door and explained the reason of the Health Department visit, then
submitted and read the search wanant (see attachments) to the owner. The owner allowed the
Health Department to perform an inspection of their backyard. The inspector did not notice any bad
odor or conditions that will create any Sanitary Nuisance. Also, there were no conditions conducive to
the
propagation of insects at the time of inspection.
During the inspection we observed 20 ducks and 16 chickens running around, however the backyard
was well kept and clean. Upon completion of the inspection persuing to the warrant, the home owner
invited us to exit thp propefi tg,tle front door.
Siqnature of sanitarian
Comprehensive Environmental Health Tracking System (ODBC)
HRS-H FORM 4013, Aug 78 (Replaces San-4010) Modified forODBC 0412712009
paterinared
YlSl
tt
Attach all supporting documentation
Luisa Oramas
Supervisor review Date:
Page 1 of 1
3
3



4
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
162
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 10-048282 (18)
GRANT EINHORN AND SANDRA )
EINHORN, as husband and )
wife, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________/
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VOLUME II of IV (Pages 162 - 262)
DATE: August 3-4, 2011
LOCATION: Broward County Courthouse
201 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
BEFORE: Honorable Michele Towbin Singer
This cause came on to be heard at the time and place
aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were
reported by:
Carlos A. Rugel
Certified Electronic Court Reporter
Notary Public, State of Florida
Alternative Court Reporting
4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
Hollywood, FL 33021
P: 954.832.3563
F: 954.556.6607
www.AlternativeCourtReporting.com
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
253
Honor.
Q. -- if you wanted to get relief?
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Did anyone ever tell you that your only
option in this case is to file a lawsuit?
MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, hearsay Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LOW: I didn't ask who.
THE COURT: It doesn't matter. That
makes it even -- well no. I was going to say it
makes it worse, but it doesn't. Some things are
either kosher or not kosher.
Q. Did you ever receive any legal advice
from any Hollywood City Attorneys?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever attempt to raise money for
your attorney's fees?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever promise you they would
reimburse you for your attorney's fees?
A. No.
MR. LOW: I am sorry, excuse me.
Q. And I'd just like to ask you another
question. Regarding the call that you made to the
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
254
Florida Department of Health; I remember you
saying you made that call about a year ago.
A. Uh huh.
Q. Is that true?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay, and have you placed any calls after
that to that same department?
A. No.
Q. As a follow-up?
A. No.
Q. Have you spoken to the Department of
Health in the last month?
A. I was contacted by the Department of
Health, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I did not call them. I was contacted by
them.
Q. And when was it that you were contacted
by them?
A. Maybe it was a couple weeks ago.
Q. And before a couple of weeks ago when you
were contacted by them; when was the last time you
spoke with them?
A. The initial time that I called.
Q. So your testimony is you've only spoken
7
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY
255
with them twice. Once when you called last year
and once when they called two weeks ago?
A. I believe so, yes, regarding the Kohns,
yes.
Q. Oh, so you've spoken to the Department of
Health on other occasions?
A. I sit on a board and there's a member
that works for the Department of Health that sits
on that board with me as well. But, that has
nothing to do with this case.
Q. And is that the person that sat on the
board with you that told you to call the
Department of Health?
A. No.
Q. And did you ask them for any advice in
regard to the problem at all?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And your testimony is also that every
time the police were called from your residence,
it was always you and never your husband?
A. Yes, it was always me and never my
husband. If I -- I mean, unless Grant made a
phone call that I wasn't aware of. But, yes it
was me and not my husband.
MR. LOW: I think we're nearly wrapped up
8
8
Rick Scott
Governor
H. Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., PhD, FACP
State Surgeon General
July 29,2011
Via U.S. regular mail and certified mail no.:70091680000174281585
Steven and Renee Kohn
3841 North 51 Avenue
Hollywood, FL
Re: Public nuisance at property located at3841N. 51 Avenue, Hollywood, FL
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kohn:
The Environmental Unit of the State of Florida Department of Health, Broward County Health
Department, has received a complaint concerning an ongoing nuisance at your property located
at 3841 North 51"t Avenue, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complaint pertains
to the
smell and health hazard of accumulated feces on the above referenced property as a result of
the harboring of both chickens, goats and sheep along with the feed distributed on the ground
for the animals that creates conditions conducive to rodents and other wildlife.
Efforts were made to inspect the property on July 26,2011, consistent with the authority of the
Department of Health pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 381, and the Broward County Code
of Ordinances. Specifically, F.S. 381.0011(3) provides that it is the duty of the Department of
Health to administer and enforce laws and rules relating to sanitation, control of communicable
diseases, illnesses and hazards to health among humans and from animals to humans, and the
general health of the people
of the state. The Broward County Code of Ordinances Section 15-
234, more commonly known as the Health and Sanitary Control Board, also authorizes the
Broward County Health Department to investigate such complaints. Section 15-235(d) of the
Broward County Code of Ordinances states,
"The
inspecting officers of the Health Department
shall have the power and authority to enter upon and inspect all vacant, fenced or enclosed
land with our without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof in order to conduct an
inspection."
On
-July
26, 2011 the- Breward- esunty Health
'Department
inspectors accompai'ried
-by
Hollywood Police officers were denied access to inspect the property
outside of the structure.
Based upon the above cited authority, there is no laMul basis to deny entry. Unfortunately, this
is not the first instance of a health violation being reported at this location and the Broward
County Health Department was met with the same resistance when it was investigating the
matter in August of last year. ln the current situation and based upon an alleged repeated
violation pertaining
to, yet again, the accumulation of feces as a result of chickens, goats and
sheep residing on the property along with the attendant feed on the ground that potentially
creates a haven for rodents and other wildlife, the Broward County Health Department will
complete its investigation by going on the property to perform its inspection.
Broward County Health Department
780 SW 24n Street
o Ft. Lauderdale,FL33315-2643
Telephone: (954)467 -4700 Ext. 4001
www.browardchd.org
9
9
Steven and Renee Kohn
July 29,2011
Page2
This letter is being written to educate and inform you of the gravity of the alleged offense by
allegedly maintaining a nuisance on the property and the ramifications that will ensue if access
to the pioperty is again denied. Please immediately seek advice from legal counsel or from a
person whom you trust such that you €n reconsider
your position and permit entry onto your
broperty
for inipection and determination of whether or not a public health nuisance exists.
Should-you desire to comply with the state law and county ordinance,
please contact Susan
Greenberg (964-46747(D ext. 410/) at the Broward County Health Department by August 9,
2011 and the Health Department wit! inspect
your property within five (5) business days.
The State of Florida, Broward County Health Department, while willing to work with you to
i
coolpleb its-inves-tigation* wiil-not be-hampered-by
yo-ur-deliberate acts of ,b-Io-eIing-lawful
--- I
access to your property for purposes of inspection as outlined above.
I
Altematively, should we not hear from you by August 9,2011, the State of Florida Department
of Health, Broward County Health Department wi!! seek
judicial review to obtain a search
warrant for your property that wil! be executed as a matter of course consistent with Florida law.
Should this occur, your propefi witl be entered upon by law enforcement officers along with
Heatth Department inspectors. Should
you fail to cooperate or otherwise obstruct the execution
of the wanant you will have committed a criminal act which may result in your arrest and
possible incarceration.
GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDI NGLY.
Director, Broward County Health Department
c: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, CEcD, AICP
lnterim Hollywood City Manager
l
I
10
10
Subject: Nuisance issue in Hollywood, FL
From: "Eichner, Paul D" <Paul_Eichner@doh.state.fl.us>
Date: 7/28/2011 12:16 PM
To: "McCrackin, Veronica" <Veronica_McCrackin@doh.state.fl.us>
Veronica,

Please see attached draft letter as per our conversation yesterday afternoon. I propose sending it both
certified and regular mail. I inserted the date of August 9; however, I am not sure what date would be
appropriate. Please call me later, at your convenience, so that I can share my thoughts. I also spoke with
the Hollywood City Attorney today and can share information re: injunction. Please review the letter and let
me know as I would like to have OGC approval on it before I contact Sen. Sobel.

Thanks.

Paul

Paul D. Eichner, Chief Legal Counsel
Broward County Health Department
780 SW 24th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
(954)467-4700 ext. 4103
Paul_Eichner@doh.state.fl.us
Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public records
available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.

Attachments:
Kohn.doc 86.5 KB
NuisanceissueinHollywood,FL
1of1 7/11/20121:42PM
11
11

Rick Scott
Governor

H. Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Ph.D, FACP
State Surgeon General





Broward County Health Department
Legal Office
780 SW 24
th
Street • Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315-2643
Telephone: (954)467-4700 Ext. 4104
Fax: (954)762-3645



July 28, 2011
Via U.S. regular mail and certified mail no.:

Steven and Renee Kohn
3841 North 51 Avenue
Hollywood, FL

Re: Public nuisance at property located at 3841 N. 51 Avenue, Hollywood, FL

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kohn:

The Environmental Unit of the State of Florida Department of Health, Broward County Health
Department, has received a complaint concerning an ongoing nuisance at your property located
at 3841 North 51
st
Avenue, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complaint pertains to the
smell and health hazard of accumulated feces on the above referenced property as a result of
the harboring of both chickens, goats and sheep along with the feed distributed on the ground
for the animals that creates conditions conducive to rodents and other wildlife.

Efforts were made to inspect the property on July 26, 2011, consistent with the authority of the
Department of Health pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 381, and the Broward County Code
of Ordinances. Specifically, F.S. 381.0011(3) provides that it is the duty of the Department of
Health to administer and enforce laws and rules relating to sanitation, control of communicable
diseases, illnesses and hazards to health among humans and from animals to humans, and the
general health of the people of the state. The Broward County Code of Ordinances Section 15-
234, more commonly known as the Health and Sanitary Control Board, also authorizes the
Broward County Health Department to investigate such complaints. Section 15-235(d) of the
Broward County Code of Ordinances states, “The inspecting officers of the Health Department
shall have the power and authority to enter upon and inspect all vacant, fenced or enclosed
land with our without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof in order to conduct an
inspection.”

On July 26, 2011 the Broward County Health Department inspectors accompanied by
Hollywood Police officers were denied access to inspect the property outside of the structure.
Based upon the above cited authority, there is no lawful basis to deny entry. Unfortunately, this
is not the first instance of a health violation being reported at this location and the Broward
County Health Department was met with the same resistance when it was investigating the
matter in August of last year. In the current situation and based upon an alleged repeated
violation pertaining to, yet again, the accumulation of feces as a result of chickens, goats and
sheep residing on the property along with the attendant feed on the ground that potentially
creates a haven for rodents and other wildlife, the Broward County Health Department will
complete its investigation by going on the property to perform its inspection.

12
12

The letter is being written to educate and inform you of the gravity of the alleged offense by
allegedly maintaining a nuisance on the property and the ramifications that will ensue if access
to the property is again denied. Please immediately seek advice from legal counsel or from a
person whom you trust such that you can reconsider your position and permit entry onto your
property for inspection and determination of whether or not a public health nuisance exists.
Should you desire to comply with the state law and county ordinance, please contact Susan
Greenberg (964-467-4700 ext. 4104) at the Broward County Health Department by August 9,
2011 and the Health Department will inspect your property within five (5) business days.

The State of Florida, Broward County Health Department, while willing to work with you to
complete its investigation, will not be hampered by your deliberate acts of blocking lawful
access to your property for purposes of inspection as outlined above.

Alternatively, should we not hear from you by August 9, 2011, the State of Florida Department
of Health, Broward County Health Department will seek judicial review and obtain a search
warrant for your property that will be executed as a matter of course consistent with Florida law.
Should this occur, your property will be entered upon by law enforcement officers along with
Health Department inspectors. Should you fail to cooperate or otherwise obstruct the execution
of the warrant you will have committed a criminal act which may result in your arrest and
possible incarceration.

GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.

Very truly yours,


Paul D. Eichner, Esq.
Chief Legal Counsel
Broward County Health Department

c: Jeff Sheffel, Hollywood City Attorney
Joel Cantor, Hollywood Police Legal Advisor

