Petitioner's District Court of Appeal Writ

No.
4D20-2714
FOR THE 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
________________________________________________________________
JACQUELYN K. ALEXANDER,
Petitioner
v.
LIRON SHALOM
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT CIVIL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE 17th DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
CIVIL APPELLATE DIVISION
L.T. No. 18-19656(AP)
COSO 18-008639
______________________________________________________________
PETIIONERS’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________________________________________________________
JACQUELYN K. ALEXANDER, Pro Se

1231 Murchisontown Road
Sanford, NC 27332-2125
(919) 498-0213 (Landline)
(910) 635-6470 (Cellphone)
jacqui27332@tutanota.com
jacqui27330@yahoo.com
Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BASIS OF JURISDICTION
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ARGUMENTS
I. PETTIONERS TRIAL WAS NOT FAIR AND RULING SHOULD

HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY APPELLATE COURT
II. APPELLEE'S ACTIONS MET ALL 5 ELEMENTS OF FRAUD

UNDER THE FLORIDA CIVIL STATUTE F.S.A. §772.11
III. APPELLEE FORGED BILL OF SALE VIOLATING
F.S.A. §319.33 AND F.S.A. §831.01
IV. APPELLEE FAILED TO DO SALVAGE TITLE IN HIS ACTUAL
NAME AND ADDRESS; VIOLATED F.S.A. §319.22 AND F.S.A.
§319.30
V. APPELLEE VIOLATED NUMEROUS STATE LAWS
VI. APPELLEE VIOLATED STATE AND FEDERAL AUTO
SAFETY LAWS PUTTING UNSAFE VEHICLE ON ROAD
VII. APPELLANT SUFFERED ECONOMIC LOSS EXCLUSIVE
OF CONTRACT
CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE

….........................................................19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
…...............................................................................19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASELAW
Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989)............ 21
Bankers Mut. Capital Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., Dist. Ct. of
Appeal of FL., Fourth District. March 14, 2001 784 So.2d 485 2001 WL
245790................................................................................................ 42
Blair v. Oakwood Park Su Casa, 606 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA
1992).................................................................................................... 26
Burke v. Napieracz, 674 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) .................... 45
Casa Clara Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino and Sons,

Inc., 620 So.2d 1244, 1246 ((Fla.1993).............................................. 45
Castner v. Ziemer, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 07, 1960, 125 So.2d 134.................................................. 39
City of Tampa v. City Nat'l Bank of Fla., 974 So. 2d 408, 410
(Fla. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).................................................. 5
Cox v. Burke,706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)......................... 22
Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 975

(Fla. 1st DCA 2000) …........................................................................... 30
Florida Desk, Inc. v. Mitchell Intern., Inc.,817 So.2d 1059,
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2002 …………………………………………….............. 45
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec.Corp., 510 So.2d

899, 902 (Fla.1987)................................................................................ 45
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995)...........
HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So.2d 1238, 1239
(Fla.1996) …...............................................................................................

Jauregui v. Bobb's Piano Sales & Service, Inc., District Court of
Appeal of Florida, Third District. February 15, 2006 922 So.2d
303 2006 WL 335600 ............................................................................... 43
King v. Winn Dixie Stores Inc., 637 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA
1994)......................................................................................................... 30
O’Donnell v. Arcoiries, Inc. 561 So.2d 344, Fla. App. 4 Dist.,1990 ......
Patton v. Metal Industries,636 So.2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) .............. 26
State v. Wiggins, 507 A.2d 518, 523 (Conn. App. Ct.

(1986........................................................................................................ 23
State v. Yamada, 122 P.3d 254, 262 (Haw.2005) ................................. 26
Suris v. Gilmore Liquidating, Inc., District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District. March 15, 1995 651 So.2d 1282 1995 WL 106923
…………………………………................................................................ 39
Tejada v. 2015 Cadillac Escalade VIN No: 1GYS4BKJ5FR157228,

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. April 03, 2019
267 So.3d 1032 2019 WL. ………………………………........................... 35
Tripp v. Sheffield Steel Products, 490 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).. 26
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510-11 (1995) .......................... 23
United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66, 25 L. Ed.

93 (1878) …………………….………………………................................. 22
Weaver v. State, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 02, 2008 981 So. 2d 508 2008 WL 859412 .................................. 39
Whiting v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1067, 1067 (Id. 1987) ............................ 23
W.R. Grace v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (1994) .................................... 31

STATE LAW
F.S.A. §319.14(1)(a), (2), and (3) (DMV Certification on Title

for Former Fleet Cars)……………………………………………………….. 10
F.S.A. §319.22 (Transfer of Title)…………………………………………..
F.S.A. §319.30 (Salvage Title) ......................................................... 10,
F.S.A. §319.33 (Civil Forgery of Bill of Sale)…………………………….
F.S.A. §501.2077 (Senior, Disabled, Military Vet Deception
and Victimization)……………………………………………………………
F.S.A. §501.976 Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(Civil Fraud)…………………………………………………………………..
F.S.A. §772.104 (Civil Cause of Action)…………………………………..
F.S.A. §772.11 The Florida Civil Conversion Statute..…...................... 7, 18
F.S.A. §817.034 (3).(d) and (4)(a)3.(b) of Florida Commun
Fraud Act............................................................................................. 9
F.S.A. §831.01 (Criminal Forgery)……………………………………….
FEDERAL LAW
Department of Transportation 49 U.S.C. §301 et seq. Auto Safety……

16 C.F.R. 455 Buyer’s Guide……………………………………………….
Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Rental Car Safety Act…….……………
ARTICLES
Judge falls asleep TWICE during trial – Legal Chee k............................. 23

BASIS OF JURISDICTION
The Basis of Jurisdiction in this Writ of Certiorari case such as this is
whether the circuit court acting in its review capacity actually read the
Pettioners Initial Brief, erred in material facts, ignored evidence, and
applied the correct caselaw. See Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.
2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995); City of Tampa v. City Nat'l Bank of Fla., 974 So.
2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

COMES NOW, Appellant Jacquelyn K. Alexander who files this
Pettioners Writ of Certiorari. Petitioner will prove that both Lower Court
and Circuit Civil Appellate Court ignored caselaw which proved Bill of Sale
was a forgery and invalidated the transaction. Appellee deliberately did this
transaction with a forged document to hide his culpability. There was NO
caselaw which indicates a fraudster should be paid three times the amount
he had paid another seller for a salvage vehicle. Petitioner seeks relief in
quashing both Court Orders and refunding her ALL of the money she has
lost regarding this fraud. This transaction met all 5 elements of fraud and
had a forged Bill of Sale not in actual seller’s name and address. The Title
was also improper. Appellant did not receive anything in writing as to what
caselaw they Affirmed this Lower Court Order on. It was a gross abuse of
discretion by both courts ignoring material facts, evidence, and caselaw.
The Court's Opinion is shown in Appendix A.
INTRODUCTION
“Fraud vitiates everything.” The Supreme Court. I am poor and this
fraud lost me thousands of dollars in income I would have generated which
I bought the car for. They put my life in danger and everybody has been
ignoring their criminal actions because they landed in Florida. They are
foreigners perpetrating crimes of the worst kind in Florida. This action is

NOT only civil and criminal fraud plus fraudulent misrepresentation of a
salvage vehicle by Appellee. He sold it as if it had no mechanical problems,
and in doing so Appellee knowingly and criminally put her life in danger.
The vehicle was not safe to be on the road under auto safety laws. It had a
very seriously damaged engine which was leaking power steering fluid and
coolant into engine. It was a fire hazard. It had a loose right tierod which
could cause it to go out of control. its windshield wipers were not replaced
and shredded in a rainstorm making it difficult to see and Petitioner nearly
crashed. This case met all five elements of fraud under Florida Statute
§772.11 (see below in Argument II). In addition, Sovereign had forged the
Bill of Sale which violated Florida DMV Statute F.S.A. §319.33 (see below
Argument III. There is NO legal contract between Appellant and Appellee.
The Lower Court erred in not refunding Pettioners money and returning
salvage vehicle to Appellee. The $1,700 award was a total gross abuse of
discretion, not what Appellant had paid for the vehicle, not what she lost in
wages, not what she paid for other wasted costs such as planefare, repairs,
etc.
Sovereign was part of an Israeli criminal fraud used car ring. Appellee
was part of Sovereign as a mechanic. All of them had criminal records
which came out later in background checks. Most of them were on the

Department of Justice “Watch” list as criminals. They wore Jewish
traditional religious clothing and had passages from the Torah up they
didn’t want violated. They used their appearance and alleged devotion to
fool potential buyers while they themselves violated the Torah’s most
sacred tenets. They regularly violated the Torah’s “Laws of Sale.” The
dealer was called “Rabbi” never by his real name. Sovereign and Appellee
used pseudonyms around potential buyers and spoke in Hebrew which
they never translated into English. They never put their real names and
addressed on any paperwork. They moved without leaving a forwarding
address. They didn’t re-title vehicles in their real name and address or put
their real name and address on Bill of Sale to hide their contact information
while saving title transfer fees. They forged the Bill of Sale to hide their real
name and address to make it harder for any defrauded Buyer to legally
pursue them. They made it seem like the fraud was done by another
person whose name they forged. While Appellant was in their office (being
defrauded) she met another domestic violence rape victim (like herself)
who the “Rabbi” was supposed to “helping.” This was part of their shell
game image “that they were honest and cared about people” when they
didn’t. Appellant was told repeatedly by Appellee that they were honest.
Yet, they defrauded the most vulnerable people in society who needed their

money for reliable cars. Sovereign and Appellee deprived low-income
buyers who needed their vehicle for school and work. Appellant had all the
text messages, material facts, and caselaw they had violated in the
Statement of Claim. She had all of the evidence supporting this in Exhibits
attached to Statement o Claim Neither Mediator nor Magistrate read either.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant is an unmarried, indigent, senior, disabled military veteran
on a fixed poverty
level low income. It took Appellant years to save up enough money to buy a
reliable safe vehicle she could drive for Uber/Lyft, Uber Eats, Door Dash,
Grub Hub, Census, and so on. This vehicle was bought by Appellant
specifically to generate income by meeting Uber/Lyft requirements. It was
not a random sale. It was carefully thought out which is why Appellant went
a long way to get the vehicle to meet specific requirements. Appellant saw
the CarGurus ad Sovereign posted for this 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo in
Spring 2015 and contacted Sovereign. She had several witnesses also see
the same CarGurus Interstate Wire Fraud ad to get their opinion. At the
time of this CarGurus ad there were no bad online reviews for Sovereign.
Sovereign referred her to a phone number which she assumed was a sales
rep. He never said his full name but it was Liron Shalom. Sovereign and

