UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

56 Forsyth Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303
4
Case No. 20-11972-B
(Lower Court: 4:19-cv-10132-KMM)
VALENTIN SPATARU
8 Plaintiff-Appelant,
vs.
R. RAMSAY, et al.,
Defendants-Appelees.
12

Appellant's Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc

of the appeal and denial to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

16
INTRODUCTION
Dear Court,
1. APPELLANT SPATARU re-alleges herein all paragraphs from his
20 Amended Complaint and all other previous filings.
2. Please accept the pages in addition to the limit of 15, in the
interest of justice. I added the “Table of Contents“ at the end to
avoid formatting and pagination issues.
24 3. Monroe County, FL, will be referred to as MC; Key Largo as KL; the
Sheriff's Department as SD. Other terms and acronyms were defined in
previous filings or will be defined as they appear.
4. Respectfully, APPELLANT SPATARU requests that you approve his
28 Appeal and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. The
District Judge and Circuit Judge overlooked specific facts and legal
issues in rendering their opinions. Regarding that his “appeal is

Page 1 of 24
 frivolous. Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (l1th Cir. 2002)”
from the Circuit Judge's order on 09/17/2020, 1. Napier v. Preslicka
applies to a litigant who sued while in custody, but APPELLANT
4 SPATARU sued when he was not in custody, was not in custody on
09/17/2020 -the date of the order- and is not in custody now; 2.
Napier v. Preslicka applies to a litigant who did not prove his
physical suffering, but APPELLANT SPATARU can prove his physical,
8 mental, and emotional pain and suffering caused by the illegal,
cruel, and unreasonable actions of the APPELLEES; indeed, APPELLANT
SPATARU consulted and complained to Dr. Sandoval and other doctors,
for example, at Jackson Hospital in Miami, about his headaches and
12 other health issues, including somaticized issues.
5. APPELLANT's injuries slowed him, needed treatments, and reduced
his available time; thus, APPELLANT SPATARU has not been able to
search enough to find an attorney on contingency yet. However, in the
16 case Faretta v. California, 422 US 806 (1975), the Supreme Court of
the United States held that even criminals have a constitutional
right to represent themselves in legal proceedings; therefore,
respectfully, APPELLANT requests you not to dismiss his complaint
20 without a fair jury trial, and not to cause any other injustice to
him. Indeed, I have the constitutional right to proceed without
counsel and be assisted by the Court in presenting one's case.
6. There is a presumption that the government always acts correctly
24 and within the law, but APPELLANT SPATARU has proved that certain
officials have not obeyed the law, which injured him. If his current
evidence has not been sufficient, Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972) states that regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings,
28 pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to submit more
evidence in support of their claims. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946
(1973) states "[t]here can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights," which include his

Page 2 of 24
 right to present his case to and be assisted by the court, and
request and receive proper compensation. APPELLANT's allegations in
his complaint were sufficient not to be dismissed, regardless of the
4 defenses that the defendants presented.

ARGUMENT
7. While he was riding his bicycle lawfully on 06/04/2013 in Key
8 Largo, FL, a van hit and disabled him due to the lack of the "TWO-WAY
BIKE ROUTE" traffic warning sign (TW BR TWS or TWRS) as required by
the FL and Federal laws. Due to injuries, APPELLANT had no job and
income. Due to MC's lack of care -even though MC collects more than a
12 half billion dollars in taxes, see https://floridataxwatch.org, MC
did not provide recovery housing and therapies and did not audit the
local traffic to install all required warning signs-, APPELLANT had
to live in his anchored sailboat -even though it was painful to climb
16 and during rougher weather to row- and do his swimming therapy in the
public water around his anchored sailboat; he was lawful at all
times.
8. Indeed, APPELLEE KERN -even with approval from his superiors at
20 MCSD- had no right to arrest APPELLANT for his swimming therapy and
cause injuring hyperthermia to APPELLANT. During his detention in a
SDMC's car by APPELLEE KERN, the temperature inside the separated,
isolated, detention area (SIDA) -which had no functioning a/c- of the
24 car exceeded 104 degrees F, the limit when the human thermoregulatory
mechanism starts to be overwhelmed. "When temperatures outside range
from 80 degrees to 100 degrees, the temperature inside a car parked
in direct sunlight can quickly climb to between 130 to 172." Centers
28 for Disease Control and Prevention, https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?
id=92943. Also, see https://www.noheatstroke.org/hot_car_ani_90.gif.
The temperature of the seats "got even hotter."
https://www.livescience.com/62651-how-hot-cars-get.html.