13
13
*
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
o x^^-\-x'-^>^x'-V^x'
HEALT
State of Florida Department of Health
Broward County Health Department
COMPLAINT RECORD
COMPLAINT NUMBER 06-99-175282
PERMIT NUMBER
Office Env Eng
Log#
Assigned to Joel Rodriguez
Name Emeral Hills 68-26 B Lot 12 BIk : Address 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood
Date Reported 08/24/2010 Status New Complaint
Complaint taken by Constant DeMadet Complaint 63 Solid Waste Disposal Services
Type Solid Waste
Description of condition Buildup of chickens manure.
Owner / Agent
Address
City
Occupant
Address
City
Reported by
Address
City
3841 N 51 Avenue
Hollywood
Telephone
Extension
Telephone
Extension
Telephone
Extension
Date first investigated 08/25/2010 Date corrected 09/16/2010 Legal notice No
CONDITIONS FOUND AND ACTION TAKEN
Date Remarks on Follow up visits
Initials
08/25/2010
08/31/2010
09/08/2010
09/16/2010
Visited location.- Spoke with homeowners whom after explaining the reason for my presence did not
allow going into back yard; not able to verify complaint's allegations.
Following instructions, went into neighbor's back yard at 3840 N 50th Ave and did not see any flies or
odor coming from 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood at this time.
Instructed to contact City Police Dept. of Hollywood and go to this property accompanied by a police
officer. Memo sent from main office, legal department (attached).
Visited location. Standing on the South side of, next door neighbor's back yard, no odors, no flies
coming from 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood at this time. No chicken manure accumulation. Picture
taken. Officer Phil Archer #2364 and EH supervisor Luisa Oramas present while investigation took
place. Anonymous complaint closed.
J.R.
J.R.
J.R.
J.R.
Signature of sanitarian
Joel Rodriguez
Date finaled
Supervisor review Date:
Attach all supporting documentation
(/'Initials:
m
< ®
Comprehensive Environmental Health Tracking System (ODBC)
HRS-H FORM 4013, Aug 78 (Replaces San-4010) Modified for ODBC 04/27/2009
Paae 1 of 1
14
14
Subject: your leer regarding 3841 N 51 Ave, Hollywood
From: Kohn <kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 7/31/2011 8:21 AM
To: Paula_Thaqi@doh.state.fl.us
CC: CSwanson-Rivenbark@hollywoodfl.org
Dear Dr. Thaqi,
I am in receipt of your leer dated July 29, 2011, and am sorry to learn that you are so poorly
informed about what is actually going on here.
If you looked up last year's records as you said you did, you would have noted that observa<ons of
my property were made on 8/25/10, 8/31/10, 9/8/10, and 9/16/10, and that each observa<on
showed that the original complaint was completely unfounded.
Therefore:
1) Your asser<on that I am a repeat violator or that there has been an ongoing nuisance is
completely baseless.
2) Your leer claims "based on an alleged repeated viola<on pertaining to, yet again, the
accumula<on of feces ....." while your own internal report (aached) declares that there was
NEVER a viola<on?
3) Does your agency assert that it is a crime to be REPORTED by a vindic<ve neighbor for a
nuisance, despite the outcome findings of the agency? That is not what I was told when I called
Tallahassee.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Cons<tu<on guarantees:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmaon, and parcularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including
its cur<lage, ie. my privacy fenced backyard) without a warrant.
When police or other public agency conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant
establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal ac<vity.
I am [blind] copying officials from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Jus<ce and the
State of Florida Aorney General's office on this correspondence because they have been involved
with my family's troubles with the city government and neighbors since literally the DAY we moved
in. Apparently a number of people in Hollywood believe that it is a crime to move into what they
yourletterregarding3841N51Ave,Hollywood
1of4 7/11/20121:44PM
15
15
perceive as a "nice" neighborhood if you are darker than a Sherwin Williams khaki color.
The neighbors will only be happy when I leave my en<re net worth behind and run away from my
piece of the American dream so that their neighborhood can revert back to the all white enclave
that they feel they bought into.
That is why FHA/HUD has also opened a case on behalf of our family and two other interna<onal
civil rights organiza<ons have goen involved on behalf of our family.
I have copied the State Statute below which describes the circumstances under which a warrant to
search a property may be issued:
"933.18 When warrant may be issued for search of private dwelling.
No search warrant shall issue under this chapter or under any other law of this state to search any
private dwelling occupied as such unless:
(1) It is being used for the unlawful sale, possession, or manufacture of intoxicang liquor;
(2) Stolen or embezzled property is contained therein;
(3) It is being used to carry on gambling;
(4) It is being used to perpetrate frauds and swindles;
(5) The law relang to narcocs or drug abuse is being violated therein;
(6) A weapon, instrumentality, or means by which a felony has been commi2ed, or evidence relevant
to proving said felony has been commi2ed, is contained therein;
(7) One or more of the following misdemeanor child abuse offenses is being commi2ed there:...."
If you sincerely believe that one of the above circumstances exists with regard to my home, I
request that you no!fy me when you are scheduling the hearing to obtain the warrant so that I
may a"end with my a"orney.
Last year, when I contacted Tallahassee, I was told that your officer is obliged to show probable
cause for your request to search my property via a signed affidavit from the complainant ie. person
who is poten<ally damaged by a health nuisance emana<ng from my property.
Please scan and email it to me.
We know who the complainant is because we overheard her bragging on the telephone to a friend
at around 9:20AM 7/26 about "keeping them busy by drawing aen<on to their property." Just a
few hours later your officers were at our door. The reason I am so certain about the <me is that
the moment was captured on our video surveillance system. Our daughter was at the side of the
yourletterregarding3841N51Ave,Hollywood
2of4 7/11/20121:44PM
16
16
house taking care of the recycling when she heard Sandra Einhorn make the call.
We installed the surveillance system aPer more than one incidence of the neighbors standing
outside our children's bedroom yelling racial slurs (including "field niggers") and throwing rocks
and boles at our house.
Your officers both said (while being filmed) that they did not discern any odor or see any flies
coming from my property. Aached as a PDF are some s<ll shots of your agents while standing at
the fence that borders my neighbor's property, looking through the fence for visual evidence of the
flies, feces, and other animals allegedly causing the nuisance, and also, you will please note that
they are virtually next to my garbage pails and compost pile.
Both officers violated what I was told by Tallahassee last year by not producing iden<fica<on or a
copy of the complaint (The number I called was 850-245-4141).
I DO NOT own any goats or sheep.
The officers did not men!on goats or sheep and I assure you that they did not detect the presence
of such animals. Your agents were brought right up to the fence which is along the property line
and could NOT detect any odor at the property line although they are specifically trained to do so.
THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY another one of my neighbor's false reports.
Sandra Einhorn, has reported my family to the police on more than 3 dozen occasions (unfounded)
(when she's not standing by the fence calling my wife a field nigger and throwing rocks at my
children), has also reported my trees to the USDA as being sick (unfounded), tried to have my
children taken away by CPS (unfounded), has filed a frivolous lawsuit for $1,500,000 because she
claims that my mixed race family brings down her property values, she has made FIVE false claims
of domes<c violence against me (all of which were ruled unfounded), and then took the dismissed
case and presented it to the local police sta<ng that she actually had a real restraining order.
In fact, a hearing about her behavior has been scheduled for Thursday 8/4. A copy of the mo<on
being heard is aached for your review.
The reason that she has made so many false reports is because of people like YOU who respond to
an obviously false report (ie. goats and sheep) by coming to the house and under color of official
right demanding to gain entrance to our home without a warrant and when denied send out an
obnoxious and threatening leer.
Our bigoted neighbor is able to terrorize our children with her false repor<ng because YOUR
agency didn't prosecute her false repor<ng last year when you should have.
"837.05  False reports to law enforcement authorities.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever knowingly gives false information to
yourletterregarding3841N51Ave,Hollywood
3of4 7/11/20121:44PM
17
17
any law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of any crime, commits a
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."
Your agency gave this evil person, who has been hard at work trying to destroy my family, a free
opportunity to harass us repeatedly because YOUR AGENCY failed to follow the law last year when
she made a false report.
In your failure, last year to follow the law with regard to the false reporter, your agency became the
willing accomplice to her endless harassment of my family.
Please let me know if you have <me on Monday or Tuesday to meet with me. I would like to help
your agency prevent the further harassment of my family. I have a great deal of documenta<on and
my aorney can also provide addi<onal informa<on.
Thank you for your prompt aen<on and concern for my family.
Sincerely,
Steve Kohn
3841 N 51 Ave
Hollywood FL 33021
954-404-7358
Spam
Not spam
Forget previous vote
Attachments:
Dept. of Health.pdf 2.4 MB
Kohn, Steven Mo<on for Contempt 2-1.pdf 54.9 KB
DOH S<lls 72611.pdf 1.8 MB
yourletterregarding3841N51Ave,Hollywood
4of4 7/11/20121:44PM
18
18


19
19

20
20
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17
TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 10-048282 (18)
GRANT EINHORN and SANDRA EINHORN,
as husband and wife
Plaintiffs,

vs.

STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN
Defendants.
__________________________________________/

MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT/ENFORCEMENT
Defendants, STEVEN KOHN and RENEE KOHN (hereby “Defendants”) request that the Court
enter an order of civil contempt/enforcement against Plaintiffs, GRANT EINHORN and SANDRA EINHORN
(hereby “Plaintiffs”) and in support thereof allege:
1. A final judgment or order in this case was entered in May of 2011, by the Court enjoining all
parties to this action from causing any witness to have any fear or apprehension in connection with their
contemplated testimony in this case.
2. The order signed by this Court prohibiting witness tampering as codified in Florida Statute
914.22.
ii. Florida Statute 914.22 in relevant part states:
914.22 Tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant; penalties.—
(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another
person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another
person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any
person to:
(a) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official
investigation or official proceeding;
(b) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability
of the object for use in an official investigation or official proceeding;
3. The other party in this case has willfully disobeyed this order of the Court:

21
21
a. Nearly simultaneous to the filing of this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s complaint to Child Protective
Services, Plaintiff also filed for an injunction against Steven Kohn for repeat domestic violence etc. on
January 7. DVCE 11-134
b. Request for temporary injunction was denied.
c. Hearing was scheduled for January 18. At that time, the Court informed Plaintiff that even if
all of her allegations were true, that the Court still would not grant an injunction. The Court asked if she
still wanted to proceed with a full hearing, and she said she did. One was scheduled for 4/15/11 and an
order was issued that left in place any prior temporary restraining order, of which there were none.
d. January 18, 2011 after the hearing, Plaintiff wrote to her friend Jen that she was taking these
actions to protect herself and other Jews.
e. January 27, a new cover page is mailed out for DVCE 11-134 stating that “This order vacates
order extending injunction dated 1/18/11.” Hearing is officially scheduled for 4/15/11 at 1:30PM.
f. On April 15, 2011, after hearing of the case was concluded, the case was dismissed.
g. On April 15, 2011 Plaintiff re-filed (DVCE 11-2439) and was again denied a temporary
injunction.
h. April 21, 2011 Plaintiff filed a supplement and was again denied a temporary injunction.
i. April 23, 2011 Plaintiff posts a Youtube video claiming a restraining order was granted, when
in fact, it had not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwQT9er5h3g
j. April 23, 2011 Plaintiff telephoned the police claiming she is afraid to leave her house because
of Defendants, yet left her house 2 minutes before placing the phone call.
k. On April 24 Plaintiff lied to the Hollywood Police Department when stating that she had a
current restraining order against Defendant Steve Kohn. (See Police Report attached as Exhibit B).
l. At Plaintiff’s request, police issued a no-trespass order. Had a restraining order already been in
place, there would not have been a need for a no-trespass order. Plaintiff and the Hollywood Police
Department were both aware of the lack of a restraining order. See Hollywood Police case number
L33110423061998.
m. April 27, 2011 Plaintiff filed a supplemental temporary injunction and was again denied a
temporary injunction.
n. On May 2, 2011 DVCE 11-2439 was dismissed.
o. June 8, 2011 based on Plaintiff’s false testimony to the police, and under the presumption
that a valid injunction was in place (which was required by the relevant criminal statute) a search
warrant was obtained resulting in the seizure of all computers and backups at the Defendant’s
residence.
22
22
p. These computers and backups contained all of Defendant’s legal strategy, attorney client
communications, and all photo, video, audio, and documentary evidence in defense of the nuisance
lawsuit.
q. On the Affidavit signed for the search warrant, attached hereto as exhibit A, the Affiant states
“The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on 02/23/2011”. Plaintiff left a hearing on the nuisance
case that very day (02/23/2011), took the vacated 1/18/11 order to the Hollywood Police Department
and presented it to them as if it was active.
r. Plaintiff was aware that there was no restraining order in existence and she persisted in
engaging in misleading conduct toward the HPD in order to cause them to
(i) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official
investigation or official proceeding;
(ii) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability
of the object for use in an official investigation or official proceeding;
s. The aforementioned actions ought to be viewed as witness tampering on an enormous level
because the goal and result was to remove from Defendants their ability to defend themselves against
this lawsuit.
4. Plaintiffs have shown a demonstrable pattern of intending to disable Defendants from
defending themselves in this case as follows:
a. Calls to the Department of Health resulting in 3-4 inspections, all of which were determined
to be unfounded
b. Numerous calls to the Hollywood Police Department complaining of nuisance.
c. A groundless call to Child Protective Services claiming that Defendant’s children are in danger
on December 22, 2010, less than 24 hours after this nuisance was filed.
d. Distribution of a hateful pamphlet entitled “Are the Kohns Jewish” in the cars of the guests at
the engagement party of the Defendants’ daughter.
e. Filing two baseless applications for restraining orders and two supplemental applications, all
of which were subsequently dismissed by the Court.
f. Urgent phone calls to the Hollywood police Department claiming to be afraid to leave her
house.
g. On April 23, 2011 Plaintiff posted a video of Defendants on Youtube entitled “After being
served with Restraining Order”.
h. On June 29, 2011 Plaintiff overheard two daughters of Defendant commenting how much
their mother loves her lemon trees. Plaintiff then called the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tell them
23
23
Defendants had a grove of sick citrus trees. Phillip Purcell of the USDA inspected the trees and declared
they were all healthy.
i. Defendants submit that Plaintiffs are continually and repeatedly knowingly making false calls
to local, state and federal government agencies in hopes of harming their family and causing them to
move.
5. Plaintiffs have shown a demonstrable pattern of intending to disrupt and punish Defendants
specifically on Jewish holidays by the following:
a. Rosh Hashannah September 2010, calls are made to the press. Plaintiff had ABC interrupt
Defendants Rosh Hashanah dinner seeking an interview.
b. Sukkoth September 2010, Plaintiff calls Hollywood Police Department reporting a distressed
animal in the Defendant’s yard. The police entered the yard without a warrant and disrupted the
holiday.
c. Sukkoth September 2010, Plaintiff calls the Hollywood Police Department making a noise
complaint while Defendants and their family are in the pool.
d. Channukah December 2010, the Hollywood police visit the Defendants residence 4 times as a
result of Plaintiffs calls.
e. Passover 2011, Plaintiff has Defendant served with another restraining order and police are
dispatched to the Defendants residence on 5 of the 8 days of Passover.
f. Shavuot 2011, Police raid the Defendants home while they are preparing for the first nights
meal. Armed police officers rounded up the family, ransacked the home, and took possessions pursuant
to a search warrant based on Plaintiffs claim to have an injunction (necessary for the statute alleged to
have been violated), all while Plaintiffs stand on the sidewalk clapping.
g. Defendants submit that such a calendar cannot be a coincidence, and that Plaintiffs are on a
campaign to destroy their family and/or cause them to move out of the neighborhood.
6. Defendants are living in constant fear and Plaintiffs have taken away their ability to support
their family by having their business confiscated.
7. Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an order holding the Defendants in civil
contempt, and/or provide the following relief:
a. Enforce or compel compliance with the prior order or judgment;
b. Require the other party to pay costs and fees in connection with this motion;
c. Order a compensatory fine;
d. Order a coercive fine;
24
24
e. Defendants seek dismissal of the nuisance law suit based upon the disregard of the
court order by Plaintiffs in violation of Florida Statute 914.22

Respectfully Submitted,

By: __________________________
DAVID LOW, ESQ.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was sent to KEITH D. SILVERSTEIN,
P.A. 1177 Kane Concourse, Suite 230 Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154 and faxed to (305) 868-1045

DAVID LOW, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendants
28 West Flagler Street, 10th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: (305) 728-1931
Fax: (305) 675-2685

By: __________________________
DAVID LOW, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 67957
25
25

