1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA REF NO.: 99-007430-CI-8 UCN: 521999CA007430XXCICI CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. LISA MCPHERSON TRUST INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, JESSE PRINCE, GRADY WARD, ROBERT S. MINTON, JR., STACY BROOKS, JEFF JACOBSON, PATRICIA GREENWAY, PETER ALEXANDER, MARK BUNKER, AND TROY BEZAZIAN, Respondents. _____________________________________________/
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Intervenor Alex Hageli (“Intervenor”), pursuant to Rule 1.230 of the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure and § 86.011,
Florida Statutes
, files this Motion to Intervene and Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction, and in support thereof respectfully shows the Court as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. Intervenor, an Illinois resident and Pinellas County property owner, visits the Clearwater area approximately three to four times a year. While visiting Intervenor frequently
protests Petitioner Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. (“FSO”).
2.
This Court entered a permanent injunction (“LMT Injunction”) in this matter on
July 27, 2001. (Exhibit A.) 3. On May 10, 2014, Petitioner FSO had Intervenor served with a copy of the LMT Injunction.
Filing # 32487832 E-Filed 09/25/2015 10:54:24 AM
2 4. Subsequent to service, Petitioner FSO has asserted to various Clearwater Police
Department (“CPD”) officers on numerous occasions the a
pplicability of the LMT Injunction to Intervenor in an attempt to hinder his free movement and exercise of free speech. Intervenor, in turn, has had to explain to CPD officers on numerous occasions that the LMT Inunction does not apply to him. 5. On information and belief, Petitioner FSO maintains that Intervenor acts in concert with, or as an agent thereof, of one of the named parties to the LMT Injunction, Mark Bunker, and is thereby subject to the terms of the injunction. Intervenor denies acting in concert with, or as an agent of, Mr. Bunker with regards to matters covered by the injunction. 6. On March 8, 2015, Petitioner FSO placed a service call to CPD regarding
Intervenor’s protest activities. Upon arrival, Petitioner FSO asserted to respondin
g CPD Officer Raniel Heredia that the LMT Injunction applied to Intervenor. Officer Heredia subsequently arrested Intervenor for trespassing, relying on the map affixed to the injunction to determine property lines. The arrest was later determined to be improper, and Officer Heredia was reprimanded. 7. On May 15, 2015, at the request of Petitioner FSO, CPD filed an incident report regarding an alleged violation of the LMT Injunction by Intervenor. 8. On August 14, 2015, at the request of Petitioner FSO, CPD filed an incident report regarding an alleged violation of the LMT Injunction by Intervenor. In the report, the reporting officer expresses uncertainty regarding its applicability to Intervenor, but states that if the injunction does apply to him
“his violation of the injunction could result in further criminal sanctions.” (Exhibit B.)
9. On information and belief, Petitioner FSO intends to continue to assert the applicability of the LMT Injunction to Intervenor to CPD officers and request the taking of incident reports each time Intervenor allegedly violates the injunction.
3 10. On information and belief, CPD intends to continue to file incident reports
regarding Intervenor’s alleged violation of the injunction at the request of Petitioner FSO.
11. Intervenor is not a named party to the LMT Injunction, and has never acted in concert with, or as an agent of, any of the named parties with regards to matters covered by the injunction.
MOTION TO INTERVENE
12. Pursuant to Rule 1.230 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor moves to intervene in this action as he is adversely affected by the LMT Injunction.
Petitioner FSO’s
assertion that the LMT Injunction applies to Intervenor, as well as requests for incident reports regarding his alleged violation of the injunction,
adversely affect Intervenor’s constitutional right
of free speech. Each time Intervenor has to explain to CPD officers that the LMT Injunction does not apply to him, or a report is taken for his alleged violation thereof and he has to provide an officer with personal information, Intervenor is prevented from protesting. 13.
Despite Petitioner FSO’s
assertions that Intervenor is subject to the LMT Injunction, Petitioner FSO has made no attempt to properly enforce the injunction against him by filing a claim for damages. Indeed, more than one year after having Intervenor served with a copy of the LMT Injunction, Petitioner FSO has yet to even file an affidavit of such service with this Court. 14. Intervenor suffered substantial injury as a result of the continued existence of the LMT Injunction when Officer Heredia relied on the map affixed to the injunction in order to
determine Petitioner FSO’s property lines for the purposes of arresting Interve
nor for trespassing. 15. Intervenor is adversely affected by the LMT Injunction through the hindrance of his free speech that accompanies having to repeatedly explain to CPD officers that the injunction does not apply to him and/or he has to provide personal information for incident reports, reports which serve no legitimate purpose.
Furthermore, given CPD officers’ confusion over its