Page 3 of 24
 9. Indeed, the temperature in KL at around 7 PM was above 85 F -see
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)'s National Environmental
Satellite, Data, and Information Service,
4 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-
web/datasets/LCD/stations/WBAN:12896/detail, also at
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AoQWyvOQcbRYg6wTzTCkfqF7ZKKF6w?e=Dysqi0--, and
the car was in sunlight all day; therefore, the temperature inside
8 its SIDA was more than 119 F -see https://www.compustar.com/blog/how-
hot-can-a-car-get/-, and the heat index was above 119 -see
https://goodcalculators.com/heat-index-calculator/-. "[T]he car
becomes a greenhouse. At [only] 70 degrees on a sunny day, after a
12 half hour, the temperature inside a car is 104 degrees. After an
hour, it can reach 113 degrees."
https://www.readthehook.com/85587/news-spring-tragedy-baby-dies-jag-
school-parking-lot, by Jan Null, adjunct professor at San Francisco
16 State University, https://ggweather.com/expert.htm,
jnull@ggweather.com, ph: (650) 712-1876.
10. Moreover, the body temperature rises due to anger - Anger - how
it affects people,
20 https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/anger-how-
it-affects-people -, which the APPELLEE knew and used to torture the
APPELLANT in the overheated SIDA even more. Besides, Cortisol, which
is the stress hormone, "tends to rise when the temperatures begin to
24 soar." Does This Hot Weather Make You Angry?,
https://www.ndtv.com/food/does-this-hot-weather-make-you-angry-the-
reason-will-surprise-you-1844206, thus, the APPELLANT was injured
even more. In addition, each of his breaths "would introduce humidity
28 into the vehicle. 'They are exhaling humidity into the air,' Selover
said. 'When there is more humidity in the air, a person can't cool
down by sweating because sweat won't evaporate as quickly,'" id,
which made the APPELLANT suffer in the isolated SIDA -with no airflow
32 from outside- even more.

Page 4 of 24
 11. "Heatstroke is clinically defined as when a person's temperature
exceeds 104 degrees F and their thermoregulatory mechanism is
overwhelmed. Symptoms include : dizziness, disorientation, agitation,
4 confusion, sluggishness, seizure, hot dry skin that is flushed but
not sweaty, loss of consciousness, rapid heart beat, hallucinations.
When a core body temperature of 107 degrees F or greater is reached
then cells are damaged and internal organs begin to shut down. This
8 cascade of events can rapidly lead to death."
https://www.noheatstroke.org/medical.htm. "At 110 to 111, your cells
begin to break down. Proteins distort. Liver cells die; the tiny
tubes in your kidneys are grilled. The large Purkinje neurons in your
12 cerebellum vanish. Your muscle tissues disintegrate. The sheaths of
your blood vessels begin to leak [-indeed, APPELLANT could see blood
in his skin pores and asked the jail doctor for help-], causing
hemorrhaging throughout your body, including your lungs and heart.
16 There is now blood in your vomit."
https://www.outsideonline.com/2398105/heat-stroke-signs-symptoms –
also, see The Heat Shock Response: Life on the Verge of Death –
ScienceDirect,
20 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097276510007823.
Indeed, heatstroke “may lead to long-term brain damage. […] you might
end up […] clumsy [-which happened to the APPELLANT-] or slur your
speech [-which happened to the APPELLANT, too-]. Case reports of
24 long-lasting personality changes (similar to those caused by
traumatic brain injury) also exist [… Besides, d]rugs that have anti-
cholinergic properties (including some of those used to treat
schizophrenia, depression [-for which APPELLANT was taking a drug,
28 and the APPELLEES GROUP RRa knew or should have known-], and
Parkinson’s disease) inhibit perspiration and otherwise increase the
risk of overheating.” Can a heat wave make you insane?,
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/08/can-a-heat-wave-make-you-
32 insane.html.