26
26
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDIC]AL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROWARD
SEARCH WARRANT
IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO ALL AND SINGULAR:
The Director of the Broward County Health Department, an agency of the State of Florida
Department of Health, and its employees, specifically Anthony Vomero.
Affidavit having been made before me by Anthony Vomero, of the Broward County Health
Department, Broward County, Florida that they have probable cause to know and they do know
that on or about the premises described as:
The curtilage of a residential house located at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of
Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State of Florida. The nesidence is a eoncrete block
construqtiqn single family residenee. The exteriorwalls are painted
tan with a tena eotta hanel
tile roof. The hlue front exterior door fases west . The residenqe has a eircular driveway with a
hrvo car garage. The address number.3841" is affixed to the exteriorwallfacing west above
the garage doors.
The location in question can be reaehed from l-95, to west on $tirling Road, to south on
Saraaen Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841
North 51 Avenue.
The following grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant, as required by chapter 933,
exists, to wit: an anonymous complaint relating to the possession of ducks and chickens on the
above described property and the corresponding denial of entry by Broward County Health
Department inspectors to enter upon the property pursuant to Broward County Ordinance 15-
243@):
)
)SS
)
27
27
PAGE TWQ
SHARCH WARRANT
Your affiant seeks to gain aecess to the curtilage only of the above described property
together
with the related detached structures housing ducks andlor chickens solely for the purpdse
of
inspection and photographing
of the subject property
as it pertains
to the alleged sanitary
nuisance and to detennine if a sanitaqy nuisance exists. Your affiant is not seeking to selze any
property
located on or upon the above described propertlf.
NOW THEREFORE, the facts upon which the belief of said affiant is based as set out in said
Affidavit are hereby deemed sufficient to show probable
cause for the issuance of a Search
Warrant in accordance with said application of said Affiant.
And as I am satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the laws of the State of
Florida are being violated as aforesaid and that the above actions constitute a public
nuisance
being allowed to exist in and upon the curtilage of the above described property,
I expressly find
probable
cause for the issuance of this Search Warrant.
THIS lS, THEREFORE to command me, Anthony Vomero, Acting Director of the Environmental
Section of the Broward County Health Department and Luisa Oramas, Environmental Manager
of the Broward County Health Department, Broward County, Florida, with proper and necessiry
assistance, to include but not limited to The City of Hollyrood Police Department, to serve thii
warrant, search, inspect and photograph the curtilage only of the above described location and
related detached structures housing ducks and/or chickens, in the daytime or the nighttime, or
on Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demand or require, with the proper
and
necessary assistance
DONE AND ORDERED at
ft{ *r,'$nr,/,-
io:-*
-.- -
=-\
\
,
Flodda. on this
I
Z-day
or zJru4 r
,
2011.
\
,/
/'
,t2')
CIRCU
28
28
PAGE 1
GENERAIJ AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICAT'ION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AN_D APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
S ATE OF FLORIDA
)
)ss
couNTY oF BROWARD
)
BEFORE THE LINDERSIGNED, THE HONORABLE Judge Michael J. Orlando,
Judge of the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, State
of Florida, personally came Anthony Vomero, of the State of Florida Broward County Health
Department, who after being first duly swom, deposes and says:
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES TO BE SAARCHED:
The curtilage of the residential house and any detached structure housing ducks andlor
chickens located at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and
the State of Florida. The residence is a concrete block construction single family residence. The
exterior walls are painted tan with a terra cotta barrel tile roofl, The blue front exterior door faces
west. The residence has a circular driveway with a two aar garage. The address number..384l"
is affixed to the exterior wall facing west above the garage
doors.
The location in question can be reached from I-95, to west on Stirling Road, to south on
Sarazen Driven to east on North 4l Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841 North
5l Avenue.
To gain entry only to the curlilage of the residential property and related detached
structure(s) housing ducks and/or chickens located at 3841 North 5l Avenue, in the City of
Hollywood, County of Broward, State of Florida.
Page I of5
29
29
PAGE 2
GENERAL AFFfDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
STATUTE(S) BErNG VTOLATED:
Nuisance Injurious to Health F.S.
$
386.041 (l) (e)
COUNTY ORDINANCE(S) BEING VIOLATED:
Sanitary Nuisance County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14, sectionl4.67
PROPERTY SOUGI{T:
None. Entry to the cartilage only of the property to search, inspect the curtilage and
related detached structures housing ducks and/or chickens solely for the purpose
of
inspection and photographing of the subject property as it pertains to the above referenced
statute(s) and county code of ordinances by Broward County Heatth Department
inspectors.
GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE:
Broward county code of ordinances, Article Xlv, sectio ns 242 and 243 (d)
Section 15-242:
o
"An inspector who finds a violation of the Code, relating to environmental
health or the health laws or regulations of the State of Florida, shall
document the violation and serve a notice of violation thereof to the
appropriate individual or business entity as provided for in the subsection
below."
Section 15-243(d)
o
"The inspecting officers of the Health Department shall have the power
and autliority to enter upon and inspect all vacant, fences or enclosed land
with or without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof in order to
conduct an inspection."
Page 2 of5
30
30
PAGE 3
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
PROBABI,E CAUSE,:
Affiant's reason for his belief that the laws of the State of Florida and or the County Code of
Ordinances are being violated as stated above and the facts establishing the grounds for this Affidavit and
the probable cause for believing that such facts exist are as follows:
A cornplaint was in August of 2010 pertaining to the same property for the same alleged
violations. Access to the property was denied by the owner(s) after the owner(s) were provided with a
copy of the county ordinance permitting access to property. The inspectors subsequently determined that
no violation existed after obtaining the permission of neighboring property owners and having observed
the subject property from those vantage points.
A new anonlmous complairrt was received by the Environmental Health South Office of the
Broward County Health Department, an agency of the State of Florida Department of Health on July 27,
2011 alleging duck and chickens on the subject property and the attendant feces were creating a nuisance
and bad odor.
The City of Hollywood, FL prohibits the keeping of animals and fowl pursuant to s. 92.02 of the
City of I{ollywood Code of Ordinances. Mr. Kohn, the owner of the subject property was cited by
Hollyu,ood Code Enforcement and a violation was found to exist by the Special Magistrate on May 19,
2009. The owner filed a Writ of Certiorari that was denied by the Hon. John Bowman, Circuit Court
Judge of the 17th Jueiicial Circuit and by the Fourth DCA.
Inspectors from the Environmental l{ealth South Office of the Broward County Health
Department, an agency of the State of Florida Department of Health, specifically Anthony Vomero and
Luisa Oramas went to the above described property on July 27,2011 at approximately 4 p.m. accompanied
by police officers from the City of Hollywood seeking access to the property. A copy of the above
referenced county ordinance authorizing entry onto the subject property was shown to the owner, Mr.
Steven K.ohn, who declined to permit entry notwithstanding the explanation given by Mr. Vomero and the
hard copy that was given to and in the possession of Mr. Kohn.
Page 3 of5
31
31
PAGE 4
GENERAIJ AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
The owner, Mr. Kohn, accompanied the inspectors to the side yard of his property and offered to
perrnit the inspecturs to look through the slats of the wooden fence. The view afforded was that of the side
yard and not the backyard of the property. Two chickens were observed loose and wandering in the side
yard at the time of observation. It was not possible to do an assessment to determine the presence of a
nuisance and related odors given the very limited and controlled access to the property from looking into
the area through a fence slat and the inspectors were unable to determine if a sanitary nuisance existed.
The inspectors, due to the recurring nature of this complaint have reason to believe that access to
the property is necessary to evaluate and determine the existence of a sanitary nuisance and related odors
on the property.
Page 4 of5
32
32
PAGE 5
GENERAL AFFIDAVTT AND APPIIICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
FOR SEARCH 1VARRANT
EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING OF AFFIANTS
Your affiant is a nine (9) year employee of the Broward County Health Department, an agency of
the State of Florida Department of Health currently in the position of Acting Director of Environmental
Health. Your affiant is a certified environmental health professional and has been so certified for the past
eight (8) years. Your affiant has been a environmental health inspector and has investigated numerous
complaints. Your affiant's responsibilities included routine inspections of public pools, group care
facilities, kitchens, rnovie theaters and foster homes and other health oriented complaints.
\ /HEREFORE,
your Affiant hereby makes application for a Search Warrant authorizing the
Affiants, Health Department Inspectors with the State of Florida Broward County Health
Department to enter upon the cartilage only of the property identified above with proper and
necessary assistance, to include but not limited to The City of Hollywood Police Department, to
search only the curtilage of the above described premise and related detached structure(s)
housing ducks and/or chickens located in the daytime/nighttime or on Sunday, and to take
photographs, as necessary, as it pertains to the presence of a nulsance.
AFFI
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before
me at Fort Lauderdale, Broward
Courlff, Florida, this
7
rlay
of / *.tth_, A.D. 2011.
.__T
f
Page 5 of5
33
33
34
34
35
35
I have time stamped security camera video of this. These are just some stills. 
Cameraman is in front of the tree.  Reporter’s legs (Jeff Weinsier) are visible under the roof tile.  Video 
footage is full clear and very clear.  Weinsier came with the police and with his cameraman. 
 
   
36
36
Second shot also showing cameraman and reporter in similar positions as the prior one. 
 
37
37
I have full video of this in color and high resolution.   
This shows Vomero and Oramas in the side yard before entering the house. 
 
   
38
38
This shows Vomero entering the house from the side door. (note that the fence is only a few feet ahead 
of him.  Exiting via the house offers them no convenience at all.  They wanted to look at our house both 
outside and inside. 
 
   
39
39
This shows Oramas entering the house a second later. 
 
   
40
40
This shows Vomero as he’s leaving the house. 
 
   
41
41
This shows Oramas leaving the house right behind Vomero. 
 
42
42
Blank page due to a paging error in the Motion. There is no page 43
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46

U.S. Department Of Housing and Urban Development
Georgia State Office
Five Points Plaza
40 Marietta Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-2806

August 12, 2011
Mr. & Mrs. Steven Kohn
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kohn:

Subject: Housing Discrimination Complaint
Kohn, Steven & Renee v. City Commission of Hollywood, FL, et al
HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8
Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6
Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9

Your complaint, alleging one or more discriminatory housing practices, was officially
filed on 08/08/2011 as a complaint under the Federal Fair Housing Law, 42 U.S.C. Sections
3601-3619. For your records, we are enclosing a copy of your complaint, and, as required by
law, a copy has been sent to the respondent(s).
Additionally, the complaint was filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VI). Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the
programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department. The HUD
regulation implementing Title VI at 24 CFR Part 1 requires that no person shall, on the ground of
race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. Further, Title VI at 24 CFR
Part 1 provides for an investigation whenever a complaint or other information indicates a
possible failure by a HUD-funded recipient to comply with the Acts. The U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will investigate this complaint under this authority.
The complaint also was filed under Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (Section 109). Section 109 requires that no person in the United States
shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex or religion be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
funded in whole or in part with community development funds.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of: 1) the rights you have during the processing
of this complaint, 2) the rights each respondent has in responding to this complaint, and 3) the
47
47
steps the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (the Department) will take to
determine whether the complaint has merit.
In order to ensure that the Department informs you properly of the law's requirements,
this notification letter contains language required by the law. A similar letter is used to notify all
parties whenever a formal complaint has been filed with the Department under the Federal Fair
Housing Law.

We are governed by federal law, which sets out what steps we must take when a formal
complaint is filed. The law also includes steps that each respondent can take to answer or refute
the allegations of this complaint.

Under federal law, a respondent can file an answer to this complaint or any amendment
made to this complaint within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Department's notification letter
to him or her. Each respondent's answer must be signed and affirmed that the response is
truthful by including the statement "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct." A respondent can, with the agreement of the Department, amend his or her answer
at any time during the investigation.

Our responsibility under the law is to undertake an impartial investigation and, at the
same time, encourage all sides to reach an agreement, where appropriate, through conciliation.
The law requires us to complete our investigation within 100 days of the date of the official
filing of the complaint. If we are unable to meet the 100-day requirement for issuing a
determination, the law requires that we notify you and the respondent(s) and explain the reasons
why the investigation of the complaint is not completed.

In handling this complaint, we will conduct an impartial investigation of all claims that
the Fair Housing Act has been violated. If the investigation indicates that there is not evidence
establishing jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. At any point, you can request that our staff
assist you in conciliating (or settling) this complaint with the respondent(s). If the case is not
resolved, we will complete our investigation and decide whether or not the evidence indicates
that there has been a fair housing violation. If the parties involved have not reached an
agreement to settle the complaint, the Department will issue a determination as to whether there
is reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice has occurred.

If our investigation indicates that there is reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful
discriminatory housing practice has occurred, the Department must issue a charge. If the
investigation indicates there is no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred,
the complaint will be dismissed. In either event, you will be notified in writing.

If the determination is one of reasonable cause, the notification will advise you and the
respondent(s) of your rights to choose, within 20 days, whether you wish to have the case heard
by an Administrative Law Judge, or to have the matter referred for trial in the appropriate U.S.
District Court.

Under federal law, even if the Department dismisses the complaint, you still have the
right to bring an individual suit under the Federal Fair Housing Law. You may file your lawsuit
48
48
in an appropriate federal, state or local court within two years of the date of the alleged
discriminatory practice or of the date when a conciliation agreement has been violated. The law
does not count, as part of the two-year period, any of the time when a proceeding is pending with
the Department. You also have the legal right to file a lawsuit in court, even if your complaint
formed the basis for a charge, as long as an Administrative Law Judge has not started a hearing
on the record with respect to the charge.

There may be other applicable federal, state or local statutes under which you and/or the
respondent(s) may initiate court action. You may consult a private attorney in this regard.

The law also requires us to notify you that section 818 of the Fair Housing Act makes it
unlawful for a respondent or anyone else to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with you in
your exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected under the Federal Fair Housing
Law. The law also makes it illegal for anyone to coerce, threaten or interfere with you for your
having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right or
protection granted to them under the Federal Fair Housing Law.

