Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION

Case No: 8:12-cv-2477-T-33EASKENNAN G. DANDAR,and DANDAR & DANDAR, P.A.,Plaintiffs,v.CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYFLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION,INC., F. WALLACE “WALLY” POPE, JR., JOHNSON POPE BOKOR RUPPEL& BURNS L.L.P., and DAVID MISCAVIGEDefendants. ______________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED

 AMENDED

 MOTION FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 

AND

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Pursuant to Rule 65,

 Fed. R. Civ. P 

., and Local Rule 4.06, and the newly filed First AmendedComplaint, [Dkt 24], Plaintiffs seek issuance of a preliminary injunction in this 42 U.S.C.§1983,§1985, and §1986 case against all Defendants, including their employees, agents, attorneys, and all persons and entities in active concert and participation with Defendants: To prohibit Defendants, acting under color of state law, from proceeding to anyhearing, including the one scheduled on November 26, 2012, before the state court,and any hearing or filing any pleading in state court against Plaintiffs to obtain anyfurther state order and/or state judgment against Plaintiffs, or to execute on any statecourt judgment, until this court has addressed the Defendants’ violations of 42U.S.C.§1983, as alleged in the Amended Complaint filed herein, including anyappeal thereof.

FACTS

Plaintiffs enjoy rights under the U.S. Constitution of freedom of association, freedom of speech, liberty and property interest in their employment and livelihood, and due process under theFifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. State action, by use of the state court system and state judges, cannot be employed by Defendants to deprive Plaintiffs of these rights while Plaintiffs are

Case 8:12-cv-02477-VMC-EAJ Document 25 Filed 11/23/12 Page 1 of 25 PageID 368

 

The closed

 McPherson

 case was randomly assigned to an active Circuit Court Judge, but

1

mysteriously, it was reassigned to senior judge Crocket Farnell, who has maintained the secrecyof the proceedings over Dandar’s objections. See argument herein on how this is not proper  procedure.Page 2 of 25engaged in lawful conduct. Plaintiffs incorporate their newly filed First Amended Complaint herein.After Judge Merryday’s injunction was reversed on appeal, Judge Merryday reluctantlygranted the motion to withdraw. Judge Beach recused himself, and another Senior Judge, CrocketFarnell, took over the closed

 McPherson

 case, without any record assignment.

1

The following significant points of fact demonstrate a clear violation of Plaintiffs’constitutionally guaranteed federal rights under the Bill of Rights by use of coercive governmental power as part of the agreement or conspiracy Defendants obtained with the state court, actingarbitrarily and capriciously, without due process, by Defendant state actors:1.Plaintiffs were never on notice by court order that they would be held bound by theCSA which they never signed as a party in their individual capacities, as set forth in the AmendedComplaint filed herein. If the CSA is governed by Florida’s mediation rules of civil procedure,Florida law holds that in order to impose sanctions, consisting of attorney fees and costs, the personupon whom the sanctions are being imposed must (1) be a party in the case; (2) the party was court-ordered to mediate; (3) the party must sign the mediation agreement; (4) the case must be pending;and (5), the breach must be an executory part of the agreement and not concerning something outsideof the pending case. There are no exceptions. The Florida state courts ignored Florida law indeprivation of Plaintiffs’ guaranteed rights under the Bill of Rights, effecting their livelihood.Plaintiffs were not on notice that state courts would violate Judicial Canons 2A and 3D(2). Plaintiffswere not on notice that Rule 1.730( c),

 Fla. R. Civ. P.,

 could be used by a court, with or withoutsubject matter jurisdiction, as a punitive criminal contempt sanction for violation of a “mediation”

Case 8:12-cv-02477-VMC-EAJ Document 25 Filed 11/23/12 Page 2 of 25 PageID 369

 

Page 3 of 25agreement, when Plaintiffs were not parties in the case, especially since none of the other requiredconditions stated above are present.2. Plaintiffs have been denied due process, service of process, public hearings, opencourt files, and a final public trial in this closed-case, motion practice, in a sealed proceeding, all of which are in direct violation of Florida law.3.There existed no prior state court order giving Plaintiffs notice enforcing a practicerestriction against Plaintiffs before Plaintiffs filed the

 Brennan

case, and no notice of retroactiveapplication. 4. Plaintiffs were not on notice that a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction wouldentertain a motion filed in the

 McPherson

 case after it had been dismissed with prejudice withouta court-ordered reservation of jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, whenFlorida law is clear that a new suit must be filed under such circumstances.5.Plaintiff was not on notice that the Defendants could choose their preferred judgeinstead of the required random rotation.6.Plaintiffs were never on notice that Defendants could obtain injunctive relief by wayof court order forcing Plaintiffs to withdraw from the

 Brennan

case, and then also recover damages,when Florida law is clear that only one remedy, through the doctrine of election of remedies, isavailable.7.Plaintiffs were never on notice that Defendants could grossly multiply proceedingsin state court lacking subject matter jurisdiction, as well as the

 Brennan

 federal court, by filingmultiple motions and having multiple hearings, when all that was necessary was to file a simplemotion to disqualify in the

 Brennan

 federal court, as Judge Merryday opined, without punitivemonetary damages, severely and grossly exceeding the scope of Rule 1.730 ( c),

Case 8:12-cv-02477-VMC-EAJ Document 25 Filed 11/23/12 Page 3 of 25 PageID 370