Page 5 of 24
 12. For details of APPELLANT's other health issues caused by
APPELLEES, see all the relevant paragraphs from his previous filings.
13. APPELLANT did not realize that something was wrong with his
4 cognitive functions, not even at the GMAT exam in October 2015, when
he had a severe headache during its last section and received a score
of more than 75% lower even though he studied for the GMAT for over
eight months more than 12 hours a day almost every day. Indeed,
8 APPELLANT's brain injury was "invisible" to him, but it affected his
cognitive functions, including his short-term memorization of facts
and rapid analysis and synthesis of the facts to conclude and decide,
and it caused him headaches during efforts. Not aware of the urgency
12 -illegally, the jail doctor did not refer APPELLANT to a specialist-,
APPELLANT did not immediately consult a specialist in cognitive
functions. The doctors APPELLANT consulted, except for Dr. Sandoval,
did not ask APPELLANT to see a neurologist for brain injury therapy,
16 which was not legal. Then, the doctors APPELLANT consulted only gave
him painkillers for headaches, and only one doctor asked him to take
a break until the pain stops, to avoid more harm. No doctor performed
detailed tests of his cognitive functions, even though APPELLANT had
20 -and has- to check at least three times all his reasonings for
simple, childish errors. APPELLANT will send you the medical records
if the records' Internet links he provided in previous filings were
hacked or for any other reason you have.
24
VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP MONROE COUNTY [KL AREA
COMMISSIONER SYLVIA MURPHY, MC ADMINISTRATOR ROMAN GASTESI -ALL IN
IOC-; MC, MCDSS, AuG AND FDFS, AND THEIR OTHER INVOLVED EMPLOYEES AND
28 AGENTS, IN IOC]
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO HARM APPELLANT BY
NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE HOUSING AS UDHR REQUIRED

Page 6 of 24
 14. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.
15. THE APPELLEES IN GROUP MONROE COUNTY, acting in the course and
scope of their duties as officials employed by MC and with the
4 approval from FDFS and AuG, conspired to harm the APPELLANT by not
providing him after a van hit him due to an illegal lack of traffic
warning sign, at least since April 2014, the adequate housing and
health care required by UDHR. The Universal Declaration of Human
8 Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights.
Article 25 of UDHR states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his
family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
12 necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack
of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.“ Moreover, the
“International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
16 [(ICESCR)] has been ratified or acceded to by 108 States. This text
contains perhaps the most significant foundation of the right to
housing found in the entire body of legal principles which comprise
international human rights law. Article 11.1 of the Covenant declares
20 that: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right
of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his
family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the
continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will
24 take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right.”
https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/FactSheet21en.pdf.. “In addition
to these two sources, both the United Nations Declaration on Social
Progress and Development (1969) and the United Nations Vancouver
28 Declaration on Human Settlements (1976) recognize the rights of
everyone to adequate housing.” id.

16. APPELLANT SPATARU was placed on a waiting list for subsidized,

public housing in KL in 2014 by MC but Group MC illegally moved

Page 7 of 24
 other, more recent applicants ahead of him; thus, APPELLANT SPATARU
had to live in his sailboat until September 2017 even though he was
disabled and it was painful to climb and during rougher weather to
4 row.
17. The prior cases hold conspirators liable for “harm caused by
other members of a conspiracy to commit an intentional tort” - Morris
USA Inc. v. Boatright, 2017 WL 1356285; Walters v. Blankenship, 931
8 So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
18. The APPELLEES, including those in the GROUP MONROE COUNTY, are
part of a criminal "enterprise" to profiteer from the corruption in
public works and other illegal actions. Respectfully, APPELLANT
12 requests you to order DOJ to investigate also all public works and
services in South Florida and all other persons involved.
19. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy by the
APPELLEES, APPELLANT SPATARU was injured severely and has suffered
16 grievously to this day and will continue to suffer into the future
for the rest of his life, as described above and in his previous
filings.
WHEREFORE, APPELLANT prays for entry of judgment against the
20 APPELLEES for compensatory, punitive, and special damages, the costs
of this action, together with interests, as allowed under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968 (RICO Act), Fla. Stat. § 777.04(3), and all other
applicable State, Federal, and United Nations laws, and prays for a
24 Trial by Jury on all issues.

VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP HAMPTON INN (HI)

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18 U.S.C.
28 §§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO HARM APPELLANT
20. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.
21. Unlawfully, also the APPELLEES IN GROUP HI conspired and made a
bogus call and lied to APPELLEES KERN and MADNICK to offer them a

Page 8 of 24
 pretext to injure APPELLANT.
22. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy by the
APPELLEES IN GROUP HI, APPELLANT SPATARU was injured severely and has
4 suffered grievously to this day and will continue to suffer into the
future for the rest of his life, as described above and in his
previous filings.
23. The prior cases hold conspirators liable for “harm caused by
8 other members of a conspiracy to commit an intentional tort” - Morris
USA Inc. v. Boatright, 2017 WL 1356285; Walters v. Blankenship, 931
So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
24. The government has prosecuted alleged “swatters” on charges
12 including: obstruction of justice (via destruction of evidence: 18
U.S.C. § 1512; via retaliation: 18 U.S.C. § 1513), access device
fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029), interstate threats or extortion (18 U.S.C.
§ 875), computer misuse (18 U.S.C. § 1030), and the malicious
16 conveying of false information (likely 18 U.S.C. § 2292).
25. It was foreseeable that their conduct might create a risk of
harm.