Some explanatory material on the law is enclosed for your information.
If you have any questions regarding this case, please contact Candace Tapscott at (305)
536-4479, ext. 2218. Please refer to the case number at the top of this letter in those contacts,
and keep this office advised of any change of your address or telephone number. We hope this
information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Carlos Osegueda
FHEO Region IV Director

Enclosures
49
49
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT
CASE NUMBER: 04-11-1099-8/6/9
1. Complainants
Steven Kohn
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021
Renee Kohn
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021
2. Other Aggrieved Persons
Rebecca L. Kohn
Hannah E. Kohn
Sara R. Kohn
Minor #1 Kohn
Minor #2 Kohn
Minor #3 Kohn
Minor #4 Kohn
Minor #5 Kohn
Minor #6 Kohn
Minor #7 Kohn
3. The following is alleged to have occurred or is about to occur:
Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.).
Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use.
4. The alleged violation occurred because of:
National origin and religion.
50
50
5. Address and location of the property in question (or if no property is involved,
the city and state where the discrimination occurred):
3841 N 51st Ave
Hollywood, FL 33021
6. Respondent(s)
City Commission of Hollywood, FL
P. O. Box 220945
Hollywood, FL 33022-9045
Cameron D. Benson, City Manager
City of Hollywood, FL
P. O. Box 220945
Hollywood, FL 33022-9045
Richard Blattner, Dist 4 Commissioner
City of Hollywood, Florida
P. O. Box 220945
Hollywood, FL 33022-9045
Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Mgr
City of Hollywood, FL
P. O. Box 220945
Hollywood, FL 33022-9045
Clay Milan, Director, Code Enforcement
City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement
P. O. Box 220945
Hollywood, FL 33022-9045
Irish Gardner, Code Enforcement Officer
City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement
P. O. Box 220945
Hollywood, FL 33022-9045
7. The following is a brief and concise statement of the facts regarding the
alleged violation:
Complainants Steven and Renee Kohn own a single family home located at 3841 N
51st Ave., in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complainants identified
their religion as Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. The complainants note that their
readily observable religious practices, speech, dress, and customs are influenced by
Arabic culture. The complainants belong to a class of persons whom the Fair
51
51
Housing Act (the Act) as amended, protects from unlawful discrimination because
of religion and national origin. The complainants' property is subject to the
ordinances and restrictions of the City of Hollywood, Florida, administered by and
through the Respondent City Commission, Respondent Cameron D. Benson, the
City Manager, Respondent Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Manager,
Respondent Richard Blattner, District 4 City Commissioner, Respondent Clay
Milan, Director of Code Enforcement, and Respondent Irish Gardner, Code
Enforcement Officer. To the complainants' belief, none of the respondents practice
Sephardic Orthodox Judaism.
According to the complainants, shortly after they moved into their home in 2008,
some of their neighbors objected to their Judeo-Arabic cultural practices,
describing the complainants as "Palestinians," "Muslims," and "terrorists." The
neighbors undertook a campaign to harass the complainants by repeatedly reporting
them to the City of Hollywood Police and Code Enforcement in regard to their pets:
eight hens and two 17" Dwarf Nigerian goats. In November of 2010, the same
neighbors went so far as to circulate a pamphlet entitled, "Are the Kohns Jewish,"
pointing out Muslim influences that, in their opinion, negate their status as Jewish.
On November 24, 2010, the City of Hollywood dispatched 5 police cars, 10 armed
police officers and 2 code enforcement officers to the complainants' home to
deliver citation warnings about their pets, which Respondent Milan contends are
livestock. The complainants felt intimidated, upset, and humiliated by the City's
show of force. The complainants observed that the warnings were written and
ordered to be delivered before an inspection of their property had even occurred.
They assert that they are in compliance with the City's ordinances, dispute the
characterization of their pets as "livestock," and believe the City is selectively
enforcing these ordinances against them, based on cultural biases. In deposition
testimony on July 27, 2011, Respondent Gardner, a code enforcement officer,
admitted that other city residents with poultry have been treated differently by the
City. To the complainants' belief, these other residents are not practitioners of
Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. During their dealings with the respondents and
their neighbors, the complainants assert they have never demonstrated threatening
behavior to justify the City's show of force.
Within a few days of circulating the "Are the Kohns Jewish" pamphlet, on
December 1, 2010, the neighbor e-mailed Respondent Blattner asking for his
support in dealing with the Kohns via code compliance enforcement. Respondent
Blattner forwarded her e-mail to other City officials and convened an internal
meeting to discuss the complainants. The complainants assert that because of the
cultural bias of City officials, and as a result of the neighbor's discriminatory
influence on Respondent Blattner, the City of Hollywood has persisted in harassing
the complainants. Continually since August 23, 2010, the City of Hollywood has
fined the complainants $250/day for their pets, applying the lien retroactively to
August 18, 2009. On July 13, 2011, the City of Hollywood filed a lawsuit against
the complainants to collect over $160,000 in Code Enforcement fines.
52
52
The complainants believe the respondents are using code enforcement violations as
a pretext to discriminate against them based upon their religion and perceived
national origin. They allege that the respondents collectively have harassed and
intimidated them in violation of Section 818 of the Act. They further allege the
respondents collectively have used zoning and land use ordinances to discriminate
against them in violation of Section 810(g)(2)(C) of the Act, Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974.
8. The most recent date on which the alleged discrimination occurred:
July 13, 2011, and is continuing.
9. Types of Federal Funds identified:
Community Development Block Grant.
10. The acts alleged in this complaint, if proven, may constitute a violation of the
following:
Sections 818 and 810(g)(2)(C) or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as
amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988.
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Please sign and date this form:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this complaint (including any
attachments) and that it is true and correct.
_____________________________________________ _______________
Steven Kohn (Date)
_____________________________________________ _______________
Renee Kohn (Date)
N O T E : HUD WILL FURNISH A COPY OF THIS COMPLAINT TO THE
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION AGAINST WHOM IT IS FILED.
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
56
q:; ..lr::'ifi*.': :-'. :ii
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD
COUNTY, FLORIDA
.ASENo.:CrqCF
ll- lLozrc
fu-)
i.
t..'i.:.
ORDER
"il
ii::
4
i
I
1
o\
=+
$r\*q
Plaintiff;,
'\fr.,.
(^r[.^
Defendant.
urh
considered by the on the following Motion
a ro
HEARING was held on
THE COURT having considered the grounds for the Motion, taken testimony, heard argument and considered the
applicable law, it is FOUND,
r cl,\nanL.t-
t 00.s
[],
r.l
0A^e{-!,
h\
,&
fo
e L.*),L I
V4
A{>
fi9-
Ie,- tl TfcrwS kr,r"d
DONE AND ORDERED
Copies furnished:
BC 118 (Rev 2/07)
E tn Open Court
frvrrllair
c r Rc u rr co u
nrTlHBEtopv
57
57
I
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD,
FLORIDA
a Municipal Corporation
Organized & Existing under the
Laws of the State of Florida
Plaintiff,
vs.
Steven Kohn
Defendant.
I
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ITTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COI.'NTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: Lt-0t6210
(18)
HON. MICHELE TOWBTN STNGER
ORDER ON DEFENDAI\T'S
MOTION TO DISMISS AI\ID FOR COSTS AI\ID FEES
THIS CAUSE came before the cotrt on Defendant Steven Kohn's Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and for Costs and Fees pursuant to
section 162.10, Florida Statutes. The court having considered same, being duly advised in
premises and law, dispenses with oral argument and finds and decides as follows:
The City of Hollyvood (*Plaintiff') filed its Complaint against Steve,n Kohn seeking to
collect the Order of Imposition of Fine and Claim of Lien cntered by a Special Master of the City
of Hollynvood, finding Steven Kohn in violation of section 92.02(A) of the City of Hollyrood
Code of Ondinances. On Nove,mber 14, 2011, this Court e,ntered an order granting without
prejudice, Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Amend Complaint to an amount not
exceeding the marimum fine allowable by the ordinance. The Order allowed Plaintiff twenty
(20) days to show this Court authority under which Defendant can be fined more than $100 total.
Plaintiff failed to file any authority with the court within twenty days, but filed a Motion for
Rehearing on the Nove,lnber l4,20ll Order. On Decemb ff 6,2011, this Court entered its Order
58
58
I
h
["
I
CASE NO.: tl4t62l0 (18)
("the Transfer Ordef') limiting Plaintiffs damages to $100.00. Since the claim for relief was no
longer within the
jurisdictional
limits of this Court, the case was transfemed county court.
Defendant now brings its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure' for PlaintifPs failure to pay transfer fees.
In support of his Motion, Defendant argues that more than thirty (30) days have elapsed
since the Transfer Order was entered and Plaintiff failed to stay the order pending appeal to the
Fourth District Cotrt of Appeal of Florida. The court agrees. Accordingly, this action must be
.lisnrissod-
Next, Defendant argues entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to section 162.10, Florida
Statutes2 as a "prevailing party''. Generally, the prevailing party is the party that won on the
significant issues in litigation. M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., v. Khosrow Maleki, P.A., 975 So. 2d
1288, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., lnc.,604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)).
However, a defendant is entitled to fees pursuant to the the prevailing party standard when a
plaintiff fails to firther pursue its claims when the case was dismissed. Frazier v. Dreyftus, 14
So. 2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
ln Frazier, the appellants appealed an order granting attorney's fees in favor of appellee.
Id. at 1183. The appellants, purchasers of thirteen vacatign bungalows in Costa Ricq entered
into a ontract with appellesrf,ler. Id. The appellants later discovered that the property they
purchased was public land allegedly owned by the Costa Rican government. Id. at I 184. The
' 1c;
Method. The service charge of the clerk of the court to which an action is transferred under this rule shall be
paid by the party who commenced the action within 30 days from the date the order of transfer is entered, subject to
taxation as provided
by law when the action is determined. If the seryice charge is not paid wittrin the 30 days, the
action shall be dismissed without oreiudice by the court that entered the order of transfer.
'
roz.rT5ffin or nen
-
No tien proviaed under the Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act shall
continue for a period longer than 20 years after the certified copy of an order imposing a fine has been recorded,
unless within that time an action is commenced pursuant to s. 162.09(3) in a court of competent
jtrisdiction.
In an
action to foreclose on a lien or for a money
judgment,
the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs, including
reasonable attorney's fee, that it inctrs in an action...
Page 2 of 4
59
59
I
I
CASE No.: l1-016210 (18)
buyers then brought suit against appellee. Id. at 1183. [n response, appellee filed a motion to
dismiss based on a provision in the contract mandating the arbitration of disputes before the
Costa Rican-American Chamber of Comm€rce in Costa Rica. Id. at 1184. The trial court
entered an order compelling the arbitration and abated the action. Id. The appellants elected not
to arbitrate their claims because of the expense associated with the retention of counsel in Costa
Rica. Id. The appellee moved to dismiss the suit for failtre to comply with the court orders
requiring arbitration and moved for prevailing party attorney's fees. Id. The trial court
fismisscd fre action d aurrded ftes, hotding fttr fiEndless of ufrether or not the buyers etter
instituted arbitration proceedings in Costa Rica or othenvise decided not to pursue their claims,
the seller prevailed in the action when the case was dismissed. Id. at I 184-5 (applyrng reasoning
of Alhambra Homeowners Ass'n v. Asad,943 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). Since this Cotrt
found the amount in controversy must be limited to $ 100,
jurisdiction
was no longer within this
Court. For whatever reason, Plaintiff has failed to pursue its claim in county court. Regardless
of whether Plaintiff prevails in county court, Defendant prevailed on this action upon dismissal.
Accordingly, costs and fees are appropriate for Defendant as a prevailing pafiy.
This Court acknowledges that the authority provided within Plaintiffs Motion for
Rehearing was heard before the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, which dismissed the
issus on its merits.3 Aeordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing is moot. Neverttreless, this
Court finds that a Motion for Rehearing is an improper motion on a non-final order. See Wagner
v. Bieley, Wagner & Assocs., fnc.,263 So. 2d l, 3 (Fla. lgTZ).
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED
WITIIOUT PREJUDICE.
3
Case No.: 4Dl2-12. The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida issued its order on February 16,21l1stating:
ORDERED that the petition for writ of certiorari filed January 5, 2012, is hereby denied oo thr merits without
prejudice to raising on final appeal.
Page 3 of 4
60
60
CASE NO.: I l-016210
(18)
It is funher ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Costs and Fees Pursuant to section
162.10, Florida Statutes is GRANTED.
This Court res€rves
jurisdiction to det€rrnine the
amount of Defendant's Fees and Costs.
2012.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida this day of April
IIIICHTI.E
TOII/BIN
SII{GER
HON. MICHELE TOWB
CIRCUIT COURT
Copiesfuuighod to:
Steve Kohn, 3841 N. 5l$ Avenue, Hollpvood, Florida330}l
Stacey S. Fisher, Esq., 277 5 Sunny Isles Blvd., Suite 100, Miami, Florida 33 160-4007
a>'.+-: }*ii;:a-t:
Page 4 of 4
-
G
61
61
62
62
63
63
TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORTDA
caseNo.: ll-
l3V
Division: 5q
ORDER EXTENDING IN{UCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAII\ST:
'
H
(
)
DOMESTTC VTOLENCE (p"l nrprAT VIOLENCE (
)
DATING VIOLENCE
-n*
(
)
SEXUALVTOLET\CE
Fi"
:
)i,<
THIS CAUSE camebefore the Cour t on
{date}
f-
(
8
I
q
,
upon Petitioner's
motion for an extension of injunction for protection and it appearing to the Court as follows:
"/
E
Ex parte. The claims in the motion for extension of injunction for protection make it appear
to the Court that there is an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, or
sexual violence, as required under section 74I.30 or section 784.046, Florida Statutes. The
previously entered injunction is extended until
{date}
t{-tS'
! f . A full hearing
on the petition is scheduled for
{darc}
Va
S-{ / at t
:3O
u.*.@ i,
Room frZO
,
Broward County Courihouse,2}l S.E. 6th Street, Fort Laudildale,
Florida 33301.
NOTICE: Because this is a civil case, there is no requirement that these proceedings be
transcribed at public expense.
YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IN THIS COURT:
a. A court reporter is provided by the court.
f
{ b. Electronic audio tape recording only is provided by the court. A parly may
arrange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a written
transcript of the proceedings at thatparty's expense.
c. If this is a repeat violence, dating violence, or sexual violence action, no
.1."t oni. ,rdio tape recording or Lourt reporting ,.*i.., are provided by the court. A parfy
may afiange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a written
transcript of the proceedings at the party's expense.
A RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES A TRANSCRIPT, MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT AN
APPEAL. THE PARTY SEEKING THE APPEAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING THE
Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat
Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)
64
64
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BYA COURT REPORTER. THE TRANSCRIPT MUST BE FILED
WITH THE REVIEWTNG COURT OR THE APPEAL MAY BE DENIED.
If you are aperson with disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in
this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance.
Please contact
{name } A.D.A Information
{address}
Broward Countv Courthouse
,{telephone}
(.954)
83I-6364
,
within 2 working days of your receipt of this order. If you are hearing or voice impaired, call
Tdd 1-800-9ss-877t.
After notice and hearing. Respondent was served with a copy of the temporary injunction,
if applicable, and a notice of this hearing within the time required by Florida law and was
afforded an opportunity to be heard. The notice and opportunity to be heard were sufficient
to protect Respondent's right to due process. The following persons attended the hearing:
(
)
Petitioner (
)
Respondent.
After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent
of Respondent, the Court finds that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat violence,
dating violence, or sexual violence or reasonably fears that helshe will become a victim of
dating violence from Respondent. The previously entered injunction is extended until
{date} ,
or until fuither order of the Court.
ORDERED on
l*{
g*f
t
COPIES TO:
JUDGE I\NICHAELG. KAPIjH
by U.S. Mail
by hand delivery in open court (Petitioner must
acknowledge receipt in writing on face of the
original order
-
see below)
forwarded to sheriff for service
Sheriff of County
Petitioner (or his or her attorney):
-rF
Respondent (or his or her attorney):
--6by
hand delivery in open court (Respondent must
acknowledge receipt in writing on face of the
original order
-
see below)
by certified mail (may only be used when
Respondent is present at the hearing and
respondent fails or refuses to acknowledge the
receipt of certified copy of this injunction)
State Attorney's Office
Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat
Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)
CIRCUTT JUDGE
65
65
Other:
I CERTIFY the foregoing is a true copy of the original as it appears on file in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Couft of Broward County, Florida, and that I have fuinished
is order as indicated above.
iEAL)
r "'if,(
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I,
{Name
of Respondent}
of a certifled copy of this Injunction
.*,:'oa 11,,1, *
,
acknowledge receipt
'. ":.
r' i
,/.,'i
: _ I t"
n ,.;
'"1--'-
Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Fom 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat
Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)
66
66
Ho I lywo od P o lice Dep artment
CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: oznlt2olt t3:32
oce: 331101010821
Case Status:
INACTIT/E
Offense: INFOfuMATION
Case Mng Status:
i,/l Occured: l1/29/2010
lnvestigator: VALENTIN, D. (3240)
Supervisor: FERGUSON, W. (1841)
Contact: Reference: Follow Up
ON THE ABOVE DATE AND TIME THE COMPLAINANT RETURNED TO HOLLYWOOD POLICE
DEPARTMENT PID TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF T}IE ABOVE INCIDENT. TTM VICTIM
STATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN GETTING E-MAIL FROM HER NEIGIIBORS, COPMS THAT I OBSERVED,
PROVIDING INFORMATION OF THE COMPLAINANTS DAILY ACTTVITIES. THE COMPLAINANTS
STATED THAT SHE BELMVES THAT HER NEIGI{BORS HAS BEEN CONDUCTING BACKGROUND
INVESTIGATION OF HER. TIIE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT SHE WILL GO TO COURT TO OBTAIN AN
INJTINCTION ORDER FROM THE JUDGE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION
Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22: I4:16, Tuesday
Supervisor Review Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22:45:42, Tuesday
r supp3
Page 5
67
67
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TT{E SEVENTEE}.ITH JUDICTAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BBOVABD-_ COLINTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: DVCE 11-t34
Division: 59 Michael Kaplan
SANDRA EINEIORN
Petitioner,
and
STEVE KOTIN. ,
Respondent.
Ei
..-i
-_-
*-a
Ttrr is ord er vacates order extend in gEFi u nction
t
dated 1/[8/11. ;'r:.r:-,: :.*-
l'..1
r--:,i-.: E
t\J
<J
.-rJ
",.',1,
4!
I
a \
,'!a
r_--4.r
i
.
I
t$-
.b;*
,i*J
f)
(f|
i-rt
GR.DER SETTING EIEARING ON PETITTON FOR, ENJUNCTHOT'{
FOR PROTECTTGN,A.GAINST
(
)
DOMESTTC VTOLENCE ( X
)
REPEAT VIOLENCE (
)
DATING VIOLENCE
(
)
sExuAL VHOLENCE
WITI{OUT HSSUANCE GF AN TNTERtrM TEiUPORARY IN.TUNCTTON
The Fetition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence filed under section 741.30,
Florida Statutes, or Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence under section 784.046, Florida
Statutes, has been reviewed. This Court has
jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject rnatter. A
Ternporary Injunctiol for Protection Against Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence, pending the hearing
scheduled below, is NOT being entered at this time but an injunction may be entered after the hearing,
depending on the frndings made by the Court atthattime.
FINDTNGS
The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the rnatter, do
not demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence or that Petitioner has
reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic or dating
violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporaryt
Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence prior to a hearing. A hearing
is scheduled on the Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual
Violence in section II of this Order. Petitioner lnay amend or supplement the Petition rt any time to state
further reasons why a Temporary lnjunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing
scheduled below.
NOTICE OF EIEARING
Petitioner and Respondent are ordered to appear and testiff at a hearing on the Petition for Injunction
for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence an
{date}
84/ld,l1l,
?t
l:30
a.m./p.m.at{loca.tiorl.JudEeMichaelKaplan_,W,201'sE6thSkeet,Fort
L,auderdale, Florida, at which time the Court will consider whether a Final Judgment of Injunction fcrr
Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence should be entered. lf entered, the injunction
willremainirreffectuntilafixeddatesetbytheCourtoruntilrnodifiedordissolvedbytheCourt.Atthp
hearing, the Court will determine whether other ttrings should be ordered, including, for example, such,tnatters
:'t
Florida Supreme Court Approved Farnily Larv Form 12.980(bXl), Order Setting Hearing on Petition for Injunetion for Protection Against Dotnestic
Viotence, Repeat Violence. Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence rvithout Issuance of an Interim Ternporary In-iunction (03104)
:i
i.,:r:
f
-.)
68
68
c____)
tr<
t__-J
r___l
IT.T TIIE CIR-CUIT CCURT OF TI-,;E
iTT- J_I'DICA]L
CIRCUIT, TIT1 AND
FCR BROWAJR-D
CCLI}ITY, FLCP,']DA
case ru" / /*
/3{
CLERK,SCERTIFICAT,EoFCOIUPLIA]{CE
seciion 741.30 Florida
statutes
(Domesiic
Violence)
Section 7 84.046 Florida
Statutes
(Repeat Violence)
section 784.0+6Floric'a
Statutes @r,ing
violence)
seciicn 784.O46F1orid-a
StatL:-tes
(Sexual Violence)
I IIEREBY
CERTIFY
thal on
L--J
TernPorarY
iajunction
(----l
Final Judgment
t--j
E:lensionA{otice
of Heariag
t--_)
Vacated
t___j
rvas foiwarded
or mailed
within 24 hours from
the time of its entry to the sheriffreceiving
the original
noti-fication
of the iajunction,
to wit:
AgencyName:
l\) :._-r
-: E ,:a
,,:- i-li J; '.-..,
(J1"- *r'
.Ei*=*
-.n
-e.-ii=
F? i.::
E=:i-." T, .,')
ac'#
fr
=
ft
*n.*-
:: :;'ilj
(Jl ii
'-'-:r'
'
:'li
':iq
:': ,,. ..
-U
r.-i - q;
f*l
""it '
...j *h .:*_*:
f""
(' I
-:J.:j t
sEh $ *l
:;ii di:
[--r
c4
c]
tE,
fn
(Check one):
a copy of
'rhe
Dismissal
Other:
Pe-r-itioner
R-espondent
Address:
d C. Forman,
CLERK
Deputy Clerk
DOh'ES T VIOL i 2 3 - 5 2 CEFJIFICATE
OF CO]"PLIAN CE
69
69
Subject: Public Records help request
From: Kohn <kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1/5/2012 7:21 PM
To: jweatherford@hollywoodfl.org
CC: David Low <dlowlaw@gmail.com>, jcantor@hollywoodfl.org, JSHEFFEL@hollywoodfl.org, Pat
Gleason <Pat.Gleason@myfloridalegal.com>, pbober@hollywoodfl.org, rknapp@hollywoodfl.org
Lt. Weatherford,
Copied on this note is Pat Gleason of the Florida Attorney General's office in hopes
that Ms. Gleason can help you understand that you are required to provide the requested
records.
I received a phone call this afternoon from Alicia in records telling me the records
requested below were ready. I came and picked them up, and the complete packet of
records is attached as a PDF, with the sole exception of a DVD recording of the search
warrant being served, which was provided with the records.
When I stated "I would like to request complete copies of ALL records that relate to
this investigation, including any meeting notes, NCIC printouts, internal summaries,
photographs, inventory lists, and so forth. Every record of every kind.", I did not
think there was ambiguity.
Based on the packet you have provided, I conclude that there were no meetings, no NCIC
printouts, no investigation, no testing of materials seized, and so forth. I also
conclude that whereas your search warrant affidavit states that a subpoena existed, that
there was never a subpoena. I also conclude that the alleged victim never reported that
there was a restraining order which was violated. I also conclude that there were no
emails from the alleged victim as the affidavit states.
Please clarify if this packet is the totality of
1) what Hollywood Police used to obtain a search warrant
2) all of the investigation reports and results
3) all of the 'evidence' collected
4) all of the internal communications about this matter
If this is truly everything, I'm looking forward to a day in Federal Court where you can
explain how based on absolutely nothing other than these slim reports you obtained a
search a warrant and lied on the affidavit by saying that things existed which did not.
Assuming this is not truly everything, I once again respectfully request to be provided
with the records.
I have requested and want copies of the following:
1) ALL data of every kind that relates to this case in any way
2) that data will include all internal communications between Hollywood City employees
or contractors, and all external communications between any Hollywood City employee and
outside agencies, such as the United States Secret Service, or any third parties which
might have been consulted with regarding any aspect of this case
3) ALL information referred to in the search warrant affidavit, including but not
limited to the NCIC printout, the 88 emails, the complaint from Sandra Einhorn stating
she had a restraining order that was being violated, copies of ALL of the photos that
were allegedly only in existence on Einhorn's computer, and a timeline showing which
computers were inspected on what dates/times that will show how you complied with the
last paragraph of page 6 on the Affidavit, wherein HPD acknowledges a business is on the
computers and that every effort was indeed taken to expedite the investigations and
return the computers expeditiously one by one.
PublicRecordshelprequest imap://imap.googlemail.com:993/fetch>UID>/Lawsuit>670?heade...
1of4 7/11/20122:07PM
70
70
Subject: Copy of restraining order requested
From: Alicia Fernandez-Davis <ADAVIS@hollywoodfl.org>
Date: 1/11/2012 10:59 AM
To: "'kohnfamily1@gmail.com'" <kohnfamily1@gmail.com>
Good morning Mr. Kohn,
Attached please find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part of your
public records request.
Thank you.
Alicia
Attachments:
Sharpscan@hollywoodfl.org_20120111_104854.pdf 92.4 KB
Copyofrestrainingorderrequested
1of1 7/11/20122:08PM
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
Ho llywoo d Police D epartm ent
CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: 07 /l8l20ll 13:32
oce: 337104061998
,,
TT INFoRMATION BEIpw IS CoNFIDENTLAL FoR USE BT A\IffioRtzED
pERsoNNEL
oNLy
,,
Case Status:
INACTII/E
Offense: TRESPASSING
Case Mng Status:
INACTII/E Occured: 04/23/2011
Investigator: PLUMMER, P. (3221)
Supervisor: ANDRANIS, P. (1930)
Contact:
Reference: Follow Up
ON 0412412011, I RESPONDED TO 3821 N 51ST AVE IN REFERENCE TO A NEIGHBOR DISPUTE. I MADE
CONTACT WITH SANDRA EINHORN. Sr{E STATED THAT TODAY r{ER NEIGr{BOR (3841 N 51 AVE),
STEVE KOHN'S CHILDREN AND V/IFE WERE TRESPASSING ON I{ER PROPERTY AND RANG HER DOOR
BELL AND WERE RI]NNING AROUND IN I{ER FRONT YARD. SIIE EXPLAINED THAT SIIE DOES HAVE A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (COtrRT CASE #DVCE-I t-2439) ON STEVE KOHN, BUT NOT HrS
WIT'E OR CHILDREN. SANDRA DOES I{AVE VIDEO OF TODAY'S INCIDENT AND WILL BRING T}IE
VIDEO TO SHOW TI{E JUDGE AT T}IE FINAL I{EARING FOR TIIE RESTRAINING ORDER IN MAY. I GAVE
A VERBAL WARNING TO TIM RESIDENTS OF 3841 N 51ST AVE TO STAY OF OFF SANDRA'S PROPERTY.
Date / Time: 04/24/20 I I I 5 : 28: 3 3, Sunday
Supervisor Review Date / Time: 04/24/2bt t 20:24:35, Sunday
Page 5
75
75
-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: DVCE ll-2439
Division: 59
SANDRA JRST] EINHORN
n*Tr
l*r >1, r d
i. lr.:.
Petitioner,
and
iil
i-1
t-*-
,'-ij
c-)
l.t
:DF
-E
Lt1
for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence on
{date}
5l2lll
,
at 1:30
4/p.m)
at
{location}-Judee
M. KAPLAN
,3@[-$70,
201 SE 6th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Fhffi
at which time the Court will consider whether a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic,
Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence should be entered. If entered, the injunction will remain in effect until a
fixed date set by the Court or until modified or dissolved by the Court. At the hearing, the Court will determine
whether other things should be ordered, including, for example, such matters as visitation and support. Il;i
If Petitioner and/or Respondent do not appear,orders may be entered, including the impqsition'+*f
court costs or an injunction.
Florida Supreme Court Approved Farnily law Form 12.980(bXl), Order Sefting Hearing on Petition for Injunction for Protection Againsl.Pomestic ,
Violence, Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence without Issuance ofan Interirn Temporary Injunction (03/04) '
l.ri
, (r)
0trD
STEVE KOHN
Respondent.
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PETITION FOR INJUNCTION
FOR PROTECTION AGAINST
&-
(
)DOMESTTC
ITOLENCE ( X)REPEATVTOLENCE
(
)DATINGVIOTTTpE
(
)
sExuAL VIOLENCE B=i
WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF AN INTERIM TEMPORARY INJUNCTIOff"II
';
The Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence filed under sectibn 741.W
Florida Statutes, or Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence under section 78a.fiafflorffi
Statutes, has been reviewed. This Court has
jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matt$F'ff
::
Temporary lniunction for Protection Against Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence, pending thBhbarinfj
scheduled below, is NOT being entered at this time but an injunction may be entered after the hearing,
depending on the findings made by the Court at that time.
FINDINGS
The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the matter, do
nct demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, rcpeat, dating, or sexual violence or that Fetitioner has
reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic or dating
violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporary
Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence prior to a hearing. A hearing
is scheduled on the Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual
Violence in section II of this Order. Petitioner may amend or supplement the Petition at any time to state
further reasons why a Temporary Injunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing
scheduled below.
NOTICE OF HEARING
Petitioner and Respondent are ordered to appear and testify at a hearing on the Petition for Injunction
F i[iT
76
76
77
77