Appellee sent misleading text messages, and fraudulently misrepresented
in-person the mechanical condition of the vehicle (with Jean Melnikoff on
cellphone via speakerphone listening to transaction). Sovereign and
Appellee routinely did not post the FTC-mandated 16 C.F.R. 455 Buyer’s
Guide listing defects and warranty in each vehicle’s window. This was
required even if it was a Consignment on their Hollywood, FL sales lot.
Both Sovereign and Appellee were selling this same vehicle according to
Appellee. They washed the vehicle and put a $500/down in front
windshield. They did not do mechanical repairs. It was not legal to drive on
the road due to its potential to harm other drivers because of its dangerous
mechanical condition. Sovereign and Appellee routinely violated criminal
fraud F.S.A.§817.034 3.(d) and (4)(a)3.(b) of Florida Communications
Fraud Act in their CarGurus ads, phone calls, and text messages:
3. Services.
(d) “Scheme to defraud” means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct

with intent to defraud one or more persons, or with intent to obtain property
from one or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises or willful misrepresentations of a future act.
(4) 3. (b) Offenses
(b) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and, in furtherance

of that scheme, communicates with any person with intent to obtain
property from that person is guilty, for each such act of communication, of
communications fraud, punishable as follows:

Appellant did file criminal fraud and forgery charges with the
Hollywood, FL Police Department and District Attorney. That police report
was one of the Exhibits attached to Statement of Claim. There were
witnesses in Exhibits (including another car dealer) who signed Notarized
Witness Affidavits because they saw Sovereign’s CarGurus ad and text
messages selling this 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser GT Sport Wagon 4D
upscale vehicle.
The 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo vehicle in
picture
Appellant did contact CarGurus to get a copy of the CarGurus ad but
they don’t keep archives. Appellant then subpoena the ad and text
messages from Sovereign and Appellee. The Lower Court did not file
discovery on time before trial. Sovereign advertised this 2004 PT Cruiser
GT Turbo with a sunroof, tinted windows, leather seats, bucket seats that
could fold down to have more storage room, AC/Heater, CD player, large-
diameter chrome exhaust tip, all-disc antilock brakes with traction control

and all-season performance tires on 17-inch chromed-aluminum wheels,
silver cluster gauges and a satin silver gearshift knob, with allegedly only
77,000 miles.
While the vehicle looked great body-wise in person (see below) it had
a ruined engine from an undisclosed wreck and major mechanical
problems. Sovereign claimed this $100 salvage vehicle was a “Great Deal”
worth $5,600KBB. Sovereign and Appellee were selling it for $3,000 not
including Registration and Title fees. It had a squashed engine with oil
dipstick stuck in it, was leaking fluids into the engine, had loose right tierod,
had multiple failed head gasket repairs not including other mechanical
problems not disclosed. The $3,000 did not include other wasted costs of
getting the vehicle (planefare, motels, food, repairs, parts, gas, registration
fees, insurance fees, etc.),
The Vin No. of 3C8FY78G54T278669 was deliberately not posted
online in their online
CarGurus ad because they didn’t want potential Buyers running a CarFax
on the vehicle with problems they had deliberately not disclosed. Sovereign
deliberately did not post a CarFax to hide the fact vehicle was a former fleet
car and had been badly wrecked (before they posted the ad) which they
legally had to disclose. Appellant pulled the Hollywood, Florida police report

regarding the accident after she ran the CarFax. It is Appendix “D”.
Appellant missed seeing this CarFax, Appendix “C” because she thought
she had already seen it. She had looked at a lot of cars and talked to
multiple Sellers in a short time. The Lower Court got this material fact
wrong because the Magistrate had assumed they posted the CarFax when
they deliberately hadn’t. Sovereign and Appellee were required to follow
Florida DMV Regulation §319.14(1)(a), (2), and (3) when selling a former
fleet car but didn’t:
(1)(a) A person may not knowingly offer for sale, sell, or exchange any
vehicle that has been licensed, registered, or used as . . . short-term-lease
vehicle, . . .until the department has stamped in a conspicuous place on the
certificate of title of the vehicle, or its duplicate, words stating the nature of
the previous use of the vehicle. . . If the certificate of title or duplicate was
not so stamped upon initial issuance thereof or if, subsequent to initial
issuance of the title, the use of the vehicle is changed to a use requiring the
notation provided for in this section, the owner or lienholder of the vehicle
shall surrender the certificate of title or duplicate to the department prior to
offering the vehicle for sale, and the department shall stamp the certificate
or duplicate as required herein. When a vehicle has been repurchased by a
manufacturer pursuant to a settlement, determination. . .
(2) A person may not knowingly sell, exchange, or transfer a vehicle

referred to in subsection (1) without, before consummating the sale,
exchange, or transfer, disclosing in writing to the purchaser, customer, or
transferee the fact that the vehicle has previously been titled, registered, or
used as a . . .short-term-lease vehicle, . .
(3) Any person who, with intent to offer for sale or exchange any vehicle
referred to in subsection (1), knowingly or intentionally advertises,
publishes, disseminates, circulates, or places before the public in any
communications medium, whether directly or indirectly, any offer to sell or
exchange the vehicle shall clearly and precisely state in each such offer

that the vehicle has previously been titled, registered, or used a . . .short-
term-lease vehicle. . .A person who violates this subsection commits a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082
or s. 775.083.
Sovereign and Appellee’s practices included attempting to extort
more money from Buyer than the online advertised price (Appellee tried to
get $1,000 more from Appellant for $4,000), posted deceptive descriptions
with inflated KBB values the used vehicles did not have, photoshopped
vehicle photos to hide body flaws, didn’t post CarFaxes to hide defects and
mileage, didn’t post the Vin No. of vehicle for Buyer to check vehicle
history, didn’t post pictures of engine to hide engine defects, failed to
disclose wrecks, failed to disclose it was a former fleet car, and failed to
disclose any other legal information they were required to disclose by
Florida statute.
Appellee qualified as car dealer in addition to Sovereign because he
sold 3 or more cars in a 12-mo period. He should have had a car dealer
license but did not. Sovereign and Appellee often commit the following
Florida car dealer violations: 1) Failure to transfer titles (Sovereign and
Appellee did in my case); 2) Failure to disclose the rebuilt status of a
vehicle; 3) Falsifying title application documents (falsified Bill of Sale); 4)
False advertising (Sovereign and Appellee both did on CarGurus); 5)
Failure to honor written contracts (Claimed the vehicle was worth

$5,600KBB w/o mechanical problems in their CarGurus ad; and claimed
that Robert Jerklin had sold it to Appellant in Bill of Sale which was not true;
odometer tampering of 217,000 mile difference between Odometer and
Title, See Appendix “ “; and Overcharging over advertised price (Appellee
attempted to extort $1,000 more from Appellant).
Appellant thought CarGurus determined the value of vehicle in the
Sovereign CarGurus ads when in fact it was Sovereign who actually made
the fraudulent claim(s) it was a “Great Deal” which Appellant relied upon in
considering this vehicle. Sovereign and Appellee target out-of-town Buyers
who were less likely to sue them due to cost when they found out about the
fraud. They did not re-title cars and forged Bills of Sale to hide their
culpability in defrauding people. They were not concerned that the entire
time driving these dangerous vehicles the Buyer could be killed or they
could kill other innocent person(s). Neither Sovereign or Appellee cared
that Buyer would be legally liable for any damage to another vehicle or
injury to another person even though she didn’t know about vehicle’s
unsafe mechanical condition. They made her legally liable. These
dangerous salvage vehicles were weapons on the road. Appellee claimed
in text messages the car “ran great” and “she could purchase from either

him or Sovereign.” The 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo was on the Sovereign
dealer’s lot in Hollywood, FL NOT at a private residence.
Sovereign did not post the FTC-mandated 16 C.F.R. 455 Buyer’s
Guide in the vehicle’s window listing defects and warranty. They were
supposed to post it on every vehicle they sold. Appellant received nothing
in writing about any warranty. She was told by Sovereign “Rabbi” to
purchase the vehicle from Appellee “because you won’t be back down here
in time under my warranty.” At NO time did Appellant agree to purchase a
salvage/derelict vehicle “As Is.” The ONLY verbal contract she made was
to purchase the vehicle they had advertised on CarGurus. The vehicle had
to indicate mechanical defects and dealer warranty in writing. This applies
even if the vehicle is only a Consignment on the dealer’s lot. The Buyer’s
Guide is supposed to be given to Buyer during transaction so that they
know all of the mechanic defects and warranty prior to purchase. If after-
the-purchase the vehicle didn’t match the Buyer’s Guide it is one of the
legal documents Appellant would have to prove her case.
Appellant kept the text messages from Appellee on her cellphone.
Verizon keeps text messages for only 10 days on their database. Then they
are erased. She would have had to know this was a fraud before she even
saw the vehicle to subpoena the text messages for $50. She did not see

the vehicle for 30 days after she received the initial text messages from
Appellee and talked to Appellee on cellphone. The Verizon cellphone billing
records, Appendix “M” proved she had talked to Appellee and others. The
Magistrate did not look at these either. He cut her off when she said the
cellphone malfunctioned, so she forwarded them to witnesses because
they were no longer on the Verizon database. Appellant had Notarized
Witness Affidavits with all of this information in them, Appendix “L” The text
messages were also in the Statement of Claim (Appendix “C”) by date,
time, person, phone number, and message. But the Magistrate didn’t read
that either. He intimated she was lying when she wasn’t. He started yelling
at her as if she had lied about the cellphone. Her sister was paying for the
cellphone and they stopped paying for it. Appellant got a different cellphone
from a different company. Both were Android phones and they
malfunctioned more than Smart Phones. For Appellant, planefare was
cheaper to buy at a later date instead of Spring Break. By 30 days Verizon
had already erased the text messages off their database. So, when the
cellphone malfunctioned that is why Verizon could not retrieve the text
messages. He never asked the Appellee if he had the text messages.
Appellant subpoena them from Sovereign and Appellee. The Lower Court
Clerk didn’t know what a Discovery Subpoena was. She filed it too late to

serve on Appellee. Appellant had a letter from Sheriff who returned the
Subpoena to her because it had been filed too late for trial. The Magistrate
didn’t listen, had been demeaning, insulting, scoffing, sneering, etc. when
she tried to present her case. He never took into consideration Appellant
had Traumatic Brain Injury disability and when he would not let her finish
her thought she got confused. She had purposefully put everything in
writing because of her disability. He confused her so she forgot to finish
her thought about Verizon’s database erasing text messages. As a
domestic violence victim the Appellant shuts down emotionally when yelled
at. There was no reason for magistrate to raise his voice. She wasn’t lying.
He ignored evidence such as forged Bill of Sale and improper Title without
DMV Certification. Everything that Appellant said was in the Statement of
Claim, Appendix “C,” except perhaps the fact that Verizon kept text
messages for only 10 days before erasing.
In 2015 there were no Sovereign online buyer reviews that Appellant
could find. After this transaction, CarGurus and Google Reviews claimed
that potential buyers were defrauded by Sovereign in the same manner as
Appellant. This was their pattern of doing business. They never showed
Buyers or Potential Buyers the Title prior to selling the vehicle. She
reported Sovereign for Odometer Fraud. They used high pressure sales

techniques for hours plus their religious appearance to manipulate Buyers
into purchasing vehicles they fraudulently misrepresented. Appellant didn’t
know what to do. She had only made planefare reservations for one-way
since she intended to drive the vehicle back. She had never suspected this
was a major fraud with people so evil they didn’t care if she was killed or
didn’t have transportation. To get last minute planefare would have been
very expensive. She had no real name or address for Appellee since the
Bill of Sale was forged. He kept assuring her he was honest when he was
not. The CarGurus review by a potential buyer from Tampa, FL after-the-
transaction is listed as Appendix “K.” It was attached to Statement of Claim
and indicated they made one potential buyer drive a long way for a
“dangerous wreck” they misrepresented online, had photoshopped photos
of, and fraudulently described.
Other Sovereign dealer reviews such as the following came out on
Google:
Sovereign Automotive Financial LLC (online Google Reviews)

Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Tracy A
These people stole my identity and are selling cars to people without doing
background checks.
latina uno
The worst car I ever bought. they sell u junk for sure. do NOT expect
anything else.

if u looking for an adventure this could be the right place for you.
but do NOT buy any car there.
lawsuit is pending
This case is much more serious than just a civil fraud and forgery
which invalidated the transaction. Appellee knowingly and with criminal
intent put Pettioners life in danger and also other buyers in danger with
vehicles that had multiple unsafe mechanical problems he knew about.
Sovereign and Appellee hid behind the fact Florida does not inspect
vehicles prior to registering. Their Sovereign mechanics knowingly and
criminally fraudulently misrepresented the mechanical condition of the
vehicle.to potential buyers. They would not allow the buyers to take
vehicles to outside mechanics because they claimed it had no license plate
or insurance. However, Florida car dealers still had to follow the
Department of Transportation (“DTA”) 49 U.S.C. §301 et seq. auto safety
laws irrespective of the vehicle being inspected prior to registration.
Sovereign and Appellee had to disclose in the 16 C.F.R. 455 FTC-
mandated Buyer’s Guide all mechanical defects and the dealer warranty.
They never put into writing “As Is” nor did Appellant agree to it verbally.
She agreed to purchase the $5,600KBB vehicle they advertised in their
CarGurus online ad not a salvage vehicle. Since it was a former fleet car it

had to meet The Rachael and Jacqueline Houck Rental Car Safety Act
prior to selling it. It also had to have the Florida DMV Certification on the
Title allowing this short-term lease vehicle to be sold. Appendix “J,” the civil
attorney demand letters indicated this vehicle was a fraud, not as described
in their CarGurus ad, violated FTC Buyer’s Guide Regulations, and was
“dangerous.” Appendix “J.” The Hollywood, FL police report Appendix “E”
indicated the vehicle had been wrecked prior to Appellant ever seeing it
advertised.
When Appellee along with the Sovereign mechanic was asked point
blank by Appellant (with Jean Melnikoff on cellphone via speakerphone
which Verizon Cellphone Records indicated in Appendix “M”) if the vehicle
had any engine, electrical, or transmission problems they lied and said it
did not. Ms. Melnikoff’s witness testimony was in one of the Notarized
Witness Affidavits. The short test drive was not long enough for the “Check
Engine” light to come on. Appellee deliberately kept test drive short.
However, the vehicle overheated upon leaving the Sovereign sales lot on
the way to Florida DMV. When the “Check Engine” light came on as she
was driving it she texted Appellee immediately that the vehicle had engine
problems. Appellee put Pettioners life in danger claiming “Check Engine”
light was “just a sensor” he knew it wasn’t. He put Pettioners life in danger

with the leaking fluids which could cause the engine to catch on fire at any
time, the overheating of the engine which could cause additional
mechanical problems, the loose right tierod and leaking power steering fluid
could have made the vehicle go out of control, plus other mechanical
problems not disclosed. Some of the accessories Sovereign had advertised
in CarGurus ad such as the Air Conditioning could not be used since it
made the vehicle overheat even more.
The Federal law Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Rental Car Safety
Act (herein “Rental Car Safety Act”) was enacted before this vehicle was
advertised. Two young Houck sisters had died in a 2004 PT Cruiser rental
car after it caught on fire from leaking power steering fluid. This was a
Manufacturer Recall that Enterprise knew about but hadn’t repaired prior to
renting the vehicle out to Houck sisters. When the engine caught on fire
they crashed into a semi-truck killing both daughters. From this tragedy,
this Rental Car Safety Act required the dangerous mechanical repairs and
manufacturer recalls be done prior to renting or selling any rental car. This
2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo did not have the Turbo attached to the engine.
Vehicles had to be safe to be on the road and not a hazard to other cars.
The DTA 49 U.S.C. §301 et seq. Was enacted and defined “Motor Vehicle
Safety” as:

(9) "motor vehicle safety" means the performance of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against
unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design,
construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable
risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of
a motor vehicle.
Sovereign and Appellee used pseudonyms so Appellant never knew
their real names. They also spoke in Hebrew but didn’t translate so she
wouldn’t know what was being said. The car dealer manager was called
“Rabbi,” they dressed in traditional Jewish religious clothing, and had the
Torah posted up they claimed to be devout to. The 2004 PT Cruiser vehicle
was physically on Sovereign’s Hollywood, FL sales lot. It was not at a
residential address. Sovereign had their car dealer license suspended and
that was also Appendix “O.” Florida DMV had suspended their car dealer
license for violating DMV laws. Sovereign was later put out of business by
either FBI or FTC.
The Lower Court ruling was unlawful and not based on caselaw.
Appellee also caused her enormous pain and suffering plus intentionally
caused her emotional distress. She cries every day over this fraud. The
Lower Court ignored civil rights laws that protected Appellant from being
deceived, victimized, and exploited by Appellee, a $15,000 civil penalty. A
copy of the improperly transferred Title, forged Bill of Sale, and Florida
police report reporting both was in Exhibits. Copies of the money orders

proving Appellee not Mr. Jerklin was paid, Appendix “I.” Both Sovereign
and Appellee were selling the same vehicle. Sovereign told her to pay
Appellee since she would not be back down there again under his 30-day
warranty. There was nothing about ANY warranty given to Appellant in
writing.
Under F.S.A. §772.11 The Florida Civil Theft statute permits the
victim of what amounts to criminal fraud to sue for treble (triple) damages
and attorney’s fees.(
1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he

or she has been injured in any fashion by reason of any violation of ss.
812.012-812.037 or s. 825.103(1) has a cause of action for threefold the
actual damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum
damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court
costs in the trial and appellate courts. Before filing an action for damages
under this section, the person claiming injury must make a written demand
for $200 or the treble damage amount of the person liable for damages
under this section. If the person to whom a written demand is made
complies with such demand within 30 days after receipt of the demand, that
person shall be given a written release from further civil liability for the
specific act of theft or exploitation by the person making the written
demand.
Appellant sent a text message within ONE hour saying vehicle had
engine damage he had misrepresented, Appellee lied to her again. Next,
she sent a personal letter demanding a refund, and finally sent a Civil
Attorney’s Demand Letter for a refund. Appellant was the one entitled to 3
times the amount of damages plus attorneys’ fees. There is no caselaw in

Florida statutes to pay a criminal 3 times what he paid another Seller for a
salvage car he was defrauding a buyer with a forged Bill of Sale. Appellant
spent hundreds of hours in legal research doing paralegal work and writing
legal documents. The magistrate opened the Trial claiming Appellant
wasn’t very well prepared which was not true. Appellant had detailed all
material facts, caselaw violated, had Notarized Witness Affidavits, proof of
the forgery, police reports proving the vehicle had been wrecked before she
ever saw it, police reports reporting the improper Title and forged Bill of
Sale, copy of the forged Bill of Sale, copies of money orders (Appendix “I”)
paid to Appellee not Mr. Jerklin, Verizon cellphone billing records
(Appendix “L”) proving Appellant did contact the parties she claimed to
have contacted, letter to District Attorney who assigned a Police Detective
to investigate, FTC Complaint, FBI IC3 Complaint, Attorney General
Complaint, civil attorney demand letters indicating vehicle wasn’t as
described in CarGurus ad, violated FTC Buyers’ Guide Regulations, and
violated auto safety laws with a Certified Mechanic Evaluation (Appendix
“L”) proving vehicle was “dangerous.” Appellant had filed complaint with
Florida DMV Car Dealer Services, Highway Patrol, etc. Florida DMV put a
“Do Not Register—Fraud" on this car’s Vin No. Ft. Bragg C.I.D. investigated
this matter because a Ft. Bragg Soldier/Mechanic was supposed to repair

the car so she could register it but stole the car repair money and did
identity theft instead. Ft. Bragg determined that this was a car dealer fraud
because the vehicle had head gasket problems and other major
mechanical problems before the soldier/mechanic had ever seen it.
Appellee told Appellant to have the codes run on it at Auto Zone. She
took it to Advance Auto and it did not pass the codes (which he knew it
wouldn’t since it bought it with a ruined engine). Advance Auto referred her
to the Ft. Bragg soldier/mechanic behind them in the garage to interpret the
codes. He could not get the “Check Engine” light off because the vehicle
was leaking power steering fluid and coolant into the engine which caused
the head gasket problem. It was an actual engine problem not a sensor.
All the text messages were in the Statement of Claim as well as on
Pettioners cellphone. The Verizon cellphone records proving the phone
number, person contacted, date, and time were labelled in Exhibits, and as
Appendix “C” and Appendix “M.” Appellant did not misrepresent anything.
The Lower Court never took into consideration that Appellant had not seen
the vehicle for 30 days after she received the first text messages. Appellant
would have had to subpoena the text messages within 10 days of receiving
them before seeing the vehicle in person. She kept the text messages on
her cellphone and forwarded them to witnesses when cellphone began to

malfunction. The magistrate scoffed at her when she said Verizon couldn’t
retrieve the text messages but they had already erased them off the
database. He interrupted her before she could say they had already been
erased off the database. That is standard procedure.
This is a very serious matter that both Lower Court and Appellate
Courts ignored. People had already been killed in less dangerous cars than
this one was. Sovereign and Appellant regularly violated the Florida Motor
Vehicle Dealers' Handbook. They did many of the following illegal actions
below which are dealer violations that have resulted in administrative action
such as suspending their car dealer license. Appendix “L” is a Florida DMV
Suspension of Sovereign’s car dealer license due to their car dealer
violations of Florida DMV Regulations and Federal law. Appellee Shalom
qualified as a car dealer because he sold three or more cars in a 12-mo
period. He should have had a car dealer license but did not.
Appellant filed a Motion for Rehearing with Circuit Civil Appellate
Court in November 2020 but it apparently was not read. Once again,
Circuit Civil Appellate Court ignored material facts, evidence, and caselaw
to affirm an unlawful ruling. Sovereign and Appellee routinely violated FTC
Regulation 16 CFR 455 (the Buyer’s Guide) which was legally required to
be posted in the car’s window. It had to list all the defects and warranty in