WHEREFORE, APPELLANT SPATARU prays for entry of judgment against the

20 APPELLEES for compensatory, punitive, and special damages, the costs
of this action, together with interests, as allowed by all applicable
State and Federal laws, and prays for a Trial by Jury on all issues.

24 VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP SHERIFF'S DMC

COUNT I: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3),
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO TAKE MONEY
FROM APPELLANT BY FINING UNJUSTLY AND TO HARM HIM
28 26. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.
27. The APPELLEE OFFICERS, acting in the course and scope of their
duties as police officers employed by the MCSD -and without fearing

Page 9 of 24
 an audit or investigation by SDMC, FDFS and AuG- agreed to fabricate
evidence and eliminate adverse evidence in order to batter, falsely
arrest, hide their abuses against APPELLANT SPATARU, and stop him
4 from complaining to Court.
28. In furtherance of this agreement, the APPELLEE OFFICERS
fabricated evidence and eliminated adverse evidence after assaulting,
battering and falsely arresting APPELLANT SPATARU.
8 29. In violation of the Baker Act -Fla. Stat. § 394.459-, APPELLEE
OFFICERS used unacceptable force, including handcuffs, on APPELLANT,
a patient suffering from and having treatment for depression and
pain, which they knew.
12 30. The prior cases hold conspirators liable for “harm caused by
other members of a conspiracy to commit an intentional tort” - Morris
USA Inc. v. Boatright, 2017 WL 1356285; Walters v. Blankenship, 931
So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
16 31. The APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC are part of a criminal "enterprise"
to profiteer from the corruption in public works and other illegal
actions. Respectfully, he requests you to order DOJ to investigate
also all public works in South Florida and all other persons
20 involved.
32. Organized crime (OrC) by the APPELLEES is a continuing and self-
perpetuating criminal conspiracy, having an organized structure, fed
by fear or corruption or both, and motivated by greed. All required
24 elements of a RICO claim are present;
33. repeated acts (a RICO pattern -truly, APPELLANT SPATARU has been
injured by employees of the executive branch of the government also
before and after the subject incident-),
28 34. constituting specific crimes,
35. committed in specific ways by an identifiable group of people (a
RICO enterprise) who include some APPELLEES and control, corrupt and
influence unlawfully the rest of the APPELLEES.
32 36. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the

Page 10 of 24
 leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others
to do or assisted them in doing.
37. A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.
4 38. Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of
treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory
damages).
39. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy by the
8 APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC, APPELLANT SPATARU was injured severely and
has suffered grievously to this day and will continue to suffer into
the future for the rest of his life, as described above and in his
previous filings.
12 WHEREFORE, APPELLANT prays for entry of judgment against the
APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC for compensatory, punitive, and special
damages, the costs of this action, together with interests, as
allowed under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (RICO Act), Fla. Stat. §
16 777.04(3), the Baker Act, and all other applicable State and Federal
laws, and prays for a Trial by Jury on all issues.

COUNT II: BATTERY AND AGGRAVATED BATTERY BY VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §

20 1983
40. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.

41. The APPELLEES subjected APPELLANT to a deprivation of his rights

under the Constitution and laws of the United States within the
24 meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Stated with more particularity, the
described actions violated at least his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments' rights.

42. The actions described by APPELLANT involving APPELLEES IN GROUP

28 SDMC were taken individually and jointly by employees and/or agents
of the SDMC under Color of State Law. The laws pertaining to freedom
from the use of excessive and unreasonable force were clearly
defined, established and well settled at the time of the actions

Page 11 of 24
 taken by the APPELLEES.

43. The actions of the APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC were objectively

unreasonable under the circumstances based on the perspective of a
4 reasonable officer. No reasonable officer could deem it necessary to
arrest and heat a non-violent individual deserving no criminal
charges, who was cooperating.

44. The APPELLEE OFFICERS arrested him without probable cause as a

8 matter of fact because he had not committed any offense whatsoever.
Indeed, APPELLEE OFFICERS' fabricated evidence would be disproved by
video evidence.
45. Similarly, the APPELLEE OFFICERS arrested him without probable
12 cause as a matter of law because officers may not arrest a citizen
when no crime has been committed or is in the process of being
committed.

46. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the
16 APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC, APPELLANT was deprived of his rights
afforded under the United States Constitution, including but not
limited to the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the United
States Code of Laws, and the laws of the State of Florida, including
20 but not limited to the Baker Act.

47. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the
APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC, APPELLANT has endured grievous bodily
injuries. In addition, APPELLANT has been brought into public scandal
24 with great humiliation and damage to his reputation, and has suffered
deprivation of his liberty and freedom, severe mental and emotional
suffering arising from fear of abusive detention and other abuses,
and the humiliation, shame, embarrassment, and disgrace from illegal
28 arrest and detention. Moreover, his family and relatives have
sustained mental pain and suffering. All the losses and damages are
continuing in nature and will continue to occur in the future.

Page 12 of 24
 48. APPELLANT SPATARU did not consent to the harmful actions of the
APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC.

WHEREFORE, APPELLANT prays for entry of judgment against the

4 APPELLEES IN GROUP SDMC for compensatory, punitive, and special
damages, as allowed by all applicable State and Federal laws, and
prays for a Trial by Jury on all issues.

8 COUNT III: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UNDER FLA. STAT. § 784.021

49. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.

50. During the unneeded, false arrest by APPELLEE KERN,

threateningly, he shouted to APPELLANT SPATARU to “get out of” Monroe
County, which APPELLANT SPATARU has interpreted as an order to avoid
4 further “inconveniences” and which was an aggravated assault. He
wanted to move away but was not able to move due to his health issues
and lawsuits that he started -please advise him where to go to be
safe from abuses-.
51. APPELLEE KERN made an intentional, unlawful threat by words
implying to cause illegal injuries to PLAINTIFF.
52. His threat was coupled with an apparent ability to do so.
53. His participation in the conspiracy to injure APPELLANT to
continue to profiteer created a well-founded fear in him that such
violence will be imminent if he would not move away from MC or would
4 comment more about local corruption.
54. APPELLEE KERN had a deadly weapon.
55. APPELLEE KERN is guilty of violations under FLA. STAT. § 784.011
-Assault- and § 784.021 -Aggravated assault-, punishable as provided
in FLA. STAT. § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084.
4 WHEREFORE, APPELLANT SPATARU prays for entry of judgment against the
APPELLEES KERN, RAMSAY, and SDMC for compensatory, punitive, and
special damages, as allowed by all applicable State and Federal laws,

Page 13 of 24
 and prays for a Trial by Jury on all issues.

VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP MC COURTS

4 CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO TAKE MONEY FROM
APPELLANT BY FINING UNJUSTLY AND TO HARM HIM
56. PETITIONER re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.
8 57. Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 11 allowed a person to
swim and use beaches below the mean high water lines with or without
a snorkel, and Monroe County (MC), FL, Code of Ordinances (CO), Ch.
26, Art. IV., Sec. 26-98 (b) allowed him to swim with a snorkel,
12 thus, APPELLANT swam lawfully, and APPELLEE JUDGE PTOMEY, acting in
the course and scope of his duties as MC County Judge, had no
probable cause of actions against him; he violated the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Const., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985, and
16 Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 1997), thus, a
cause of action for damages may be asserted by APPELLANT SPATARU
against him according to Brown v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 608 F.3d
724, 734 n.15 (11th Cir. 2010). Indeed, APPELLANT's plea of no
20 contest at the arraignment hearing then at the criminal trial in 2015
regarded snorkeling lawfully in the public water nearby -within 100
ft from- his boat, thus it did not establish probable cause for his
arrest, detention, and conviction for trespassing on private
24 property, and it did not preclude a challenge of the legality of his
arrest, detention, prosecution, and conviction by way of a civil suit
for false, wrong, abusive, injuring and corrupt arrest, detention,
prosecution, and conviction in state or federal courts. A voluntary
28 surrender to the authorities still constitutes a seizure under the
Fourth Amendment. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994).
58. APPELLEE JUDGE PTOMEY was part of a conspiracy which took money
also from APPELLANT by fining him unjustly and which abused and

Page 14 of 24
 caused “accidents” and injuries to people who commented about the
corruption and other abuses, such as the lack of the "TWO-WAY BIKE
ROUTE" traffic warning sign.
4 59. APPELLEE JUDGE PTOMEY ilegally accepted the fabricated evidence
of the APPELLEE OFFICERS as true. He is part of a criminal
"enterprise" to profiteer from the corruption in public works,
unlawful fines, and other illegal actions.
8 60. The prior cases hold conspirators liable for “harm caused by
other members of a conspiracy to commit an intentional tort” - Morris
USA Inc. v. Boatright, 2017 WL 1356285; Walters v. Blankenship, 931
So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
12 61. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy by the
APPELLEES, APPELLANT SPATARU was injured severely and has suffered
grievously to this day and will continue to suffer into the future
for the rest of his life.
16 WHEREFORE, APPELLANT prays for entry of judgment against the
APPELLEES for compensatory, punitive, and special damages, the costs
of this action, together with interests, as allowed under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968 (RICO Act), Fla. Stat. § 777.04(3), and all other
20 applicable State and Federal laws, and prays for a Trial by Jury on
all issues.

VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP LEGISLATORS

24 CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO TAKE MONEY FROM
APPELLANT UNJUSTLY AND HARM HIM
62. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.
28 63. Unlawfully, the APPELLEES IN GROUP LEGISLATORS conspired to
enslave indirectly many lawful citizens, including APPELLANT, by
having voted laws which were against the U.S. Constitution.

Page 15 of 24
 64. They voted against the provision of the services of the Public
Defender (PD) free of charge as US Constitution requires. Even though
APPELLANT SPATARU wanted to do public volunteering for the services
4 of the Public Defender, APPELLEE JUDGE PTOMEY did not accept his
offer; moreover, APPELLANT SPATARU would have paid the fee later if
the services of the PD had proved satisfactory.
65. The APPELLEES IN GROUP LEGISLATORS voted abusive limits for
8 remedies due by the government. Respectfully, in the interest of
justice, the APPELLANT requests you to order the legislators in
Florida to respect the Constitution of the USA, which forbids
cruelty, corruption, and abuses, and to eliminate all abusive limits
12 for remedies, as the state of Oklahoma did recently; “the Oklahoma
Supreme Court ruled that arbitrary caps on pain and suffering damages
imposed by the Legislature are unconstitutional.”
https://kfor.com/2019/04/23/oklahoma-supreme-court-invalidates-civil-
16 justice-damages-cap/.
66. The APPELLEES IN GROUP LEGISLATORS voted abusively to eliminate
trial by an impartial, public jury in the courts of the state, in
cases like mine.
20 67. As the proximate and direct result of the egregious, intentional
conduct of the APPELLEES IN GROUP LEGISLATORS, APPELLANT SPATARU was
injured severely and has suffered grievously to this day and will
continue to suffer into the future for the rest of his life.

24 WHEREFORE, APPELLANT SPATARU prays for entry of judgment against the

APPELLEES IN GROUP LEGISLATORS for compensatory, punitive, and
special damages, as allowed by all applicable State and Federal laws,
and prays for a Trial by Jury on all issues.

28
VIOLATIONS BY ALL APPELLEES OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
68. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.

Page 16 of 24
 69. The APPELLEES acting in the course and scope of their duties
intentionally injured APPELLANT SPATARU, as described.
70. APPELLEES knew or should have known that distress would likely
4 result.
71. The conduct of APPELLEES was egregious and beyond any notion of
decency and must be regarded as odious and intolerable in civilized
society. All APPELLEES were in a position of power and owed him a
8 fiduciary duty; indeed, he was vulnerable and they knew it.
72. As the proximate and direct result of the egregious, intentional
conduct of APPELLEES, APPELLANT SPATARU was injured severely and has
suffered grievously to this day and will continue to suffer into the
12 future for the rest of his life, as described.
73. APPELLEES' egregious, intentional conduct also was the proximate
cause for APPELLANT SPATARU’s severe injuries and distress.
WHEREFORE, APPELLANT prays for entry of judgment against the
16 APPELLEES for compensatory, punitive, and special damages, the costs
of this action, together with interests, as allowed by all applicable
State and Federal laws, and prays for a Trial by Jury on all issues.

20 HATE CRIMES UNDER FLA. STAT. § 775.085

74. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.
75. APPELLANT was born in Romania (current member of NATO and EU),
outside the USA (he became a citizen of the USA by naturalization in
24 2002), his ethnic origin is Moldovan-Romanian; the color of his skin
turns -due to a protective reaction- from white to bronze1 during
exposure to sunlight-, his health status has been disabled by abusive

1 “the Whiter one appears, the more the suspect will be protected from police force.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550616633505; “whites received, on average,
longer prison sentences if they had Afrocentric features.” https://psmag.com/news/cops-use-less-
force-on-suspects-who-look-really-really-white. APPELLANT's skin is completely white only
during winters but his education made him be against crimes during all seasons, no matter how
tanned or white his skin is.

Page 17 of 24
 incidents and attacks, his religion is Rational-Scientific
Christianity and Human Rights, his political preference is for
Ethical Democracy and Laws.
4 76. Unlawfully, the APPELLEES hated the personal characteristics of
the APPELLANT, which are different from those of the APPELLEES and
thus, made them even more to conspire and commit hate crimes against
him.
8 77. As a direct and proximate result of the hate crimes by the
APPELLEES, APPELLANT SPATARU was injured severely and has suffered
grievously.
78. APPELLANT has a civil cause of action for treble damages, an
12 injunction, or any other appropriate relief in law or in equity. Upon
prevailing in such civil action, the APPELLANT may recover reasonable
attorney fees and costs. Fla. Stat. § 775.085(2).

WHEREFORE, APPELLANT SPATARU prays for entry of judgment against the

16 APPELLEES for compensatory, punitive, and special damages, the costs
of this action, together with interests, as allowed by all applicable
State and Federal laws, and prays for a Trial by Jury on all issues.

20 DISCRIMINATION
79. APPELLANT re-alleges herein the preceding paragraphs.
80. The APPELLEES owed a duty to APPELLANT and to the public interest
to provide him with their proper services and not to discriminate him
24 on any basis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. with 28 C.F.R
Part 35, 29 U.S.C. § 794 with 28 C.F.R. Part 42, 34 U.S.C. § 10228(c)
(1) , and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. and all other applicable State,
Federal, and United Nations laws.
28 81. The APPELLEES have, by reason of disability, race, color,
religion, and national origin -as described above and in APPELLANT's
Amended Complaint- excluded APPELLANT from participation in, and

Page 18 of 24
 denied him the benefits of, their proper services.
82. The APPELLEES have acted intentionally and with deliberate
indifference to PLAINTIFF's well-being and to the public interest.
4 83. As a direct and proximate result of discrimination by the
APPELLEES, PLAINTIFF, an individual with disabilities, and of a
different race, color, religion, and national origin from the
APPELLEES, has suffered severe injuries, frustration, and distress,
8 as described.
84. Unless restrained and ordered to compensate APPELLANT by this
Court, the APPELLEES will continue to engage in the conduct and
practices set forth above and in his Amended Complaint.
12 WHEREFORE, APPELLANT SPATARU prays respectfully for a Trial by Jury
on all issues, and for entry of judgment against the APPELLEES for
compensatory, punitive, and special damages, the costs of this
action, together with interests, as allowed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
16 and § 1988 and all other applicable State and Federal laws.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, appellant respectfully requests that this

20 petition be granted. APPELLANT respectfully asks the Court to order
all law enforcement employees and other officials - especially the
management - to be tested periodically for sadism and other
disorders; for example, on MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), a
24 picture of a hit or injured person should not trigger activity in the
brain area of pleasure. In addition, a picture of a peaceful person
with a particular color of skin or other features should not start
neural action in the part of the brain for attacking and injuring.
28 Instead of MRI, the testing team can use equipment -certainly
available today- that emits particular brain waves then reads
subjects' brain waves. I offer to volunteer for the task.

Page 19 of 24
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PER FRAP 32(G)(1)

The document complies with the type-volume limitation.

APPELLANT SPATARU has filed electronically; please let him know if

4 you need paper copies and how many.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS, AND OF SERVICE TO THEM

APPELLANT SPATARU certifies that the following persons and entities
8 have or may have an interest in the outcome of this case,
– Sheriff Department of Monroe County, FL (SDMC), 5525 College Road,
Key West, FL 33040, in c/o greg@purdylaw.com,
– Cody Kern, its Deputy, in c/o greg@purdylaw.com,
12 – Deputy Madnick, its Deputy, in c/o greg@purdylaw.com,
– Rick Ramsay, its Sheriff, rramsay@keysso.net, (305) 292-7001,
– Gregory J. Jolly, Esq., their counsel, greg@purdylaw.com, Purdy,
Jolly, Guiffreda and Barranco, PA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard Suite
16 1216, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304;
– Anitere Flores, FL State Senator, in c/o Dnordby@shutts.com,
– Daniel E. Norby, Esq., her counsel, Dnordby@shutts.com, Shutts &
Bowen, LLP., 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804, Tallahassee, Florida
20 32301,
– Jeremiah Hawkes, Esq., her co-counsel,
hawkes.jeremiah@flsenate.gov, The Florida Senate, 302 The Capitol,
404 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399,
24 – other involved FL legislators, not yet identified, in c/o
Dnordby@shutts.com;
– Monroe County (MC), in c/o Hall-cynthia@monroecounty-fl.gov,
– Roman Gastesi, its administrator, in c/o Hall-cynthia@monroecounty-
28 fl.gov,
– Sylvia Murphy, its commissioner, in c/o Hall-cynthia@monroecounty-