78
78
79
79
I
l*oq
alsFl
u
PAGE 1
GENERAL AEEIDAVIT AND APPI.ICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
IN T}IE CIRCUIT COT]RT OF TIIE SEYENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND F'ORBROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL AT'F'IDAVIT AI\[D APPLICATIONFOR SEARCH WARRANT
STATEOF FLORTDA
)
)ss
CoUNTYoFBROWARD
)
BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, THE HONORABLE Judge Marcia Beach, Judge of
the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward Cormty, State of Florida,
personally came Detective ROBERT KNAPP #2536, of the Hollywood Police Departrnent, who
after being first duly swom, deposes and says:
DESCRIPTIOI+OF PREMISES TO BE SEARCIIED:
A residential house, any detached structues, and any registered vehicles on the property
located at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State of
Florida. The residence is a concrete biock construction single family residence. The exterior
walls are painted tan with a terra cotta barrel tile roof. The blue front exterior door faces west
between two decorative off white colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The residence
has a circular driveway $iith a two car gamge. The address number "3841" is afExed to the
exterior wall facing west above the garage doors.
The location in question can be reached from I-95, to west on Sterling Road, to south on
Sarazen Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of3841 North
51 Avenue'
'il't:' -s
All electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated periphq-BL locefr
within the residence listed above at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollyw@Qi$""Sf
'
Broward, and the State of Florida
,t,->-i
-*-
*
--s<*'
cd
i-;
-:r,, \ C.)
-.!-
-+