writing so Buyer knew about the problems before the transaction. It had to
be handed to the Buyer during the transaction so that they had everything
in writing that they were buying. Sovereign had to post the Buyer’s Guide
even if the car was a consignment on their car dealer lot. It was a $16,000
fine to not post the Buyer’s Guide. Sovereign would post Interstate Wire
Fraud deceptive ads on CarGurus giving a value and rating to the car it
didn’t have. They photoshopped the vehicle photos and did not post a
CarFax to hide the difference in odometer miles v. title miles, hide wrecks
they legally were required to disclose, and hide the fact the vehicle had
been a fleet car which had specific state laws that had to be followed under
Florida DMV regulations. They used the fact that Florida didn’t inspect cars
prior to registering to hide vehicle flaws. They did not post the Vin No. or
pictures of the vehicle’s engine with other photos in their online ad. They
did not re-title the vehicle in their name and forged the original Seller’s
name and address on the Bill of Sale. Yet, they had the Buyer pay the
dealership or one of their employees even though the Title and Bill of Sale
had another Seller’s name and address. They used pseudonyms in-person
and on the money orders so the Buyer never knew their real name. They
did not have bad online reviews until after this transaction. In Exhibits,
Appellant had a CarGurus online review from a potential Buyer that claimed

they had tried to dupe that potential Buyer with a deceptive online ad,
photoshopped photos, no Buyer’s Guide, and the vehicle was a “dangerous
wreck.”
It took years to get to trial. The Magistrate never asked any important
questions of Appellee. He refused to look at evidence and ignored caselaw.
In August of 2018, the trial court denied Pettioners claims, and timely
appeals ensued with Circuit Civil Court. The Appellate Opinion did not state
in writing their reasons for Affirming the unlawful Lower Court ruling. There
was NO legal sales contract between Appellant and Appellee so no reason
for Appellee to be paid. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with Circuit Civil.
It took years to hear back and in their Opinion there was nothing in writing
as to why they once again Affirmed an unlawful ruling.
I.
PETTIONERS TRIAL WAS NOT FAIR AND RULING SHOULD

HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY APPELLATE FOR NEW TRIAL

The Appellee commit Fraud upon the Court when he refused to give
the Court and Appellant his current contact information. He consistently hid
his real name and actual address so that Appellant had to hire a Private
Detective to get it. He would claim he wasn’t being served but since he
forged the legal paperwork for this transaction Appellant had to go by what
the Private Investigator told her. He was served at last known snail mail
and email addresses. Appellant wasn’t going to keep paying a private
detective to get his information. He routinely moved without leaving a
forwarding address to either Appellant or Court. The letters sent to him
from civil attorney came back as “undeliverable” because once again he
moved with no forwarding address. So, they had to be sent to Sovereign
and Appellee at Sovereign’s address, Appendix “J.” When reviewing a case
for fraud, the court should "consider the proper mix of factors" and carefully
balance a policy favoring adjudication on the merits with competing policies
to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. Id. at 1117-18 Cox v.
Burke,706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).. He had failed to put his
actual name and address on legal papers regarding this transaction. He
perjured himself to both Mediator and Magistrate because he knew the
vehicle was badly damaged and dangerous but acted like it had no
mechanical problems. The Bill of Sale was forged to hide his fraud and

forgery. The requisite fraud on the court occurs where "it can be
demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in
motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the
judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly
influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the
opposing party's claim or defense." Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d
1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989). Lower Court did extrinsic fraud which is
indicated as collateral to the issues tried in a case. The definition of
extrinsic fraud was specifically articulated in United States v. Throckmorton,
98 U.S. 61, 65-66, 25 L. Ed. 93 (1878), in which the United States Supreme
Court said.
Consistent with the general rule, the Court has defined extrinsic fraud as
the prevention of an
unsuccessful party [from] presenting his/her case, by fraud or deception
practiced by his/her
adversary. .

Appellant was unsuccessful in getting all her money back she should
have been refunded due to this fraud. The ruling made no sense
whatsoever in light of the material facts. The Lower Court was the
Adversary by his actions. He was very confrontational, intimidating, raising
his voice when it was not necessary, cutting Appellant off in the middle of a
key point so she couldn’t finish, confusing her while she was struggling with
a Traumatic Brain Injury disability, scoffing at true facts so he intimidated
her into not saying anything she had planned to say. She had been very
careful in writing everything down so she wouldn’t forget anything due to
the TBI. He and Mediator didn’t read any of it. Because this was a bench
trial the Magistrate acted as both jury and judge. Therefore, laws regarding
juries not listening or sleeping during trial applied. See, e.g. United States
v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510-11 (1995) (stating that the right to a jury trial
was designed to guard against tyranny and oppression)

When the Magistrate wasn’t confrontational he was obviously not
listening and actually slept through the Trial. He had his hand up under his
face and when it kept slipping he would jerk awake temporarily. The
Magistrate rendering a judgment (despite the fact he slept through most of
the trial, had never read any material fact, caselaw violated, or evidence)
would be subjecting the Appellant to some level of unfairness, similar to the
type of unfairness that juries are meant to guard against. See, e.g., State v.
Yamada, 122 P.3d 254, 262 (Haw. 2005) (Acoba, J., dissenting) (stating,
"[a] slumbering juror is not a competent one."); Whiting v. State, 516 N.E.2d
1067, 1067 (Ind. 1987) (recognizing that juror misconduct can be the basis
for a valid claim that the right to a fair jury trial has been denied); See, e.g.,
State v. Wiggins, 507 A.2d 518, 523 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986) (addressing the
jury after it was brought to his attention that a juror may have been asleep
during trial). The judge stated, "It's extremely important ... that the jurors be
fully aware of everything that goes on in the courtroom at all times. If the
person should miss anything, it's not fair to the accused, it's not fair to the
state, it's not fair to either party." Id.; While this was meant for a criminal
trial it is also applicable to a civil trial. This was a very serious matter of
fraud, forgery, and other criminal actions reported to FBI and police besides
putting people’s lives in danger. See also, Judge falls asleep TWICE during

trial - Legal Cheek discusses a similar situation where the judge fell asleep
and the Appellate Court ruled that the Defendant needed a new trial.
The Lower Court showed prejudice enough towards Appellee for
remedial action to be taken. Prejudice, in this instance, is shown by
establishing that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the
judge had been paying attention. Also, he repeatedly cut off Appellant
when she was making key points or slept through them. Otherwise, the
Magistrate would have known that the Bill of Sale was a forgery violating
Florida DMV Regulation F.S.A. §319.33. Therefore, there is NO legal sales
contract between Appellant and Appellee. There was no legal reasoning
behind paying a ConArtist for a fraud and forgery of a vehicle he had
fraudulently misrepresented. Had the Magistrate read or listened to
material facts, evidence and caselaw he would have known all of the laws
and regulations that were violated by Appellee. Appellant spent hundreds
of hours in legal research. The evidence was there in Exhibits.

There was NO federal or state caselaw that states an Appellee
committing fraud and forgery should be paid 3 times the amount he had
paid another Seller for a salvage vehicle he hadn’t properly re-titled. That
was a gross abuse of discretion by Magistrate and gross prejudice towards
Appellee. If there is no legal sales contract there is NO need to pay
Appellee anything. Appellant was the one legally entitled to 3 times the
amount of the fraud under Florida statute (see herein). Appellee should
have been ordered to refund ALL of Pettioners money including wasted
money on costs getting a vehicle he had fraudulently misrepresented.
Appellee then would have the option to pick up the vehicle from Pettioners
driveway. Appellee is a mechanic and could repair it. Appellant did have
witnesses and evidence which was ignored by Magistrate. Furthermore,
there were multiple demand letters and text messages to Appellee for a
refund due to fraud in Exhibits. Appellant had repeatedly demanded a
refund starting within ONE hour of the sale when “Check Engine” light
came on. By reading the Civil Attorney Demand letters the Magistrate
would have known that Sovereign and Appellee violated FTC Regulations,
did deceptive advertising which the vehicle did not measure up to, and sold
vehicles violating auto safety laws which were illegal to be on the road.

All evidence supported Pettioners claim that federal and state laws,
material facts, and evidence were overlooked. See, e.g. Blair v. Oakwood
Park Su Casa, 606 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Tripp v. Sheffield Steel
Products, 490 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); See also, Patton v. Metal
Industries,636 S.2d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Appellee was guilty of
violating civil rights laws against seniors and disabled. He violated F.S.A.
§825.103 Exploitation of an Elderly Person in a Business Relationship and
F.S.A. §501.2077 (2), (3) Wilfully Deceived, Victimized, and Exploited an
Over 60-yrs old Senior, Disabled, Military Service Veteran. Appellant did
mention these violations in the Statement of Claim filed with the Lower
Court. Appellant was over 60, disabled, and a military veteran at the time of
the fraudulent automobile purchase. Violating F.S.A. §501.2077 was a
$15,000 civil penalty alone.
Unfortunately, during Pettioners trial the Lower Court acted as the
adversary. Since this was a Bench Trial the Magistrate acted as both judge
and jury. Magistrate showed substantial prejudice towards Appellee. He
was so prejudiced towards Appellee that Appellant wasn’t sure if they knew
each other prior to trial or possibly he had been bribed. Appellee had no
documentation with him to counter any claims Appellant made. He was
never asked to prove anything nor rebut any of Pettioners claims.