Page 20 of 24
 fl.gov,
– other involved employees of Monroe County, not yet identified, in
c/o Hall-cynthia@monroecounty-fl.gov,
4 – Cynthia L. Hall, Esq., their counsel, Hall-cynthia@monroecounty-
fl.gov, Monroe County Attorney’s Office, 1111 12 th Street, Suite
404, Key West, Florida 33040;
– the Sixteenth -for MC- Judicial Circuit Court, in c/o
8 Meghan.Daigle@myfloridalegal.com,
– Luis Garcia, MC Circuit Judge, in c/o
Meghan.Daigle@myfloridalegal.com,
– William R. Ptomey, former MC judge, in c/o
12 Meghan.Daigle@myfloridalegal.com,
– Meghan B. Daigle, Esq., their counsel, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General (OAG), PL-01 The Capitol,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399, Meghan.Daigle@myfloridalegal.com,
16 – Stevi Parker, their counsel assistant, OAG,
stevi.parker@myfloridalegal.com;
– Florida Auditor General, flaudgen@aud.state.fl.us, 111 W Madison
St, Tallahassee, FL 32399,
20 – its involved employees, not yet identified, in c/o
flaudgen@aud.state.fl.us;
– Florida Department of Financial Services, 200 E. Gaines Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0338, ph. (850) 413-3122,
24 – its Administrator, Kelly Hagenbeck, South Tort Claims Unit,
Division of Risk Management, kelly.hagenbeck@myfloridacfo.com,
(850)413‐4866,
– its Administrator, Chris Taul, Federal Civil Rights Claims Unit,
28 Division of Risk Management, (850)413‐4858,
Chris.Taul@myfloridacfo.com,
– its other involved employees at all times material, not yet

Page 21 of 24
 identified, in c/o Chris.Taul@myfloridacfo.com;
– Hampton Inn, Inc. (HI),
– United States Corporation Company (USCC), its Registered Agent,
4 sop@cscglobal.com,
– Hilton, Inc., owner of HI, in c/o sop@cscglobal.com,
– the involved employees of HI, Hilton, and USCC, at the highest
management level at all times material, not yet identified, in c/o
8 sop@cscglobal.com,
– Paul Thomas, HI employee at 102400 O/S Highway, Key Largo, in c/o
sop@cscglobal.com,
– Chavone Wilson, HI employee at 102400 O/S Highway, Key Largo, in
12 c/o sop@cscglobal.com,
– J. Agent, HI employee at 102400 O/S Highway, Key Largo, FL, whose
name APPELLANT does not know, thus he refers to the person as J.
Agent, in c/o sop@cscglobal.com.
16 APPELLANT SPATARU certify that, on 11/05/20, a copy of this document
was sent via e-mail to all the above e-mail addresses; other e-
addresses were not provided to him by the APPELLEES.

20 Respectfully submitted,

Valentin Spataru, pro se

c/o CILK - Center for Independent Living, 103400 Overseas Hwy. #243,
24 Key Largo, FL 33037
Mobile cell phone: 305 615 0061, Em.: valespa@outlook.com,
valentin.spataru.macc.cpa@gmail.com

28 Dated: 11/05/2020

Page 22 of 24
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................ 1
ARGUMENT............................................................ 2
VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP MONROE COUNTY [KL AREA
COMMISSIONER SYLVIA MURPHY, MC ADMINISTRATOR ROMAN GASTESI -ALL IN
IOC-; MC, MCDSS, AuG AND FDFS, AND THEIR OTHER INVOLVED EMPLOYEES AND
AGENTS, IN IOC] .................................................... 6
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO HARM
APPELLANT BY NOT PROVIDING THE ADEQUATE HOUSING REQUIRED BY UDHR. .6
VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP HAMPTON INN.................... 8
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO HARM
APPELLANT ........................................................8
VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP SHERIFF'S DMC.................. 9
COUNT I: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. §
777.04(3), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985
TO TAKE MONEY FROM APPELLANT UNJUSTLY AND HARM HIM................9
COUNT II: BATTERY AND AGGRAVATED BATTERY BY VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 ..........................................................10
COUNT III: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UNDER FLA. STAT. § 784.021.........12
VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP MC COURTS..................... 13
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO TAKE MONEY
FROM APPELLANT UNJUSTLY AND HARM HIM.............................13
VIOLATIONS BY THE APPELLEES IN GROUP LEGISLATORS................... 15
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER FLA. STAT. § 777.04(3), 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (RICO ACT), AND 42 U.S.C. § 1985 TO TAKE MONEY
FROM APPELLANT UNJUSTLY AND HARM HIM.............................15
VIOLATIONS BY ALL APPELLEES OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS.................. 16
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ....................16

Page 23 of 24
 HATE CRIMES UNDER FLA. STAT. § 775.085 ..........................17
DISCRIMINATION ..................................................18
CONCLUSION ........................................................ 19
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PER FRAP 32(G)(1)........................ 19
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS, AND OF SERVICE TO THEM..........19

Page 24 of 24