,--
ii
3
Page 1 of9
80
80
PAGE 2
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION
STATUTE(S) BEING VIOLATED:
Aggravated Stalking
PROPERTY SOUGHT:
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
ll-
oYs
iS(lo
F.s.s .784.048 (1) (d) (4)
Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search ofany
of tle listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.
1 . Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software and
hardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computer printers,
modems, tape drives, disk appiication programs, data disks, system disk operating
systems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and hard drive and
other computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computer photographs,
graphic interchange forrnats and/or photographs, digital cameras, slides, scanners or other
visua.l depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment which may be or are used
to visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
2. Any and all electronic equipment thalis capable of accessing the intemet and./or the
sending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones and
tablet computers, pertaining to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
3. Any and all correspondence, in elechonic, printed or any other form, pertaining
to
aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
4. Any and a"ll mziterials and photographs, either electronic, printed or any otlgq
form,
conceming aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
S; H
5rE
5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, storeffifaiffiq -r,
the evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or stdfiH :* ft
communications described in the affidavit.
S.S,i
; 5
'..-!e
-=
5
6. Files and data on the computer that show the suspect's ownership, posselffin
and;-
-{
control at time of the offense.
'-
-
-i.. [r.}
C}
7 . kry and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:
Steven Kohn kohn@ix.netcom.com, Rebecca Kohn (reUecca@amniqvseffc
),
Mike boy
(mitceyUoyg1a@hotma
),sandra.veszi@)rahoo.com,HannahKohn
(designbvhannah@hotmail.com), and Hinda Esther Kohn (estherkohn@hotmail.com).
Page2 of9
81
81
J
l-oVst
J
Ftt
PAGE 3
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
8. Encrllpted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of the
information listed in previous paragraphs.
GROUI\DS FOR ISSUANCE:
u t
. "u;t1t:If-rflitrIentalitv,
or
committed is contained therein.
Evidence relevant to proving a
therein.
means by which a felony has been
felony has been committed is contained
F.S. 933.02: (Non-Dwel1ing)
. (2) Properfy has been used as a means to commit any crime.
. (3) Property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that-a*felony has
been committed.
i--:
1l t\,
-
U
-
\)'-b
c:!' * ?
.-- ' ...*-
-\
t
-i].
: 'r'_, fq
-rr,r-,f
'l #
-T-;
a#n
-
rr*i
r\.,-
.Y
r=
..- r--,
*=-: b ;-
< !,,!
? d*t_
-1
^.F: -i
-<;:'*
-
*\
"
.r_...J
r
tt
.-;;.il (.o:l
-_i
ft
Page 3 of9
82
82
ll-cV3l
Sfia
PAGE 4
GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT
PROBA.BLE CAUSE:
Affitant's reason for his beliefthat the laws of the State ofFlorida are being violated as stated above
and the facts establishing the grounds for this Affidavit and the probable cause for believing that such facts
exist are as follows:
Detective Alex Perez is assigned as the lead investigator to t}lis case. He described that the victim,
Sandra Veszi Einlorn alleges the suspect Steven Kohn and his wife Renee Kohn have been continually
harassing her and her husband over the course ofthe past several months. She alleges the harassment
commenced on or about 1 1/2812010 when she made a complaint about the livestock they keep at the rear
of their property. Shortly afterwards, the victim began receiving harassing messages via facebook.com and
her e-mail address of sandraveszi@yahoo.com.
An 01/0712011, victirn Einhom applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,
restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interfering with, or stalking the
victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18201 1 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this
order on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court date of 04/15/201 1.
The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on
'.-l:
E
.-.=,
OZl23/2Oll and the dates listed were confirmed.
;l .f ::
*c.
:;E
a-
il
During the time period of 0l/ I 2/201 1 through 04/1 1/201 1, ar least eighty-ejght (8S
Seftronic ;11
_
".r;_i
=
=
mail messases
(e-maiD
were sent to the victim at sandraveszi@vahoo.com from various e-d6lBdreE&s.
1.
This time period was within the time period the protection order was active. Vtany of ttre}4qait messiges
c)
are addressed from Steve Kohn. Listed below are tlle email addresses (and names, if available) of the e-
mails that were sent to victim:
Fage 4 of9
83
83
ll-DY
3l
srl
a
PAGE 5
GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT
Steven Kohn kohn@A.nqllsqoo.qalq
Rebecca Kohn
(rqbpqaa@effuiih/searqh.com)
Mike boy
(lo1kq&ay&!4@hatmailpa!0)
sandra.veszi@lahoo. com
Hannah Kohn
(desipnbvhannah@hotmail.com)
Hinda Esther Kohn
(estherkohn@hotrnail.com)
Many of the e-mails from Steven Kohn
Gsb!@14aet sqra)
were regarding victim Einhom's
appearance. The remmks in the e-mai1 referred to having seen victim Einhorn on that day and included
attached pictures related to the content ofthe e-mails. The author repeatedly criticized victim Einhom's
personal appearance or attirc. Additional e-mails from the same internet potocol addrcss were regarding
the victim's vehicle (an Audi), and how some Gemans misteated the Jews during the World War tr era.
In particular, one of the e-mails wamed she had a front left flat tirc and
rJrat
"cmeful it's dangerous" and
another ten (10) e-mails with videos depicting an Audi, similar to victim Einhom's, either involved in a
crash or on fire (attached copies are provided). These e-mails in particular,
were sent durine
the. time tS
above listed protection order was in effect, which frightenerl and intimidated UcUm finhom:iile aaaAf
la
j::
(-
that many of the photographs seart to her were not publicly available on the internet ana sne$$lg6iea
$
-l
someone hacked into her computer to obtain thern.
Sib
..r-
F
F=;+F
Detective Perez and your affiant examined the header information for each of theg"Eilr.
fr
:i
-
:i:
discovered that they were all sent from the intemet protocol (IP) address of 65.34.193.158.
"This
ad$ss
was researched using the American Regisky for Intemet Numbers (ARIN). ARIN provides sen ices
related to the technical coordination and management of internet number resources. A semch on their
website of the IP address 65.34.193.15 8 revealed this was one of a set of IP addresses that belong to
Comcast Cable Comrnunications Holdings, Inc. A subpoena was drafted and approved by the Broward
county state attomey's oIEce on 04/2912011 requesting the information for some of the e-mails sent. A
request for the entire time frame was not made, due to the possibility of a great deal of subscribers assigned
to this dynamically assigned IP address. The subpoena was submitted to Comcast Communications on the
same date. On 05/18/2011, Comcast retumed the subpoena to Detective Perez indicating the IP address
Page 5 of9
84
84
tl-DLf
SlStto
PAGE 6
GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
65.34.193.158 is a dlmamically assigned IP address and that for the time period where many of the above
e-mails were sent, the IP address belonged to a commercial account registered to search affinity executive
out of 3841 n 5 1't Ave in Hollywood, Florida. This is the home address for Steve and Renee Kohn, the
suspects in question. This IP address has also been assigned to this customer, without intemrption, from
the time period of 0412912011through 0511812011. Additionally, one of the e-mail addresses,
rebecca@affinitysearch.com, specifically appears to be affiliated with the business name on the account.
Finally, one of the e-mail addresses used, sandra.veszi@)zahoo.com, is very similar to the victim's
e-mail address of sandraveszi@.vahoo.com. It appears to have been created to harass the victim and to
masquerade the identrty of the person sending the intimidating e-mails.
kr light of concerns that may arise that the iisted home business may be hindered without the use
of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that
every effort will be made to expedite the forensic examination and retum any system(s),
e_lpeditiously if
after the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).
q
*-
j-:'t
E
,5-:.-r
k
-.l-r .
nr
\k
=:,*.,,
F'j B
--':-
(
)
- r,,.1il-"1 1..)
/-'-/*
:;=,; >
JF .r
'i -F
.-+
-
ra -r*L
-\
'lw' E
,\!: ! k
,-;, r l
r-l
-':i; (-t)
'-r
c)
-J
t
\-J
Page 6 of9
85
85
t I
-
o'/sisvlo
PAGE 1
GENERAL AFF]DAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
EXPERIENCE A}{D TRAINING OF AIT'IANTS
Your affiant is a certified police officer with the City of Hollywood, Florida Police Departrnent
and has been so employed for 15 years. Your affiant has been a detective for 9 years and is cgrrently
assigned to The Economrc Crimes Unit (Specializing in Computer Crimes). Your affiant has been a swom
law enforcement officer since 1988 in the State of Florida. Your affiant's responsibilities include
rnvestigating computer crimes, conducting computer acquisitions / forensics / analysis, conducting video /
aud:ro acquisitions / forensics i analysis, and cellula phone / skinnner / pda / gps acquisitions / forensics /
analysis. Your affiant has successfully attended and completed over (1000) hours of specialized training in
the forensic anallsis of electronic digital media / computer systems, the use of colnputer systems to commit
or facilitate crimilal activity, the investigations of internet crimes, and the subsequent seizure and analysis
of those systerns. This included an (80) hour training gogram at The Federal Law Enforcernent Training
Center (FLETC) in Glenco, Georgia, a (200) hour training / certification program conducted by the
Departrnent of Defense and The United States Seoet Service titled "Electronic Crimes State and Local
Program
@CSLP)
-IRC-ENCASE" which focused on the techniques for the seizure, forepg& acquisi$on
and analysis of electronic data from computer systerns, a (80) hour training / certifcation
fd:dlr"
"E*
States Secret Semce Cellulm Phone Lab in Tulsa, OIg and an additional (80) hour rffi$t urEg I
1
*,=c)
__ l-rr
certification from The United States Secret Service Cellular Phone Lab in Tulsa, Ok whifrfi&bed 6a the
r"-''
ectonic data from c"rrfi$o*$onEr
Devices, Skrmmer Devices, and GPS Devices. Yow affiant has investigated a wrde iirfie of c&rinal
"
cases in which computer(s) and / or electronic device(s) was utilized as the means to commii feloq&?imes
as well as a means of storing relevant evidence to proving felony criminal crimes- Your afhant is a
federally deputized active member of the multi-jurisdictional Miami Electronics Crimes Task Force
CA4ECTF)
consisting of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcernent Agencies. Said Task Force is headed
by the United States Secret Service and is engaged in the investigations of electronic crimes with a focus
on computer related investigations. Your affiant has participated in the execution of numerous search
v/arrants and was an affiant or co-affiant on a number of those warrants. Your affiant has successfully
performed numerous forensic acquisition and analysis of electronic data from corputer systerns for both
State and Federal cases which vrere seized for criminal investigations.
Page 7 of9
86
86
tl'-
o\stsrl o
PAGE 8
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
THE ROLE OF TIIE COMPUTER IN THE OFF'ENSE
Your affiant knows that computer hardware, software, and electronic files may be important to a criminal
investigation in two distinct ways: (1) the objects themselves may be contraband, evidence,
instrumentalities, or fruits of crime, and/or (2) the objects may be used as storage devices that contain
contraband, evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of crime in the form of electronic data. In this case, the
warrant application requests permission to search and seize data related to aggravated stalking, including
those that may be stored on a computer. This data constitutes evidence of crime. This aftrdavit also
requests permission to seize the computer hardware that may contain the data related to aggravated
cyberstalking. Your affiant believes that, in this case, the computer hardware is a container for evidence
and also itself an instrumentality ofthe crime under investigation.
I{ECESSITY TO REMOVE COMPUTERFROM PREI\{ISES
Based upon your affiant's knowledge, training and experience, your afFlant knows that searching and
seizing information from computers often requires agerts-to seize most or all electronic storage devices
(along with related peripherals) to be searched later by a qualified computer expert in a laboratory or other
controlled environmeni. This is true because ofthe following:
.?rl ts
(
I ) The volume of evidence. Computer storage devices (like hard disk, diskettes, tapes,
,Ia.ffi
disksfran
store the equivalent of millions of pages
of information. Additionally, a suspect mayi+d
JS
copal . .
criminal evidence; he or she might store it in random order with deceptive file names. Iffi&riy r.Fire r.'i
searching authorities to examine all the stored data to determine which particular nf es
&Sfliaen6B or
I
instrumentalities of crime- This sorting process can take weeks or months, depending