The Magistrate’s opening words to Appellant were “You aren’t very
well prepared, are you?” when she had all the text messages, cellphone
records, police reports, CarFax, mechanic evaluations, civil attorney’s
letters, caselaw violated, proof of DMV violations and fraud by Appellee. It
was all in the Magistrate’s court computer but he never looked at it nor read
it. He would not let Appellant finish a sentence before he would stop her
and intimidate her. This Appellee put Pettioners life in danger, other people
had already been killed in these vey dangerous vehicles, and this was far
more than just fraud and forgery. Pettioners entire life was ruined. She was
financially ruined because she had intended to use the vehicle to generate
income. She wasn’t able to generate any additional income. It had taken
her years to save up for a vehicle not including all the other costs around
getting this vehicle. The Magistrate’s attitude was so intimidating that
Appellant was scared to say the reason it took her so long to get to Court
was because she was poor and on a fixed income. She did not want to
mention she had been raped/robbed/had identity theft/had car repair
money stolen by a Ft. Bragg soldier/mechanic who Advance Auto had
recommended. Appellee had said to take vehicle to Auto Zone to have the
codes run on it. She took it to Advance Auto instead. They referred her to

soldier/mechanic in garage behind them to interpret the codes. Appellant
was ashamed and scared to tell Magistrate this.
When the Magistrate wasn’t sleeping, he was very confrontational.
He yelled at Appellant but never yelled at Appellee. He raised his voice
because Appellant had text messages from Appellee and Mr. Jerklin by
time, date, message, with cellphone billing records proving contact.
However, Pettioners cellphone had died before she came to court. When it
began malfunctioning she forwarded the text messages to other witnesses
not part of this action (Appendix “M.”) She had kept the cellphone text
messages on her cellphone until it died. The text messages were available
in Statement of Claim, Notarized Witness Affidavits, and Mr. Jerklin’s were
still on her cellphone. The Magistrate didn’t let her finish her statement
about why Verizon had erased the text messages and she wasn’t able to
retrieve them.
Verizon only keeps text messages for 10 days on their database
Appellant didn’t see the vehicle in-person for 30 days after the initial before-
the-sale text messages. She had to plan ahead to get cheaper planefare.
She had no idea it was a fraud. She would have had to subpoena the text
messages for $50 from Verizon before seeing the vehicle in-person. She
would have had to pay another $50 within 10 days or receipt to get the

after-the-sale text messages where Appellee claimed engine problems
were just a sensor problem he knew it wasn’t. Appellee fraudulently
misrepresented engine problems from the CarGurus online ad to in-person.
The opening statement in Statement of Claim was that the vehicle had
been sold by Mr. Jerklin because of multiple failed head gasket repairs.
Multiple mechanic evaluations and the Chrysler Dealer mechanic indicated
the vehicle had major mechanical problems. The police report proved it had
been wrecked but not disclosed to Appellant. Yet the Magistrate scoffed at
Appellant that the vehicle had any major engine problems despite evidence
that it did. The “Check Engine” light came on driving to DMV and Appellant
texted Appellee. The “Check Engine” light coming on was consistent with
the fact that the vehicle had a squashed engine from a wreck (CarFax and
Police Report proved), and Mr. Jerklin had sold it “for parts only” because
of its engine problems. He ignored Mr. Jerklin’s text messages which had
evidence that this was the case. He ignored multiple mechanic evaluations
that the vehicle was “dangerous” which violated auto safety laws. Appellant
had forwarded the original text messages to witnesses when her cellphone
started malfunctioning. She had physical proof she had talked to witnesses
in the Verizon cellphone billing records. The magistrate intimated Appellant
was lying even though ALL text messages were in Notarized Statement of

Claim and Notarized Witness Affidavits. These are legal to use in Court
when a witness physically can’t be there. Appellant wasn’t lying. The
Magistrate got Appellant so confused that she missed points she wanted to
make. She is disabled with a Traumatic Brain Injury (herein “TBI”) but he
showed no empathy for her disability. Appellant has to write things down
due to the TBI. He scoffed at evidence Appellant had refusing to read it, i.e.
text messages from Mr. Jerklin on her cellphone proving that he had sold
the vehicle “for parts only” due to multiple failed head gasket repairs. The
CarFax and Hollywood, FL Police Report proved the vehicle was wrecked
before Appellant ever saw it. He assumed that Appellee had posted the
CarFax when in fact he deliberately hadn’t to hide the fact it had been
wrecked and was a former fleet car. The Lower Court never read the
Statement of Claim nor Exhibits prior to Trial. The Lower Court Clerk did
not know what a Discovery Subpoena was and did not file it on time prior to
trial. Appellant had subpoena the text messages and CarGurus ad from
Appellee. The magistrate slept through the entire trial, had his head in his
hands and occasionally would jerk himself awake when his hand slipped
from his chin. He missed key points, got material facts wrong, refused to
look at text messages on Pettioners cellphone proving that the vehicle in
question had been sold “for parts only” because of multiple failed head

gasket repairs (so obviously it had engine problem causing the “Check
Engine” light to go on), he refused to look at labelled Verizon Cellphone
Records (Appendix “M”) supporting material fact Appellant had talked to the
parties she claimed to have talked to, he refused to read Certified and other
Mechanic Evaluations proving vehicle was “dangerous” violating auto
safety laws and had been “dangerous” prior to selling it to Appellant, he
ignored evidence supporting the material facts (e.g. Mechanic Evaluations
and Civil Attorney Letters) and overlooked cited caselaw supporting the
material fact and evidence. Appellee was deliberately NEVER asked
questions by the Lower Court which would have proved that the material
facts cited by Appellant were true. He was only asked how long he had the
car for before he sold it. The magistrate never questioned Appellee about
any important material facts such as the mechanical condition of the
vehicle when he bought it from Robert Jerklin, never asked what the
mechanical condition when he sold it to Appellant, never asked why there
was no Power of Attorney for Appellee to forge the Bill of Sale in Jerklin’s
name and address, he was never asked why he did not transfer the vehicle
to a Salvage Title it required under Florida law because it needed 80% of
its fair market value in repairs to be safe on the road, never asked why Title
wasn’t in Appellee’s actual name and address, never asked why the Bill of

Sale wasn’t in Appellee’s actual name and address, never asked why Title
showed 200,000 mile difference between it and Odometer, never asked
why he had not done the DMV Certification required on Title to sell a former
fleet car, never asked why he didn’t put FTC-mandated Buyer’s Guide in
car’s window listing defects and warranty, never asked to produce the
Buyer’s Guide he was supposed to have handed Appellant during
transaction, never asked why he refused to let Appellant take vehicle to
outside mechanic, never asked if Appellee had repaired the dangerous
mechanical condition of the vehicle after he bought it with multiple failed
head gasket repairs, and so on The Lower Court failed to see how very
serious it is to put Pettioners life in danger with a ruined engine that had
leaking fluids pouring into it which had already killed two young women.
The Lower Court failed to see how devastating it was to leave disabled
Appellant without any transportation in a rural area that had no public
transportation or anybody to drive her. The only reason she bought this
vehicle was to generate income and use for transportation. She couldn’t do
either. Appellee, knowingly, and with criminal intent, put Appellant in a
vehicle that could have killed her or another innocent party at any time. It
had an incorrect Title, forged Bill of Sale, no DMV Certification on Title that

it was ok to sell this fleet car and violated Department of Transportation
(“DTA”) 49 U.S.C. 301 et seq auto safety laws.
Finally, Appellant cites King v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. as to why the
Lower Court ruling should have been reversed by Appellate Court. In King
v. Winn Dixie Stores Inc., 637 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the court
found: . . .we must reverse when, as here, it appears that the JCC
overlooked or ignored evidence in the record. In all these cases cited
herein both the Lower and Appellate Courts ignored evidence in Exhibits,
material facts, and violated caselaw in Pettioners case. Violating any
Florida DMV law especially auto safety law, federal auto safety law, FTC
Regulations, auto safety law governing rental cars that has to be followed
prior to selling or renting a rental car out, and civil law protecting senior,
disabled, military veterans from being deceived and victimize was grounds
for a total reversal by Appellate Court.
II.
PETTIONERS TRANSACTION MET ALL FIVE ELEMENTS

OF FRAUD UNDER FLORIDA CIVIL LAW §772.11
The Lower Court rewarded the criminal Appellee despite this fraud
upon Appellant meeting all 5 elements required by Florida law to prove
fraud, violating auto safety laws, violating DMV laws, in addition to forging
legal documents which invalidated theentire transaction. The Florida

Supreme Court established that the Appellee’s actions must be “fraudulent,
malicious, deliberately violent or oppressive, or committed with such gross
negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard for the rights of others.” (W.R.
Grace v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (1994) In order to find Appellee guilty of
fraud in Florida, Appellant proved that his actions included the following five
elements:
 Knowledge that their statement was untrue (interstate Wire Fraud

CarGurus online ad stating vehicle was worth $5,600 when it had
major mechanical problems which made it a $100 salvage before
they posted their online ad—proved by Certified Mechanic
Evaluation, Mechanic Evaluations, Hollywood, FL police reports;
Sheriff who saw it in-person, etc.); the vehicle violated state and
federal auto safety laws like DTA 49 U.S.C. §301 et seq. and was a
hazard on the road to other vehicles; it violated FTC 16 CFR 455
Buyer’s Guide regulation required to list defects and warranty posted
in car’s window and handed to Buyer during transaction.
 A false statement of material fact CarGurus ad was fraudulent

misrepresentation with photoshopped photos claiming a $100
salvage vehicle was worth $5,600KBB they knew it wasn’t; Sovereign
and Shalom stated vehicle had no engine, electrical, or transmission
problems even though the engine was badly squashed from a wreck,
Appellee bought it with multiple failed head gasket repairs, and
leaking fluids pouring into the engine; Appellee stated “Check Engine”
light seen by Sheriff and Mechanics was “just a sensor” when police
reports and mechanic evaluations proved it had major mechanical
problems especially engine problems before Appellant ever saw it;
CarGurus Review which proved this was their business practice to
sell “killer cars’ they misrepresented online.
 An injury to someone else as a result Appellee made Appellant waste

hundreds of dollars on planefare to get the vehicle, see a Mediator
who never read anything, and a trial where the magistrate slept

through most of it and also had not read anything It is a very serious
matter in Pettioners life and has caused her considerable pain and
suffering. Appellant wants the wasted money refunded from this
fraud.. Appellant bought the vehicle to generate income and for
transportation. it was bought to drive for Uber/Lyft, Uber Eats, Grub
Hub, Door Dash; drive for Census, paid market research, and other
jobs. She missed doctor appointments and couldn’t get other medical
and dental because she had no transportation. She lost thousands of
dollars in wages she needed to earn because the vehicle was
undriveable from leaving the Sovereign sales lot. She had to stop
constantly to cool it down. She had no real name or address for “Leo”
Shalom. Consequently, she could not make any money and do
necessary repairs on her home. It sustained a lot of damage from
hurricanes. Appellee knowingly put Pettioners life in danger with
leaking power steering fluid and coolant that could catch engine on
fire; that had already killed two women changing federal law; it had a
loose right tierod and leaking power steering fluid which could make it
go out of control; it DID have engine problems that weren’t a sensor
but caused by serious mechanical problems which caused it to stop
working. She had no public transportation and nobody to drive her
anywhere. So, she couldn’t get to food bank, grocery store, “Meals on
Wheels,” laundromat, post office, church, etc. For FIVE years.
Appellant suffered and had to go without; it overheated leaving the
sales lot Appellant told Appellee it was overheating; and the “Check
Engine” light was on. It could not be registered in NC or safely driven
without a new engine Appellant was unable to generate any income
from driving so she was ruined financially. She was not able to sell
things at a fairgrounds so she could do repairs and get a roommate
which cost her more income; basically Appellant was made a prisoner
inside her house for 5yrs;
 Justifiable confidence by the victim on the statement that the person

made; Appellant was a mechanic who worked for different places he
was told by another mechanic Mr. Jerklin that the vehicle had been
wrecked and had major engine problems. But he claimed it “ran
great” in text messages knowing it didn’t. When he claimed the
“Check Engine” light was “just a sensor” he knew it was a lie and it
put Pettioners life in danger. Appellant took vehicle to Advance Auto
to have the codes run on it. Appellee had said to take it to Auto Zone.
Appellant believed Sovereign mechanics when they claimed it had no