ffie'irohift of U
data stored, and it would be impractical and invasive to attempt this kind of data searct onip&
=
-i
:F G)
(2) Technical Requirements. Searching computer systems for criminal evidence is a hiihly tecFnical
process requiring expert skill and a properly controlled environment. The vast array of computer hardware
and software available requires eyen computer experts to specialize in some systems and applications, so it
is difftcult to know before a search which expert is qualified to analyze the system and its data. In any
event, however, data search protocols are exacting scientific procedures designed to protect the integrity of
the evidence and to recover even
"hidden," erased, compressed, password-protected, or encrypted files.
Page 8 of9
87
87
ll
oL{
zls({r
PAGE 9
GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Because computer evidence is vulnerable to inadvertent or intsntional modification or deskuction (both
from external sources or from destructive code imbedded in the system as a "booby trap"), a controlled
environment may be necessary to complete an accurate analysis. Further, such searches often require the
seizure of most or all of a computer system's input/output peripheral devices, related software,
documentation, and data security devices (including passwords) so that a qualified computer expert can
accurately retrieve the system's data in a laboratory or other conkolled enyironment.
h light of these concerns, your affiant hereby requests the Court's permission to seize the
contents of the computer hardware (and associated peripherals) that are believed to contain some
or all of the evidence described in the waffant, and to conduct an off-site search of the hardware
for the evidence described.
WHEREFORE, your AIfiant hereby makes application for a Search Warant authorizing the
Affiants, Police Officers for The Cii,- of Hollywood, Broward County, Florid4 with proper and
necessary assistance, to include but not limited to The United States Secret Service and members
of The Miami Electronic Crimes Task Force, to search the above described prertdse ing$e
dalimeinighttime or on Sunday, and to seize any and all of the aforesaid propgrft foun@y
virtue of such Search Warrant and to list the properry seized on a retum and invent#mh
$O
_
within this Judicial Circuit within ten days of this date. d-!B
rfi
0-/
/,
k"'-*oE#-rl
5
AFFIANT Detective Robgfl/Knapp#36 :*-
-''-
,=c
r-=
3
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before
me at Fort Lauderdale, p,rcward
County, Florida, this
-f
day
oRx,lttxA- . A.D. 20\t.
U
JUDGE OF THE CIRCTIIT COI'RT
Page 9 of9
88
88
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORTDA
)
couNTY oF BROWARD
)
)SS
SEARCH WARRANT
IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO ALL AND SINGULAR:
The Chief of Police of the City of Hollywood, of Broward County, Florida, and his
officers, specifically Detective Robert Knapp.
Aftidavit having been made before me by Detective Robert Knapp, of the City of
Hollywood Police Department, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida that they have
probable
cause to know and they do know that on or about the premises
described as:
A residential house, any detached structures, and any registered vehicles on the property
located at384l North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State of
Florida. The residence is a concrete block construction single family residence. The exterior
walls are painted tan with ateruacotta barrel tile roof, The blue front exterior door faces west
between two decorative offwhite colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The residenee
has a circular driveway with a two car garuge. The address numb er "3841" is affixed to the
exterior wall facing west above the garage doors.
The location in question can be reached from l-95,to west on Sterling Road, to south on Sarazen
Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841North 51
Avenue.
All electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated peripherals), located
within the residerrce, any detached skuctures, and any registered vehicles listed above at 3B4l
North 5 1 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, ffid the State of Florida.
The following grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant, as required by chapter 933,
exists, to wit: the law relating to Aggravated Stalking F.S.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4),
has been
violated, and property constituting evidence relevant to proving
that such a Felony has been
cornmitted may be found therein, to wit:
89
89
PAGE TWO
SEARCITWARRANT
Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search of
any of the listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.
1. Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software and
hardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computer
printers, modems, tape drives, disk application programs,
data disks, system disk
operating systems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and hard
drive and other computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computer
photographs, graphic interchange formats and/or photographs,
digital Gameras, slides,
scanners or other visual depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment which
may be or are used to visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
2. Any and all electronic equipment that is capable of accessing the intemet and/or the
sending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones
and
tablet computers, pertaining
to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
3. Any and all conespondence, in electronic, printed
or any other form, pertaining
to
aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
4. Any and all materials and photographs, either electronic, printed
or any other form,
concerning aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).
5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, store, or modify
the evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or store
communications described in the affidavit.
6. Files and data on the computer that show the suspeot's ownership, possession
and
control at time of the offense.
7. Any and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:
Steven Kohn kohn@ix.netcom.com, Rebecca Kohn
,
Mike boy
(m
ikevbov8 1 4@hotmai I. comt, sand ra. veszi@vahoo. com, Hannah Kohn
,
ffid Hinda Esther Kohn
8. Encrypted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of the
information listed in previous paragraphs.
90
90
NOW THEREFORE, the facts upon which the belief of said affiant is based as set out in said
Affidavit are hereby deemed sufficient to show probable
cause for the issuance of a Search
Warrant in accordance with said application of said Affiant.
And as I am satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the laws of the State of
Florida are being violated as aforesaid and that the above described property
is being
concealed within the above described residence, I expressly find probable
cause for the
issuance of this Search Warrant.
THIS lS, THEREFORE to command me, Detective Robert Knapp, Police Officer for the City of
Hollywood, Broward County, Florida, with proper and necessary assistance, to include but not
limited to The United States Secret Service and members of The Miami Electronic Crimes
Task Force, to search the above described location, serving this warrant and making the search
in the daytime or the nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demand
or require, with the proper and necessary assistance, and if the property above described be
found there, to seize it, Ieaving a copy of this warrant and a receipt for the property
taken and to
prepare a written inventory of the property seized and return this warrant and inventory and
bring the property before a court having competent
jurisdiction
of the offense within (10) days
as required by law.
DONE AND ORDERED at
4ilswstL ,
Florida,
<t
on thi= (''day
iJ-J--
,
2011 .
CIRCUIT JUDGE MARCIA BEACH
91
91
City of Hollywood Police Department
INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT
Case #
Received this warrant on
on
20 and executed the same
,
20- at
_ _m.
by delivering a true copy
thereof to and at the same time showing this original
search warrant and reading it to and explaining to
the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search
I found:
t,
,
the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the above
inventory contains a true and detailed account of all the propefi
appliances, apparatus, paraphernalia
and devices taken by me on said warrant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this
_
day of
,20
Signature
Witness to the removal of the above items
WHITE - Records YELLOW
-
Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner
22-3110,/02)
Signature
92
92
City of Hollywood Police Department
INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT
Case #
Received this warrant on
on
20 and executed the same
,
20- at
_ _m.
by delivering a true copy
thereof to and at the same time showing this original
search warrant and reading it to and explaining to
the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search
I found:
t, the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the above
inventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property,
appliances, apparatus, paraphernalia
and devices taken by me on said warrant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this
_
day of
,2O
Signature
Witness to the removal of the above items
WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner
22-311(12102)
Signature
93
93
City of Hollywood Police Department
INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT
Case #
Received this warrant on
on
,20_and
executed the same
20_ at
_ _m.
by delivering a true copy
thereof to and at the same time showing this original
search warrant and reading it to and explaining to
the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search
I found:
t,
,
the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the above
inventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property,
appliances, apparatus, paraphernalia
and devices taken by me on said warrant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this
_
day of
,20
Signature
Witness to the removal of the above items
WHITE -
Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner 22-311 1AO2)
Signature
94
94
City of Hollywood Police Department
INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT
Case #
Received this warrant on
on
20 and executed the same
,
20-_ at
_ _m.
by delivering a true copy
thereof to and at the same time showing this original
.""r.h *"rr"ntrnd r""dlng !tto
"nd "*pl"inlns
lo
the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search
I found:
t,
,
the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the above
inventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property,
appliances, apparatus, paraphernalia
and devices taken by me on said warrant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this
_
day of
,20-'
Signature
Witness to the removal of the above items
WHITE - Records YELLOW -
Clerk's Office PINK -
Owner 22-311(12n21
Signature
95
95
City of Hollywood Police Department
INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT
Case #
,20_and
executed the same Received this warrant on
on
,20-
at
_ _m.
by delivering a true copy
thereof to and at the same time showing this original
search warrant and reading it to and explaining to
the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search
I found:
t,
,
the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the above
invenlory contains a true and detailed account of all the property,
appliances, apparatus, paraphernalia
and devices taken by me on said warrant.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this
_
day of
,20
Signature
Witness to the removal of the above items
WHITE - Records YELLOW
- Clerk's Office PINK - Owner
22-311('t2lO2)
Signature
96
96
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17
TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE: THE MATTER OF: CRIMINAL DIVISION

STEVEN KOHN
_________________________/

MOTION TO QUASH AND TRAVERSE SEARCH WARRANT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW, STEVEN KOHN, by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby
moves this Honorable Court pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution, Article I, § 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23 of the Constitution of the
State of Florida, and Chapter 933, Fla. Stat., to quash a certain search warrant, allow a traverse of
the Search Warrant to occur challenging the truthfulness of the affidavit in which the warrant
relies, or in the alternative, for a protective order and as ground thereof states as follows:
1. Defendant stands accused by Officers of the City of Hollywood for the alleged
violation of Florida Statute 784.048 (1)(d)(4) entitled Aggravated Stalking in sworn testimony
under oath by Detective Robert Knapp #2536.
2. The Search Warrant was subject to the following requirements:
a. Must be issued by a neutral disinterested magistrate. Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175;
b. Those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate the existence of
probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension of
conviction for particular offense Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175; and
c. Warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized as well as the place to be
searched. Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979).
97
97
3. The Fourth Amendment, the Florida Constitution, and Florida Statutes (§ 923.04
and 923.05) provide that no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation, in particular describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. A search warrant is issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the
legitimate object of the search is located in a particular place. Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204
(1981). The reason cited must be sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a crime has been
committed, and, as long as a neutral magistrate has a substantial basis for concluding that a
search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the probable cause requirement is satisfied.
Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1991).
4. A basic principle is that searches and seizures inside a constitutionally protected
area without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740
(1984).
5. Statutes and rules authorizing searches and seizures are strictly construed and
affidavits and warrants issued pursuant to such authority must meticulously conform to statutory
and constitutional provisions. State v. Quigg, 17 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1944).
6. The reviewing court, judge, or magistrate, must make sure that a magistrate had a
substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S.
727 (1984); McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Whether an affidavit
supporting a search warrant sufficiently supports a probable cause finding must be determined
within its four corners. State v. Starks, 633 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The burden is on the
state to prove that the police had probable cause for a search and seizure. Doctor v. State, 596 So.
2d 442 (Fla. 1992).
98
98
7. A defendant in the proceeding has the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte issuance of a search warrant to challenge the
truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant. Mason v. State,
375 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Jacobs, 320 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
8. Under the circumstances in this matter, the search warrant would have been
issued pursuant to Section 933.02(3) which provides that a search warrant may be issued when
any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.
9. Even where the search warrant can be found properly issued, an exception exists
to evidence seized which is “testimonial” or “communicative” in nature; such evidence is
considered tantamount to compelling the defendant to become a witness against himself in
violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. State v. Kircheis, 269
So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
10. It is believed that the target of the affidavit and warrant in this matter were
statements made in emails by Defendant which were communicative in nature showing
violations of aggravated stalking. Under Kircheis, such search would be unlawful because of the
nature of the items sought.
11. Further, regardless of whether the emails sought after by the City of Hollywood’s
Police Department were of the same communicative nature of those described in Kircheis, the
affidavit is completely void of any meaningful probable cause.
12. The affidavit alleges on its face the following:

On 01/07/2011, victim Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against
Steven Kohn, restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing,
following, interfering with, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was
approved on 01/18/2011 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this order
on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court
date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on
99
99
02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed.

(Emphasis Added) (Affidavit is attached as Exhibit “A”).

13. Defendant challenges the truth of the information contained in the warrant

Affidavit.

14. First, the Affiant left out the fact that at the time the search warrant was sought
and signed, victim Einhorn knew that the temporary injunction that was the crux of the alleged
law violation was denied. This is contrary to the Affiant’s sworn statement in which Affiant
verified that a valid injunction was in place at the time the search warrant was signed.
15. Under oath, Sandra Einhorn stated the following:

Q. And did the police officers of the
Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if
you have a restraining order against Steve
Kohn?
A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had
been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining
order against Steve Kohn.
Q. So they knew that you were
unsuccessful?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did they -- did they --
A. Or that's what I told them.
Q. And did you ever lead them to believe
to believe you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A. No, it would be foolish to lead police
into something that they could very easily
figure out for themselves one way or another.
Q. So your testimony is that you never
told police you had a valid restraining order
against Mr. Kohn?
A. That is correct.
Q. In fact, you told the police you did
not have valid restraining order because it was
denied?
A. I told -- I called the police and I --
actually lost when the decision was made that I
did not receive it. I did call Hollywood
Police to let them know that I did not receive
the restraining order. Yes, that is correct.
100
100

Einhorn v. Kohn, 10-048282 (18) (2011). (Attached is a copy of page ____ of the trial transcript

in relevant part).

16. The Affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a
reckless disregard for the truth as Sandra Einhorn states under oath that the Hollywood Police
Department knew she had not obtained a restraining order.
17. The Affiant, Detective Robert Knapp, blatantly disregarded the truth when Sandra
Einhorn specifically told Hollywood Police she did not have a restraining order against Steven
Kohn and yet he still made a representation that he verified the restraining order. Supra.
18. The Affidavit lists Florida State 933.18(6) and Florida Statute 933.02 as grounds
for issuance of the Search Warrant. However, the underlying felony, aggravated stalking
pursuant to Fla. Stat. 784.048(1)(d)(4) that Defendant had been alleged to have violated, required
an injunction to be in place. Because there was no valid injunction, the warrant rested on perilous
probable cause grounds.
19. The Affidavit contained false and manufactured statements made in order to
achieve a willfull and reckeless violation of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be
protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.
20. Because the warrant rests on perilous probable cause grounds, the warrant must
be quashed as there is no crime under which it could be issued pursuant to F.S. 933.18(6) and
F.S. 933.02. Evidence seized under it ought to be suppressed at trial as well. F.S.A. Const.
Declaration of Rights, § 22. Also see Davis v. State, 113 Fla. 713, 152 So. 6 (1934).
21. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing (referred to as a "Franks
hearing;" Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667].) on this issue upon a
"substantial showing" that:
101
101
a. The affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a
reckless disregard for the truth; and
b. The affidavit's remaining contents are reevaluated after the false statements are excised
to see if, as corrected, there is still sufficient evidence to justify a finding of probable
cause. Frank v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667, 672];
precluding the cross-examination of the affiant until the necessary showing is made. See
also People v. Wilson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3rd 742, 747; Theodor v. Superior Court
(1972) 8 Cal.3rd 77, 103; People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3rd 67, 78; and People v.
Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297; People v. Lewis et al. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970,
989); and
c. The affidavit contains information that is the direct product of a Fourth Amendment
violation. (SeeP eople v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073.)

WHEREFORE, Steven Kohn prays this honorable Court quashed and/or traverse the
aforementioned warrant, or in the alternative, issue a protective order preventing the State of
Florida and the City of Hollywood Police Department from having access to, from examining,
testing, reading or otherwise using any copies of data taken from the Kohns’ illegally seized
items during the execution of the warrant pertaining to all items taken, described or not described
in the alleged search warrant because such search violates the protections afforded to Defendant
pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article
I §12 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the aforementioned Florida Statutes and Florida
case law because, among other things, a) there was no probable cause for the search of Steven
Kohn’s home; b) the probable cause was based on false, misleading or incomplete information;
c) the information on which the affidavit was made was unreliable. Defendant further requests
that this Court convene an evidentiary hearing in order to be able to determine the issues raised
by this motion.

Respectfully submitted,


________________________
DAVID LOW, ESQ.
102
102


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed this _____ day of
_____________, 2011 to the Hollywood Police Department 3250 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, Floirda 33021-6867 and the Broward County State Attorney’s Office 201 SE 6
th

Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.