mechanical problems. Sovereign and Shalom claimed to be devout
Jews who followed the Torah. That meant they would not violate
Torah “Laws of Sale” misrepresenting things for sale Appellee kept
telling Appellant he was honest when he repeatedly lied, Appellant is
daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivor; they were dressed in religious
clothing with Torah up they didn’t want violated; Appellant thought
they would honor Torah Laws of Sale which makes it unlawful to
misrepresent items for sale; Appellant thought they would not
victimize another Jew; Appellee knew that Mr. Jerklin didn’t sell her
the vehicle and it was a salvage so he didn’t re-title it into salvage
title. He also forged Bill of Sale in Mr. Jerklin’s name and address.
Appellant was led to believe they legally could do that when they
couldn’t. They wanted to make it harder to find Seller to sue when
Buyer found out it was a fraud. They didn’t transfer Title and Forged
Bill of Sale; and
 An intention on the defendant’s part to dupe the victim; CarGurus ad

had no CarFax to hide the wreck and fact it was a former fleet car,
also that it had 200,000 miles difference between Title and Odometer.
He knew it wasn’t worth $5,600. Appellee told Appellant that “it was
just a sensor” when the “Check Engine” light came on. Text
messages on Pettioners cellphone proved that Appellee had bought it
from Mr. Jerklin due to multiple failed head gasket repairs. The
Hollywood, FL police report proved the vehicle had been wrecked
prior to Appellant seeing it. The “Check Engine” light was witnessed
by a Sheriff, mechanics, Appellant, and Chrysler car dealer. The
engine overheated the entire time leaving Sovereign’s sales lot. It
wasn’t a sensor and Appellee knew it needed a new engine. AC
could not be turned on—one of the accessories they claimed vehicle
had but didn’t have; the power steering fluid and coolant was leaking
into the engine which was a fire hazard; the loose right tierod and
lack of power steering fluid could have caused vehicle to go out of
control; Appellee knew it was a lie when he claimed it “ran great”
when he knew it didn’t and was very dangerous. Appellant never
would have driven it if she knew how dangerous it was.
Prior to this transaction the two young Houck women had burned to
death in a 2004 PT Cruiser which caught on fire from leaking power

steering fluid. It was a Manufacturer Recall common to that year’s PT
Cruiser. Their deaths changed federal auto safety laws regarding rental
cars. Appellant was sold a car more dangerous than the one which killed
them. Sovereign and Appellee knew it. Appellant was entitled to three times
the amount of the fraud NOT Appellee three times the amount he had
overpaid for a salvage car from Robert Jerklin. There was NO caselaw that
said the fraudster should be paid at all let alone three times what he had
overpaid for a salvage. There were civil attorneys’ letters indicating this
vehicle was not as described in their online ad, was a fraud, violated FTC
Regulations, was “dangerous” which violated auto safety laws, and
demanded a refund. Civil attorneys can’t write letters without proof. The
civil attorney’s letter had a Certified Mechanic Evaluation attached to it.
Appellant was entitled to punitive damages for intentional misconduct and
gross negligence by Appellee. I lost far far more than $5,000. I paid $3,000
for the car alone not including all the thousands of dollars in costs around
getting it only for it to sit in the driveway because it needed major
mechanical repairs. I had bought it to generate income not be undriveable
or put my life in danger. It was NOT worth $5,600, $3,000, or $1500. This
criminal Appellee violated numerous auto safety laws and civil rights laws
protecting me but those were also ignored by Courts. The Lower Court

ignored all of the illegal actions done by Appellee such as a forged Bill of
Sale reported to the police, poor mechanical condition violating auto safety
laws, the attempted extortion of another $1,000 over the advertised price,
etc. The improper Title should have been a Salvage Title in Seller’s actual
name and address because it needed 80% of its fair market value in
repairs to be safe on the road. By law it had to be transferred within 30
days of purchase from Robert Jerklin but had not been. The Title did not
have DMV Certification required on it before selling a former rental car.
In Exhibits the police report proved the vehicle had been badly
wrecked prior to selling but not disclosed. Certified Mechanic Evaluation
proved it was “dangerous.” Chrysler Dealer said it had a head gasket
problem again, and other mechanics noted the leaking power steering fluid
and coolant besides other mechanical problems. All of the defects had to
be disclosed in a FTC-mandated Buyer’s Guide. The vehicle’s engine was
squashed so badly you couldn’t pull out the oil dipstick, it was leaking
power steering fluid and coolant into the engine which could catch it on fire
at any time. The engine was overheating leaving the Sovereign sales lot.
According to an expert, an engine can overheat and make the internal
fluids, like oil and coolant, rise to dangerous temperatures and begin to spill
out of their designated areas of circulation. When that happens, they drip,

drizzle and spurt throughout the engine bay and onto the exhaust system,
landing on other hot parts, where they can easily ignite and spread. Both
the black Sheriff and Convenience Store worker plus mechanics (one at a
Chrysler Dealer) saw the “Check Engine” light on. Appellee had purchased
this vehicle after multiple failed head gasket repairs and a wreck he knew
about. He knew as a mechanic (prior to posting the online ad) the car was
very dangerous. I had to keep adding coolant. I had no idea the vehicle
was leaking both power steering fluid and coolant pouring into the engine. It
could lose control at any time besides the multiple failed head gasket
repairs.
Sovereign and Appellee did Interstate Wire Fraud CarGurus ads with
deceptive descriptions and photoshopped vehicle photos. Sovereign
claimed vehicle was a “Great Deal” in their CarGurus online ad.
Plaintiff/Appellant thought CarGurus had determined that it was a “Great
Deal” when in fact it was Sovereign. The deceptive online ad, phone calls,
and text messages were considered Interstate Wire Fraud because they
crossed state lines. The truth is that the vehicle was a $100 Salvage and/or
Derelict that needed 80% of its fair market value in repairs done just to be
safe to drive on the road.
III.

APPELLEE FORGED BILL OF SALE WHICH VIOLATED
BOTH F.S.A. §319.33 and F.S.A. §831.01
Under F.S.A. §319.33.Tejada v. 2015 Cadillac Escalade VIN No:
1GYS4BKJ5FR157228, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 03, 2019 267 So.3d 1032 2019 WL 1461344. The 4 th District Court
ruling in Tejada v. 2015 Cadillac Escalade cited Zalidar that a forged Bill of
Sale, (an F,S,A, §319.33 violation) IS illegal. This ruling backed up
Pettioners claim that her Bill of Sale in Robert Jerklin’s name and address
IS illegal and always has been. It had to be in Appellee Shalom’s name and
address. Specifically, 4th District Court of Appeals cited: In City of
Sweetwater v. Zaldivar, 559 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990): Intentionally
submitting an application with a false name is “‘inherently misleading and
injurious, both to the agency responsible for the motor vehicle records, and
those who depend on them.’” Id. (citation omitted). “Thus, no allegation or
proof of intent to defraud is necessary. . . Here, the Defendant violated
section §319.33(1)(e), which provides it is unlawful “[t]o use a false or
fictitious name, give a false or fictitious address, or make any false
statement in any application or affidavit required under the provisions of
this chapter or in a bill of sale or sworn statement of ownership or otherwise
commit a fraud in any application.” §319.33(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2016) In

addition to civil fraud violations the Appellee repeatedly violated DMV
regulations and did criminal fraud.
Appellant reported the fraud and forgery to Hollywood, FL police
report. Appendix “G.” The District Attorney contacted Appellant (proved in
Verizon Cellphone Records) and filed a police report he told her to file. The
police detective attempted to investigate but Mr. Jerklin refused to answer
his telephone calls. He had failed to do a “Certificate of Destruction” as
required by Florida DMV laws when selling a car “for parts only.” After that
the detective refused to investigate. They thought this was just a fraud and
forgery case but it was CRIMINAL FRAUD AND CIVIL FRAUD. Florida
criminalizes several offenses stemming from the commission of forgery. A
person commits forgery when, with intent to injure or defraud any person,
he or she "falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits" any written
instrument specified in the state forgery statute. Documents specifically
prohibited from being forged include:
 a public record, certificate, return or attestation of any clerk or register

of a court, public register, notary public, town clerk or any public
officer, where such certificate, return or attestation may be received
as a legal proof in relation to a matter
 a charter, deed, will, testament, bond, or writing obligatory, letter of

attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange or
promissory note
 any receipt for money, goods or other property

Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits a public record,
or a certificate, return or attestation of any clerk or register of a court, public
register, notary public, town clerk or any public officer, in relation to a
matter wherein such certificate, return or attestation may be received as a
legal proof; or a charter, deed, will, testament, bond, or writing obligatory,
letter of attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange or
promissory note, or an order, acquittance, or discharge for money or other
property, or an acceptance of a bill of exchange or promissory note for the
payment of money, or any receipt for money, goods or other property, or
any passage ticket, pass or other evidence of transportation issued by a
common carrier, with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty
of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 , s.
775.083 , or s. 775.084 .
IV.
APPELLEE FAILED TO DO SALVAGE TITLE IN HIS ACTUAL

NAME AND ADDRESS; VIOLATED F.S.A. §319.22 AND F.S.A.
§319.30
Appellee was required to transfer Title from Robert William Jerklin,
III’s name and address (within 30 days of purchase from Mr. Jerklin) into
Liron Shalom’s own real name and address. It was NOT a legal Title for
Appellee to sell the vehicle to Appellant under F.S.A. 319.22(1), (2)(b)

because he had not done so. Appellant did not purchase vehicle from Mr.
Jerklin.
F.S.A. §319.22 Transfer of title —
(1) Except as provided in ss. 319.21 and 319.28, a person acquiring a

motor vehicle from the owner thereof, whether or not the owner is a
licensed dealer, shall not acquire marketable title to the motor vehicle until
she has had issued to her a certificate of title to the motor vehicle; . . .
Except as otherwise provided herein, no court shall recognize the right,
title, claim, or interest of any person in or to any motor vehicle sold. unless
evidenced by a certificate of title duly. . issued to that person, in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
2. When such owner has delivered to the department, or placed in the
United States mail, addressed to the department, either the certificate of
title properly endorsed or a notice in the form prescribed by the department.
In addition to the information required by the department under this
subparagraph, the notice must also contain the information required under
paragraph (b) when the title being transferred is to a motor vehicle.
(b) An owner who has made a bona fide sale or transfer of a motor
vehicle and has delivered possession thereof to a purchaser shall notify the
department within 30 days after the sale or transfer in the form prescribed
by the department. Notice by such owner under this paragraph shall satisfy
the notice requirement under subparagraph (a)2. for limitation of liability
under paragraph (a). The notification shall include the vehicle identification
number and the buyer’s full first name, middle initial, last name, and
personal or business identification, which may include, but need not be
limited to, a driver license number, Florida identification card number, or
federal employer identification number, and any information required by the
department. This paragraph shall not apply to any transfer or sale to or by a
licensed motor vehicle dealer or to an insurer who has taken possession or
is taking possession of the vehicle or the title thereto pursuant to a policy of
insurance.
F.S.A. §319.30 Definitions; dismantling, destruction, change of

identity of motor vehicle or mobile home; salvage

As defined in F.S.A. §319.30(a) Mr. Jerklin should have done a
“Certificate of
Destruction” prior to selling the vehicle to Appellee since he was selling the
vehicle “for parts
only:”
(a) “Certificate of destruction” means the certificate issued pursuant to s.

713.78(11) or s. 713.785(7)(a) .
Since the 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo vehicle needed 80% of its fair
market value in repairs to be safe on the road as safety is defined by DTA
49 U.S.C. §301 et seq. Auto Safety Laws it required a Salvage Title or
Derelict Vehicle Title as required under F.S.A. §319.30:
(c) “Certificate of title” means a record that serves as evidence of

ownership of a vehicle, whether such record is a paper certificate
authorized by the department or by a motor vehicle department authorized
to issue titles in another state or a certificate consisting of information
stored in electronic form in the department's database.
(t) “Salvage” means a motor vehicle or mobile home which is a total loss

as defined in paragraph (3)(a).
(u) “Salvage certificate of title” means a salvage certificate of title issued by

the department or by another motor vehicle department authorized to issue
titles in another state.
(e) “Derelict motor vehicle” means:
1. Any motor vehicle as defined in s. 320.01(1) or mobile home as defined

in s. 320.01(2) , with or without all parts, major parts, or major component
parts, which is valued under $1,000, is at least 10 model years old,
beginning with the model year of the vehicle as year one, and is in such

condition that its highest or primary value is for sale, transport, or delivery
to a licensed salvage motor vehicle dealer or registered secondary metals
recycler for dismantling its component parts or conversion to scrap metal;
or
(f) “Derelict motor vehicle certificate” means a certificate issued by the

department which serves as evidence that a derelict motor vehicle will be
dismantled or converted to scrap metal. This certificate may be obtained
by completing a derelict motor vehicle certificate application authorized by
the department. A derelict motor vehicle certificate may be reassigned
only one time if the derelict motor vehicle certificate was completed by a
licensed salvage motor vehicle dealer and the derelict motor vehicle was
sold to another licensed salvage motor vehicle dealer or a secondary
metals recycler.
3. Any person who knowingly violates this paragraph by selling,

transporting, delivering, purchasing, or receiving a derelict motor vehicle
without obtaining a certificate of title, salvage certificate of title, certificate of
destruction, or derelict motor vehicle certificate application; enters false or
fictitious information on a derelict motor vehicle certificate application; does
not complete the derelict motor vehicle certificate application as required;
does not obtain a legible copy of the seller's or owner's valid driver license
or identification card when required; does not make the required
notification to the department; does not make the required notification to
the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System; or destroys or
dismantles a derelict motor vehicle without waiting the required time as set
forth in subparagraph 2. commits a felony of the third degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 .
Castner v. Ziemer, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 07, 1960,
125 So.2d 134.
V.
APPELLEE VIOLATED NUMEROUS STATE LAWS

Sovereign and Appellee Shalom violated numerous state laws:

F.S.A. 817.40 Fraudulent Misrepresentation: When construing ss.
817.40, 817.41, 817.43-817.47, and each and every word, phrase or part
thereof, where the context will permit:
Fraudulent misrepresentation is a lie used to trick someone into an

agreement that harms them. For example, when car dealer said it had no
mechanical problems knowing it did and was worth $5,600KBB they knew it
was not worth that is a fraudulent misrepresentation. It is the most serious
type of false statement in contract law. Misrepresentations can be written,
spoken, gestured, or made through silence. They make a contract invalid.
A fraudulent misrepresentation happens after parties sign a contract, not
before. A party can be guilty by failing to give information. A person or
company can make a fraudulent misrepresentation without knowing the
statement is false. Merely being reckless or exaggerating to get someone
to do something is a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Weaver v. State, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. April
02, 2008
981 So. 2d 508 2008 WL 859412.
The Florida Legislature enacted FDUTPA “to protect not only the
rights of litigants, but also the rights of the consuming public at large.”
Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
(observing that the Act authorizes “declaratory and injunctive relief “ . . .)
Suris v. Gilmore Liquidating, Inc., District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third
District. March 15, 1995 651 So.2d 1282 1995 WL 106923. See §501.976,
Fla. Stat. (2005) (“In any civil litigation resulting from a violation of this
section, when evaluating the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees
to a private person, the trial court shall consider the amount of actual

damages in relation to the time spent.”). Appellant spent hundreds of hours
doing legal research and writing legal documents.
F.S.A. §501.976 et al. FDUTPA Actionable, unfair, or deceptive acts or
practices.—It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice, actionable under the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for a dealer to:
(3) Represent the previous usage or status of a vehicle to be something

that it was not, or make usage or status representations unless the dealer
has correct information regarding the history of the vehicle to support the
representations.
(4) Represent the quality of care, regularity of servicing, or general
condition of a vehicle unless known by the dealer to be true and
supportable by material fact.
(5) Represent orally or in writing that a particular vehicle has not
sustained structural or substantial skin damage unless the statement is
made in good faith and the vehicle has been inspected by the dealer or his
or her agent to determine whether the vehicle has incurred such damage.
(6) Sell a vehicle without fully and conspicuously disclosing in writing at
or before the consummation of sale any warranty or guarantee terms,
obligations, or conditions that the dealer or manufacturer has given to the
buyer. If the warranty obligations are to be shared by the dealer and the
buyer, the method of determining the percentage of repair costs to be
assumed by each party must be disclosed. If the dealer intends to disclaim
or limit any expressed or implied warranty, the disclaimer must be in writing
in a conspicuous manner and in lay terms in accordance with chapter 672
and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission
Improvement Act.
(9) Obtain signatures from a customer on contracts that are not fully

completed at the time the customer signs or which do not reflect accurately
the negotiations and agreement between the customer and the dealer.

(11) Add to the cash price of a vehicle as defined in s. 520.02(2) any fee
or charge other than those provided in that section and in rule 69V-50.001,
Florida Administrative Code. All fees or charges permitted to be added to
the cash price by rule 69V-50.001, Florida Administrative Code must be
fully disclosed to customers in all binding contracts concerning the vehicle’s
selling price.
(12) Alter or change the odometer mileage of a vehicle (odometer

different than title miles)
(16) Advertise the price of a vehicle unless the vehicle is identified by

year, make, model, and a commonly accepted trade, brand, or style name.
The advertised price must include all fees or charges that the customer
must pay, including freight or destination charge, dealer preparation
charge, and charges for undercoating or rustproofing. State and local
taxes, tags, registration fees, and title fees, unless otherwise required by
local law or standard, need not be disclosed in the advertisement. When
two or more dealers advertise jointly, with or without participation of the
franchisor, the advertised price need not include fees and charges that are
variable among the individual dealers cooperating in the advertisement, but
the nature of all charges that are not included in the advertised price must
be disclosed in the advertisement.
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (“FDUTPA”) civil
laws mandate car dealers to disclose all previous vehicle damage to
potential buyers. Sovereign and Appellee violated F.S.A. §501.976
dealer’s legal obligations as follows 1:
(3) Represent the previous usage or status of a vehicle to be something

that it was not or make usage or status representations unless the dealer
has correct information regarding the history of the vehicle to support the
representations.
1
Those who suffer loss as a result of a violation of the Act may recover actual damages,
attorney’s fees, and court costs. See § 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). In awarding attorney’s fees
to FDUTPA plaintiffs who prevail under Section 501.976, Florida Statutes (2005), courts must
take into account “the amount of actual damages in relation to the time spent.” § 501.976, Fla.
Stat. (2005).

(4) Represent the quality of care, regularity of servicing, or general
condition of a vehicle unless known by the dealer to be true and
supportable by material fact.
(5) Represent orally or in writing that a particular vehicle has not

sustained structural or substantial skin damage. . .
(6) Sell a vehicle without fully and conspicuously disclosing in writing at or

before the consummation of sale any warranty or guarantee terms,
obligations, or conditions that the dealer or manufacturer has given to the
buyer. If the warranty obligations are to be shared by the dealer and the
buyer, the method of determining the percentage of repair costs to be
assumed by each party must be disclosed. If the dealer intends to disclaim
or limit any expressed or implied warranty, the disclaimer must be in writing
in a conspicuous manner and in lay terms in accordance with chapter 672
and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission
Improvement Act.
(9) Obtain signatures from a customer on contracts that are not fully

completed at the time the customer signs or which do not reflect accurately
the negotiations and agreement between the customer and the dealer.
(11) Add to the cash price of a vehicle as defined in s. 520.02(2) any fee

or charge other than those provided in that section and in rule 69V-50.001,
Florida Administrative Code. All fees or charges permitted to be added to
the cash price by rule 69V-50.001, Florida Administrative Code, must be
fully disclosed to customers in all binding contracts concerning the vehicle’s
selling price.
(12) Alter or change the odometer mileage of a vehicle. (Title miles

showed over 200,000 miles while odometer showed 77,000 miles)
(15) Increase the price of the vehicle after having accepted an order of

purchase or a contract from a buyer, notwithstanding subsequent receipt of
an official price change notification. (Appellee attempted to add another
$1,000 onto price from Appellant. It was not worth the $5,600 advertised
and certainly not worth $6,600)

The phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or
disseminated, in oral, written, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the
public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of
reasnable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be
untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with
the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of
real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or
otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to
such property or services.
F.S.A. FDUTPA 501.201, et al. This part shall be known and may be cited
as the “Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.” and F.S.A.
501.204 et al. Unlawful acts and practices.—
(1) Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
F.S.A. §1.120(b) Fraud in the Inducement:
Fraud in the inducement occurs when a person tricks another person into
signing an agreement to one’s disadvantage by using fraudulent
statements and representations. Because fraud negates the “meeting of
the minds” required of a contract, the Appellant sought damages and to
terminate the contract. When fraud occurs after the agreement, the law
usually requires the injured party to file only breach of contract claims, but
the party may add fraudulent inducement claims because the two claims
relate to two different actions by the defendant. A contract made by fraud is
termed “voidable” rather than “void” and the injured party can choose to
proceed with the contract even after learning about the defendant’s
fraudulent inducement.
Bankers Mut. Capital Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., District Court of
Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. March 14, 2001 784 So.2d 485 2001 WL
245790
F.S.A. §672.106l; F.S.A. §817.40(5); Breach of Contract:
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that is intended to

be enforceable by law e.g. Bill of Sale. When one of the parties does not
perform their obligations under the contact, then a breach of contract
occurs. In order for a breach of contract in Florida to exist, the following had

to exist in Pettioners case: There is a contract that was entered into by both
parties It is always better if this contract is in writing; there was a breach of
that contract; and the Appellant incurred damages as a result of the first
party’s breach of contract. The damages incurred MUST be a result of the
breach. A contract is an agreement that is intended to be enforced by the
courts. Therefore, when Appellant have entered into Bill of Sale with
Appellee, Appellee breached the contract by forging another’s name and
not selling the vehicle as advertised on CarGurus, and Appellant suffered
damages as a result. Appellant had a right to sue the other party for the
actual damages your suffered and, in some cases, punitive damages
(punishment damages.
Jauregui v. Bobb's Piano Sales & Service, Inc., District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Third District. February 15, 2006 922 So.2d 303 2006 WL 335600
VI.
APPELLEE VIOLATED STATE AND FEDERAL AUTO

SAFETY LAWS PUTTING UNSAFE VEHICLE ON
ROAD
Department of Transportation (“DTA”) 49 U.S.C. §301 et seq. auto
safety laws supersede ALL state auto safety laws irrespective of if the
vehicle is inspected prior to being registered. No vehicle can be on the road
which is considered a hazard to other vehicles. The Certified Mechanic
Evaluation proved that the 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo vehicle was
dangerous and had violated state and federal auto safety laws. As a former
fleet car the car dealer had to follow The Raechel and Jacqueline Rental
Car Safety Act which required dangerous Manufacturer Recalls and other
dangerous mechanical problems be repaired prior to renting out or selling

any fleet vehicle. These laws were enacted prior to the advertising of this
vehicle.
VII.
APPELLANT SUFFERED ECONOMIC LOSS EXCLUSIVE OF
CONTRACT
Appelleer ruined Pettioners quality of life, caused her extensive
physical pain and suffering plus intentional emotional distress. She missed
doctor appointments and picked up medications late because she had no
transportation to get there. She could not get dental and medical she
needed because she needed to earn the money. The vehicle was bought to
meet Uber/Lyft requirements (which it didn’t). This lack of transportation
meant she could not generate income in addition to being used for
transportation. She missed doctor appointments, couldn’t get medications
on time, couldn’t get to laundromat, couldn’t get to food bank, couldn’t get
to post office, couldn’t get to church, couldn’t get to grocery store, couldn’t
get “Meals on Wheels.” couldn’t go anywhere which made her a prisoner
inside home. Appellant was allowed to sue under for these F.S.A.
§772.104:
F.S.A. §772.104 Pettioners Civil cause of action.—
(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or

she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s.

772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual damages
sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum damages in the
amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial
and appellate courts.
Economic losses are, “damages for inadequate value, costs of repair
and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits-
without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property.” Casa
Clara Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc., 620
So.2d 1244, 1246 (Fla.1993). And Florida has agreed with the majority of
jurisdictions in holding that “economic losses are ‘disappointed economic
expectations,’ which are protected by contract law, rather than tort law.” Id.;
see Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec.Corp., 510 So.2d 899,
902 (Fla.1987).
In HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So.2d 1238,
1239 (Fla.1996) the supreme court concluded that both a contract and civil
theft action may arise in tandem, stating:
“The economic loss rule has not eliminated causes of action based upon
torts independent of contractual breach even though there exists a breach
of contract action. Where a contract exists, a tort action will lie for either
intentional or negligent acts considered to be independent from acts that
breached the contract. Thus, in the proper circumstance, no doubt, claims
for civil theft and breach of contract can coexist.”
Appellant suffered economic loss besides the breach of contractual
expectation because she was purchasing this vehicle to generate income
not lose money and cause substantial financial loss. She literally had no

way to get out of the house without a reliable vehicle. This vehicle was
purchased specifically to generate income. She expected to use the vehicle
for years to generate this income. She wasn’t able to generate ANY income
since the vehicle needed a new engine BEFORE they posted it for sale on
CarGurus. It overheated leaving the Sovereign sales lot and totally stopped
working within a month. It developed another head gasket problem which is
the reason that Mr. Jerklin sold it in the first place. This was a separate and
distinct economic loss aside from the contractual expectation not met by
Appellee. O’Donnell v. Arcoiries, Inc. 561 So.2d 344, Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1990.
An example of this distinction is detailed in Burke v. Napieracz, 674 So.2d
756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), where the court held that the economic loss rule
did not preclude a cause of action for a tort [civil theft] distinguishable from,
or independent of, breach of contract. In that case the defendant was to
receive specifically identifiable social security funds, deposit those funds in
an identifiable bank account, and forward the funds to plaintiff. The
defendant was not authorized to withdraw monies from the account except
as specifically authorized by Burke. The First District noted that breach of
the agreement would have resulted from the defendant’s failure either to
properly deposit the social security funds or to provide the funds to Burke
as requested. A tort was committed because, not only did the defendant fail

to perform his contractual obligations, he took the funds for his personal
use. The court held that an “affirmative and intentional act of converting the
funds to his own use by allegedly stealing the monies to which he was
entrusted” gave rise to a tort separate and independent from the breach of
contract. Florida Desk, Inc. v. Mitchell Intern. , Inc.,817 So.2d 1059,
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2002.
In addition, under Florida civil statute §772.11 Appellant was entitled
to treble the amount of the fraud in damages NOT Appellee. Appellant was
the one defrauded. Magistrate ignored unlawful forged Bill of Sale
cancelling the transaction since there is NO legal transaction between
Appellant and Appellee. Appellee knew the vehicle did not meet safe
standards and repeatedly fraudulently misrepresented it to Appellant.
Appellee was the one who violated FDUTPA online in CarGurus ad, text
messages, and in-person, Florida DMV Bill of Sale Forgery Statute, Florida
Title Statute, Florida DMV Statute requiring a fleet car to have Certification
on the Title, Florida civil statute for all five elements required to prove fraud,
federal and state auto safety laws, FTC Regulations. Both Courts had proof
of this fraud and forgery but ignored it even though both are Florida DMV
violations. The Title and Bill of Sale were in Mr. Jerklin’s name while
Appellee’s pseudonym appeared on money orders NOT Mr. Jerklin’s. Civil

attorneys’ demand letters and Certified Mechanic Evaluation proved this
vehicle sale was fraudulent, violated FDUTPA false advertising statute as
well as other fraudulent misrepresentation, violated FTC 16 C.F.R. 455,
violated The Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Rental Car Safety Act, violated
DTA 49 U.S.C. §301 et seq.
Pettioners civil rights protected under Florida law were violated. She
was victimized, deceived, and exploited by both Sovereign and Appellee
violating F.S.A. §501.2077. Although she was protected under Florida’s
civil rights laws Appellee and Courts ignored this. Pettioners trial and
appeal were gross abuse of discretion by both Courts and not fair. Nether
Court read the legal documents because a forged Bill of Sale automatically
invalidated the entire transaction. There is NO legal contract to pay
Appellee anything. There was prejudice towards Appellee because he had
commit the crimes in Florida while he lived there. Appellant is a former
Florida resident but was not living there at time of crime. The material facts,
evidence, and caselaw were ignored. Appellant was entitled to full recovery
of actual damages including the actual cost of the car, expenses around
getting the car fraudulently misrepresented, lost wages because she could
not generate income with the 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo which is why she
purchased it, attorneys’ fees (Appellant spent hundreds of hours on legal

research and did the paralegal work), and costs of court. Appellant did not
receive the amount of she was legally entitled to. Appellant preys that this
Final Order will be reversed and Appellant will be paid accordingly, or a
new trial ordered (even though costly to Appellant who has to pay for
planefare and motel fees), or the Final Order be vacated and Appellant will
pursue this in civil court proceedings. These criminals have no remorse for
all the pain and suffering they have caused. They should have punitive
damages.
Dated: January 27, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
Jacquelyn K. Alexander

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion for
Rehearing t has been
furnished via mail pursuant to Rule 2.516 on Appellee at their only known
current email
Address that Plaintiff had on January 27, 2021 via email to

LironShalom@hotmail.com.
Jacquelyn K. Alexander

Petitioner&#39;s District Court of Appeal Writ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner&#39;s District Court of Appeal Writ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

FOR THE 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

JACQUELYN K. ALEXANDER, Pro Se

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

I. PETTIONERS TRIAL WAS NOT FAIR AND RULING SHOULD

II. APPELLEE'S ACTIONS MET ALL 5 ELEMENTS OF FRAUD

CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

Casa Clara Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino and Sons,

Castner v. Ziemer, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Cox v. Burke,706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)......................... 22

Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So. 2d 971, 975

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec.Corp., 510 So.2d

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

State v. Wiggins, 507 A.2d 518, 523 (Conn. App. Ct.

State v. Yamada, 122 P.3d 254, 262 (Haw.2005) ................................. 26

Suris v. Gilmore Liquidating, Inc., District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Tejada v. 2015 Cadillac Escalade VIN No: 1GYS4BKJ5FR157228,

United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510-11 (1995) .......................... 23

United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66, 25 L. Ed.

Weaver v. State, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Whiting v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1067, 1067 (Id. 1987) ............................ 23

W.R. Grace v. Waters, 638 So. 2d 502 (1994) .................................... 31

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

F.S.A. §319.14(1)(a), (2), and (3) (DMV Certification on Title

Department of Transportation 49 U.S.C. §301 et seq. Auto Safety……

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

The Basis of Jurisdiction in this Writ of Certiorari case such as this is

Pettioners Initial Brief, erred in material facts, ignored evidence, and

2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

transaction with a forged document to hide his culpability. There was NO

discretion by both courts ignoring material facts, evidence, and caselaw.

The Court's Opinion is shown in Appendix A.

“Fraud vitiates everything.” The Supreme Court. I am poor and this

fraud lost me thousands of dollars in income I would have generated which

foreigners perpetrating crimes of the worst kind in Florida. This action is

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

salvage vehicle by Appellee. He sold it as if it had no mechanical problems,

and shredded in a rainstorm making it difficult to see and Petitioner nearly

Argument III. There is NO legal contract between Appellant and Appellee.

was part of Sovereign as a mechanic. All of them had criminal records

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

used pseudonyms around potential buyers and spoke in Hebrew which

addressed on any paperwork. They moved without leaving a forwarding

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

attached to Statement o Claim Neither Mediator nor Magistrate read either.

Appellant is an unmarried, indigent, senior, disabled military veteran

specifically to generate income by meeting Uber/Lyft requirements. It was

the CarGurus ad Sovereign posted for this 2004 PT Cruiser GT Turbo in

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

in-person the mechanical condition of the vehicle (with Jean Melnikoff on

cellphone via speakerphone listening to transaction). Sovereign and

required even if it was a Consignment on their Hollywood, FL sales lot.

Appellee. They washed the vehicle and put a $500/down in front

mechanical condition. Sovereign and Appellee routinely violated criminal

fraud F.S.A.§817.034 3.(d) and (4)(a)3.(b) of Florida Communications

(d) “Scheme to defraud” means a systematic, ongoing course of conduct

(4) 3. (b) Offenses

(b) Any person who engages in a scheme to defraud and, in furtherance

Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

Hollywood, FL Police Department and District Attorney. That police report

was one of the Exhibits attached to Statement of Claim. There were

witnesses in Exhibits (including another car dealer) who signed Notarized

Petitioner's District Court of Appeal Writ

Petitioner's District Court of Appeal Writ