________________________
DAVID LOW, ESQ.
28 West Flagler Street
10
th
Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: (305) 728-1931
Fax: (305) 675-2685
FBN 67957

103
103
104
104
Blank page due to a paging error in the Motion. There is no page 105
105
105
Subject:DismissalsofSandraEinhorn'sPeƟƟonsforProtecƟveOrderfromJudgeKaplan
From:Kohn<kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date:6/27/20118:47PM
To:cewagner@hollywoodß.org,rknapp@hollywoodß.org,pbober@hollywoodß.org,
jsheīel@hollywoodß.org
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheffel,ChiefWagner,andDetectiveKnapp,
Today,oneofmyattorneysmetwiththeStateAttorneywhoreviewedtheJune1search
warrantandattachedprobablecause.Hefounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrant
couldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorderandsuggestedthatI
makeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
AlthoughIamsurethatIprovidedthesealready,Iamcomplyingwiththesuggestionand
makingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Jan7cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Jan7cover.pdf"
Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
ͳ of ͵ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵Ͷ PN
106
106
filename="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş21cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş21cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-27 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş27cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş27cover.pdf"
Deleted: Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Dismissal.pdf"
Attachments:
Deleted:Jan7cover.pdf 254bytes
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
ʹ of ͵ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵Ͷ PN
107
107
Deleted:1Ͳ27Ͳ11CoverPage.pdf 268bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ11Dismissal.pdf 266bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ2011cover.pdf 262bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ21cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ27cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:Dismissal.pdf 250bytes
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
͵ of ͵ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵Ͷ PN
108
108
Subject:DismissalsofSandraEinhorn'sPeƟƟonsforProtecƟveOrderfromJudgeKaplan
From:Kohn<kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date:6/28/20112:27PM
To:cewagner@hollywoodß.org,rknapp@hollywoodß.org,pbober@hollywoodß.org,
jsheīel@hollywoodß.org
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheffel,ChiefWagner,andDetectiveKnapp,
Today,oneofmyattorneysmetwiththeStateAttorneywhoreviewedtheJune1search
warrantandattachedprobablecause.Hefounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrant
couldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorderandsuggestedthatI
makeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
AlthoughIamsurethatIprovidedthesealready,Iamcomplyingwiththesuggestionand
makingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Jan7cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Jan7cover.pdf"
Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
ͳ of ͵ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵ͷ PN
109
109
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş21cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş21cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-27 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş27cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş27cover.pdf"
Deleted: Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Dismissal.pdf"
Attachments:
Deleted:Jan7cover.pdf 254bytes
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
ʹ of ͵ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵ͷ PN
110
110
Deleted:1Ͳ27Ͳ11CoverPage.pdf 268bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ11Dismissal.pdf 266bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ2011cover.pdf 262bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ21cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ27cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:Dismissal.pdf 250bytes
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
͵ of ͵ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵ͷ PN
111
111
Subject:Fwd:DismissalsofSandraEinhorn'sPeƟƟonsforProtecƟveOrderfromJudgeKaplan
From:Kohn<kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date:6/30/20118:34AM
To:cewagner@hollywoodß.org,rknapp@hollywoodß.org,pbober@hollywoodß.org,jsheīel@hollywoodß.org
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheīel,ChiefWagner,andDetecƟveKnapp,
TheStateattorneywasconfidentthatallIhadtodowasshowyouthe1/7coverand 1/27cover,(deniedinjuctions)andthenrealizingtheerror,HPD
Thestateattorneyfounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrantcouldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorder.
HesuggestedthatIrepeatedlymakeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
IamcomplyingwiththesuggestionandmakingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.Sohereitisagain.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Jan7cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Jan7cover.pdf"
Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş21cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş21cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-27 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş27cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş27cover.pdf"
Fwuǣ Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei ǤǤǤ
ͳ of ʹ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵͸ PN
112
112
Deleted: Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Dismissal.pdf"
Attachments:
Deleted:Jan7cover.pdf 254bytes
Deleted:1Ͳ27Ͳ11CoverPage.pdf 268bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ11Dismissal.pdf 266bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ2011cover.pdf 262bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ21cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ27cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:Dismissal.pdf 250bytes
Fwuǣ Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei ǤǤǤ
ʹ of ʹ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵͸ PN
113
113
Subject:DismissalsofSandraEinhorn'sPeƟƟonsforProtecƟveOrderfromJudgeKaplan
From:Kohn<kohn@ix.netcom.com>
Date:7/1/20118:21AM
To:cewagner@hollywoodß.org,rknapp@hollywoodß.org,pbober@hollywoodß.org,jsheīel@holllywoodß.org
Needlesstosaybaseduponexperience,ourfamilygetsespeciallynervousaroundholidays.
IknowthatinthepastyouhaveonlytargetedourfamilyonJewishholidays(infactwehavenothadareligiousholidayinthenearly3yearswehavelivedin
HollywoodWITHOUTinterferencefromcodeenforcement,thepoliceorboth)butsinceAmericanJewsdocelebrateIndependenceDayIthoughtitbesttomakesure
thatyousƟllhavethesedismissalsjustincaseyouhaveforgoƩensinceyesterdaythatSandraEinhorn'smulƟpleÞlingsagainstSteveKohnwereALLdeniedand/or
dismissed.
THEREWASNEVERANYINJUNCTIONAGAINSTANYMEMBEROFOURFAMILY!!!
DearMayorBober,Mr.Sheīel,ChiefWagner,andDetecƟveKnapp,
TheStateattorneywasconfidentthatallIhadtodowasshowyouthe1/7coverand 1/27cover,(deniedinjuctions)andthenrealizingtheerror,HPD
Thestateattorneyfounditimpossibletobelievethatthewarrantcouldhavebeenissuedonthebasisofadeniedanddismissedorder.
HesuggestedthatIrepeatedlymakeABSOLUTELYsurethatthecityhasbeenprovidedwithcopiesofthesedismissals.
IamcomplyingwiththesuggestionandmakingABSOLUTELYsurethatyouhavethem.Sohereitisagain.
Sincerely,
SteveKohn
Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Jan7cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Jan7cover.pdf"
Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
ͳ of ʹ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵͸ PN
114
114
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş21cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş21cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-27 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş27cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş27cover.pdf"
Deleted: Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersfortheattachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Dismissal.pdf"
Attachments:
Deleted:Jan7cover.pdf 254bytes
Deleted:1Ͳ27Ͳ11CoverPage.pdf 268bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ11Dismissal.pdf 266bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ15Ͳ2011cover.pdf 262bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ21cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:4Ͳ27cover.pdf 252bytes
Deleted:Dismissal.pdf 250bytes
Bismissals of Sanuia Einhoin̵s Petitions foi Piotective 0iuei fiom }ǤǤǤ
ʹ of ʹ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ Ͷǣ͵͸ PN
115
115
116
116
117
117
Subject:problemIhopewecanresolveͲͲpart1
From:SteveKohn<kohn@earthlink.net>
Date:7/20/20112:55PM
To:JCANTOR@hollywoodß.org
Part1attachmentsŞŞwarrantandcourtorders
ŞŞŞŞ
DearMr.Cantor,
Asyoumightbeaware,HPDexecutedtheattachedsearchwarranton6/8.
Whatyoumightnotbeawareofisthattheprobablecauseisfictitious,andthereis
copiousproofthatitisfictitiousandthatDetectiveKnappknewit.
ThestatuteintheaffidavitthatwasallegedlyviolatedisF.S.S.784.048(1)(d)(4)
whichrequiresaninjunctionorcourtŞimposedprohibitionofconduct,andconductin
violationofthatinjunction.Sinceaninjunctionwassought,butnotgranted,the
probablecausegroundsintheaffidavitareinsufficientasamatteroflaw.
Theaffidavitinquestionreliesonthefollowinginformationtosupportprobablecause:
"01/07/2011,SandraEinhornappliedforatemporaryinjunctionagainstStevenKohn,
restraininghimfromassaulting,threatening,abusing,harassing,following,interfering
with,orstalkingthevictim.Thetemporaryorderwasapprovedon01/18/2011andsuspect
SteveKohnwasservedwiththisorderonthesamedate.Theorderwasactiveandsetto
expireontheassignedcourtdateof04/15/2011.Theprotectionorderwasverifiedvia
NCIC/FCIC02/23/2011andthedateslistedwereconfirmed."
Theaffiant,DetectiveKnapp,madeafalsestatementindeclaringthatatemporaryorder
wasapprovedon01/18/2011.Theorderof01/18/2011,executedonastandardformused
toreschedulethehearingforalaterdate,merelyextendedapriorinjunction,ifone
wasalreadyinplace.Therewasnopriorinjunctionandthereforenoinjunctionto
extend.Furthermore,on01/27/2011JudgeKaplanvacatedtheorderdated01/18/2011that
extendedthenonŞexistentinjunction,removinganyappearancethattherecouldpossibly
haveeverbeenaninjunction.Hadthereactuallybeenaninjunctionissuedon
01/18/2011,itwasvacatedon01/27/2011.Inotherwords,atthetimetheprotection
orderwasallegedlyverifiedviaNCIC/FCICon02/23/2011,hadsuchanorderactually
existedon01/18/2011itwasalreadyvacatedon01/27/2011.Thetemporaryinjunction
thatwasthecruxoftheallegedlawviolationwasvacated.ThisiscontrarytoKnapp's
swornstatementthatavalidinjunctionwasinplacefrom01/18/2011to04/15/2011.
ImetwithStateAttorney,BSO,FDLE,andHPDmembersonotheroccasionstoverifythat
theNCIC/FCICsystemdoesnothavetheentrythatKnappsayswasthere,andfurthermore,
accordingtothedataentryclerkattheBSO,theywouldnothavebeenabletoenteran
injunctionextensionunlesstheoriginalwascrossreferenced.(afterall,onehasto
knowwhoisbeingrestrictedfromexactlywhichactions).Thelatervacatingorder
wouldalsohavebeencrossreferencedby2/23.
YouwillfindthattheHPDsystemdoesnotshowthattherewasatemporaryinjunction
undermyname,whichwouldhavebeenrequiredbylawforBSOtodelivertoHPDuponthe
orderbeingmade.
Gettingmypossessionsbackhasproventobedifficultwithoutastatecasenumber.
MyattorneywasquitesurethatallIneedtodoismakeyouawareofthefacts
surroundingthiscaseandthatyouwillimmediatelycorrectthesituation.Heassured
methatifyouhadthisemailinyourhandsby3:00,I'dprobablyhaveallofmystuff
pioblem I hope we can iesolve ǦǦ pait ͳ
ͳ of Ͷ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ ͶǣͶ͵ PN
118
118
119
119
Subject:problemIhopewecanresolveͲͲpart1
From:SteveKohn<kohn@earthlink.net>
Date:7/20/20112:55PM
To:JCANTOR@hollywoodß.org
Part1attachmentsŞŞwarrantandcourtorders
ŞŞŞŞ
DearMr.Cantor,
Asyoumightbeaware,HPDexecutedtheattachedsearchwarranton6/8.
Whatyoumightnotbeawareofisthattheprobablecauseisfictitious,andthereis
copiousproofthatitisfictitiousandthatDetectiveKnappknewit.
ThestatuteintheaffidavitthatwasallegedlyviolatedisF.S.S.784.048(1)(d)(4)
whichrequiresaninjunctionorcourtŞimposedprohibitionofconduct,andconductin
violationofthatinjunction.Sinceaninjunctionwassought,butnotgranted,the
probablecausegroundsintheaffidavitareinsufficientasamatteroflaw.
Theaffidavitinquestionreliesonthefollowinginformationtosupportprobablecause:
"01/07/2011,SandraEinhornappliedforatemporaryinjunctionagainstStevenKohn,
restraininghimfromassaulting,threatening,abusing,harassing,following,interfering
with,orstalkingthevictim.Thetemporaryorderwasapprovedon01/18/2011andsuspect
SteveKohnwasservedwiththisorderonthesamedate.Theorderwasactiveandsetto
expireontheassignedcourtdateof04/15/2011.Theprotectionorderwasverifiedvia
NCIC/FCIC02/23/2011andthedateslistedwereconfirmed."
Theaffiant,DetectiveKnapp,madeafalsestatementindeclaringthatatemporaryorder
wasapprovedon01/18/2011.Theorderof01/18/2011,executedonastandardformused
toreschedulethehearingforalaterdate,merelyextendedapriorinjunction,ifone
wasalreadyinplace.Therewasnopriorinjunctionandthereforenoinjunctionto
extend.Furthermore,on01/27/2011JudgeKaplanvacatedtheorderdated01/18/2011that
extendedthenonŞexistentinjunction,removinganyappearancethattherecouldpossibly
haveeverbeenaninjunction.Hadthereactuallybeenaninjunctionissuedon
01/18/2011,itwasvacatedon01/27/2011.Inotherwords,atthetimetheprotection
orderwasallegedlyverifiedviaNCIC/FCICon02/23/2011,hadsuchanorderactually
existedon01/18/2011itwasalreadyvacatedon01/27/2011.Thetemporaryinjunction
thatwasthecruxoftheallegedlawviolationwasvacated.ThisiscontrarytoKnapp's
swornstatementthatavalidinjunctionwasinplacefrom01/18/2011to04/15/2011.
ImetwithStateAttorney,BSO,FDLE,andHPDmembersonotheroccasionstoverifythat
theNCIC/FCICsystemdoesnothavetheentrythatKnappsayswasthere,andfurthermore,
accordingtothedataentryclerkattheBSO,theywouldnothavebeenabletoenteran
injunctionextensionunlesstheoriginalwascrossreferenced.(afterall,onehasto
knowwhoisbeingrestrictedfromexactlywhichactions).Thelatervacatingorder
wouldalsohavebeencrossreferencedby2/23.
YouwillfindthattheHPDsystemdoesnotshowthattherewasatemporaryinjunction
undermyname,whichwouldhavebeenrequiredbylawforBSOtodelivertoHPDuponthe
orderbeingmade.
Gettingmypossessionsbackhasproventobedifficultwithoutastatecasenumber.
MyattorneywasquitesurethatallIneedtodoismakeyouawareofthefacts
surroundingthiscaseandthatyouwillimmediatelycorrectthesituation.Heassured
methatifyouhadthisemailinyourhandsby3:00,I'dprobablyhaveallofmystuff
pioblem I hope we can iesolve ǦǦ pait ͳ
ͳ of Ͷ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ ͶǣͶ͵ PN
120
120
backby5:00.
Ilaughedathimwhenhesaidit,butthereisalwaysthechancethatheiscorrectand
youwillindeeddotherightthing.Afterall,ifyoudon't,whathappensifaJudgeor
acuriousreporterasks"Whydidn'tyoureturnthepropertyassoonasyoulearnedthere
wasnoinjunction?"?
ItisaverybadthingthatHPDforexecutedthiswarrant,ontheJewishHolidayof
Shavuot,with12armedofficersscaringmylittlechildrenhalftodeath,basedona
phonyprobablecause.
Iamhopingyouwillimmediatelyandapologeticallyreturnmypropertyandclosethe
case.
TheattachmentsIwillsendnecessitatebreakingthisupintoacoupleofmessages.I
hopeyoucanattendtothismatterimmediately.Myrealdamagesalreadyincludehaving
replaced5cellphones,2computers,acamera,andabackupdrive,andIwillsoonbe
purchasingotherreplacementitemsifIdon'tgetmyequipmentbackimmediately.
Sincerelyandrespectfully,
SteveKohn
3841N51Ave
HollywoodFL33021
954Ş404Ş7358
kohn@earthlink.net
Deleted: Warrant.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="Warrant.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="Warrant.pdf"
Deleted: 1-07-11 Cover page.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="1Ş07Ş11Coverpage.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="1Ş07Ş11Coverpage.pdf"
Deleted: 1-18-11 Continuance.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
pioblem I hope we can iesolve ǦǦ pait ͳ
ʹ of Ͷ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ ͶǣͶ͵ PN
121
121
name="1Ş18Ş11Continuance.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="1Ş18Ş11Continuance.pdf"
Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="1Ş27Ş11CoverPage.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş11Dismissal.pdf"
Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş15Ş2011cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf
Youdeletedanattachmentfromthismessage.TheoriginalMIMEheadersforthe
attachmentwere:
ContentŞType:application/pdf;
name="4Ş21cover.pdf"
ContentŞTransferŞEncoding:base64
ContentŞDisposition:attachment;
filename="4Ş21cover.pdf"
Deleted: 4-27 cover.pdf
pioblem I hope we can iesolve ǦǦ pait ͳ
͵ of Ͷ ͳȀʹȀʹͲͳʹ ͶǣͶ͵ PN
122
122
123
123
124
124
125
125
126
126
127
127
128
128
129
129
130
130
131
131
132
132
133
133
134
134
135
135
136
136
137
137
138
138
139
139
140
140
141
141
142
142
143
143
144
144
145
145
146
146
147
147
148
148
149
149
150
150
151
151
152
152
153
153
154
154

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful