You are on page 1of 23

MARK A.

ADAMS JDIMBA
P.O. Box 1078; Valrico, FL 33595
Telephone: 813-643-4412
Facsimile: 866-691-0345

Facsimile Cover Sheet


To: James D. Vamado. Insoector General Sender: Mark A. Adarns JDIMBA

Fax #: 850-922-3854 Total Pages: 21

Date: October 10,2008 CC:


Regarding: Request for an investigation of Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General,
regarding STATE OF FLORIDA vs. MARK A. ADAMS; Case No.: 2D06-278

Comments:
Dear Mr. Varnado:

Following you will find my letter requesting that you investigate the actions taken by Donna S.
Koch, Esquire, the Assistant Attorney General, for her actions taken in the above referenced
matter and the Appellee's Motion to Vacate Orders Entered Contrary to Florida's Constitution
and Motion to Dismiss this Proceeding as the Record Cannot Show that the Lower Court had
Jurisdiction to enter any Order Sanctioning the Appellee or Charging the Appellee with Criminal
Contempt which is enclosed with my letter requesting an investigation.

Please review these documents and note that Judge Crockett Farnell did not have jurisdiction to
issue any order sanctioning me or any judgment against me after October 1,2002, and that he did
not have jurisdiction to issue any order to show cause charging me with indirect criminal
contempt for filing a motion to vacate the void orders he entered without jurisdiction.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you concerning your
investigation of this matter.

Sincerely,

/' ?
Mark A. Adams JDiMBA
This message is intended only for the usc of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt &om disclosure under applicable Law. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of the
information contained in this facsimile transmission is shictly pmhibited. If you have received this fadsimile
transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and retum all hard copies of this transmission to us via
U.S. Mail to our mailing address listed above. Thank you for your assistance.
MESSAGE CONFIRMATION

DATE : OCT-10-2006 TUE 0 9 : 2 7 AM


NAME : MARK A ADRMS
TEL. :

PHONE : 18509223854
PAGES 21/21
START TIME : 1 0 - 1 0 09:ZlAM
ELAPSED TIME : 05'22"
MODE : ECM BLACK
RESULTS : OK

first page of recent document transmitted ...

Fraafimb @everSheet
fa: InmrsD. Vamado, 1 - r a w S.ndrr: xMa&,&dans JDiMBA
iarlA 8Ih922-3654 T h l P b c . : ZI --
nar o r w k lo. z0Oa EC.
Rspnltw h u e a t #was invn4mlloll ofoams. ffich AsrarrentAmcy Ocoasi
&STATE OFFLORIDA w. MARKA. ADAMS: Ca~cNo.:,?WE-278
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA
P.O. Box 1078; Valrico, FL 33595
Telephone (813) 643-4412
Facsimile: 866-691-0345

October 10,2008

James D. Varnado, Inspector General


Office of the Attorney General
PL-01,The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

VIA U.S. MAlL and FACSIMILE to 850-922-3854

Request for an investigation of Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General,


regarding STATE OF FLORIDA vs. MARK A. ADAMS; Case No.: 2D06-278

Dear Mr. Vamado:

Enclosed you will find the Appellee's Motion to Vacate Orders Entered Contrary to Florida's
Constitution and Motion to Dismiss this Proceeding as the Record Cannot Show that the Lower
Court had Jurisdiction to enter any Order Sanctioning the Appellee or Charging the Appellee
with Criminal Contempt.

The record shows that Judge Crockett Farnell did not have jurisdiction to issue any order
sanctioning me or any judgment against me after October 1,2002, and that he did not have
jurisdiction to issue any order to show cause charging me with indirect criminal contempt for
filing a motion to vacate the void orders he entered without jurisdiction. The record also shows
that Timothy W. Weber, Esquire requested the issuance of such orders on an ex parte basis.

The actions taken by Judge Farnell under color of law without jurisdiction and on an ex parte
basis at the request of Timothy Weber violated my rights to due process under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, are criminal
violations of 18 U.S.C. 44 241 and 242. See, e.g., US. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259,267 (1997).

In addition, such acts show probable cause that Weber and Farnell committed violations of
Florida Statutes 9 838.015 prohibiting bribery and acceptance of bribes and of Florida Statutes 9
838.016 prohibiting offering unlawhl compensation and acceptance of unlawful compensation
for official acts both of which are felonies of the second degree, and such acts show probable
cause that Weber and Famell committed violations of 18 U.S.C. 9 1951 and of Florida Statutes §
836.05 which prohibit extortion which is a felony of the second degree under Florida law.

Furthermore, the record shows that James Birkhold, Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal
of Florida, and a number of members of that court have engaged in fitrther violations of my
rights to due process provided by a number of rules of procedure, controlling precedent, the
Constitution of Florida, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States as specified in the enclosed motion. These are further criminal violations of 18
U.S.C. $8 241 and 242 and show probable cause that Birkhold and others at the Second District
Court of Appeal committed violations of Florida Statutes 8 838.015, 5 838.016, and $ 836.05 and
18 U.S.C. $5 3,4 and 1951.

In spite of the foregoing, Donna S. Koch has failed to take action to dismiss the State's appeal
and has failed to report the criminal acts committed by Judge Crockett Farnell, Timothy W.
Weber, James Birkhold, and members of the Second District Court. Ms. Koch's actions are
criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. $$3,4,241and 242, and her actions show probable cause that
she has committed violations of Florida Statutes $ 838.015,§ 838.016, and $ 836.05 and 18
U.S.C. § 1951.

Finally, the aforementioned acts are violations of Florida Statutes $§ 838.022 and 914.22 and 18
U.S.C. $5 1512, 1513, and 3771 which protect victims of and witnesses to crimes and Federal
offenses and provide criminal penalties for those who engage in actions designed to retaliate
against such victims or witnesses or obstruct the reporting of such crimes.

Please review the enclosed document, investigdt: this matter, and take appropriate action to
ensure the prosecution of these c r i m i i acts. Also, please take action to ensure that members of
the Attorney General's office do no engage in further criminal conduct by continuing the illegal
persecution of me. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request for an investigation.

ark A. Adams JDIMBA


Enclosure
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA Case No.: 2D06-278


L.T. Case No's:
01-009347-CI-015
Appellant, CTCAB36199Mh4ANO
VS.

MARK A. ADAMS,

Appellee. I

APPELLEE'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDERS


ENTERED CONTRARY TO FLORIDA'S CONSTITUTION
AND MOTION TO DISMISS THIS PROCEEDING AS THE RECORD
CANNOT SHOW THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO
ENTER ANY ORDER SANCTIONING THE APPELLEE OR CHARGING
THE APPELLEE WITH CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

COMES NOW, the Appellee, MARK A. ADAMS, and files the Appellee's

Motion to Vacate Orders Entered Contrary to Florida's Constitution and Motion to

Dismiss this Proceeding as the Record Cannot Show that the Lower Court had

Jurisdiction to enter any Order Sanctioning the Appellee or Charging the Appellee

with Criminal Contempt showing:

1. Article 5, g 4 of the Constitution of Florida provides for the organization and

jurisdiction of Florida's District Courts of Appeal, and the pertinent part states,

"Three judges shall consider each case and the concurrence of two shall be

necessary to a decision." Pmphasis added). Florida's Constitution does not


allow more than three judges to consider a case before a district court of appeal

nor does it allow any decision to be entered if less than two judges concur.

2. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.210(a)(l) governs the exercise of the

powers and jurisdiction of Florida's district courts of appeal, and the pertinent

part states, "Three judges shall constitute a panel for and shall consider each

case, and the concurrence of a majority of the panel shall be necessary to a

decision." The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration do not allow more than

three judges to consider a case before a district court of appeal nor do they

allow any decision to be entered if less than two judges concur, and if they did,

such rule would be void as it would be contrary to Article 5, 5 4 of the

Constitution of Florida.

3. The pertinent part of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130 states, "The

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure shall control all proceedings in the

supreme court and the district courts.. .."

4. The pertinent part of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(f) defines order

as a decision or order. Of course, both Black's Law Dictionary and Gilbert's

Law Dictionary define an order as a decision of a court and define a decision as

an order of a court.

5. In spite of the clear mandates of Article 5 , s 4 of the Constitution of Florida that

three judges shall consider each case and of Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.210(a)(l) that three judges shall constitute a panel and

consider each case, the undersigned has been informed by the Clerk of this

Court that no panel has been assigned to this case. See paragraph 2 of the letter

to the undersigned from James Birkhold, the Clerk of this Court, dated

September 15,2008 which is attached as Exhibit A.

6. In spite of the foregoing, the online docket shows that as of October 5,2008, at

least nine (9) orders have been entered in this case, and the record shows that at

least 12 orders have been entered, see Exhibit A paragraph 3.

7. The record shows that at least ten different judges have been involved in

approving various orders issued in this case in spite of the clear mandates of

Article 5, 9 4 of the Constitution of Florida and Florida Rule of Judicial

Administration 2.210(a)(l) that three judges shall consider each case.

8. Furthermore, the record shows that at least five orders have been issued by the

Clerk of this Court even though only one judge had supported the issuance of

such orders in clear violation of the mandates of Article 5, 5 4 of the

Constitution of Florida and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.210(a)(l)

that the concurrence of two judges shall be necessary to a decision.

9. The foregoing may explain why the key decisions made in this case are contrary

to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and controlling precedent.


10.For example, on August 6,2008, the clerk of this Court entered an order which

states, "Appellee's motion to require preparation of the record in compliance

with the rules of procedure or to dismiss this proceeding is denied. However,

the appellee may attach records from the civil case to his answer brief, which

shall be served within 25 days." See Exhibit B which indicates that Judge

Stevan T. Northcutt, the Chief Judge of this Court, and Judge Darryl C.

Casanueva directed the Clerk to issue this order.

11.However, when issuing this order, these judges overlooked the fact that the

record does not include any document showing that any pleading was filed or

any process was served to acquire jurisdiction over the Appellee between the

time that the order approving the Appellee's withdrawal as counsel was

approved without any reservation of jurisdiction as of October 1,2002' and the

time that the lower court entered an order granting sanctions against the

Appellee on July 3 1,2003. Of course, no such document could be included in

the record because none exists.

12. In addition, this order indicates that Judges Northcutt and Casanueva also

overlooked or misapprehended points of law including Florida Rules of

1. The lower court's Order Permitting Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel


and Denying Motion for Protective Order can be found at pages 85-86 of the
incomplete record transmitted to this Court. A copy is attached as Exhibit C.
Appellate Procedure 9.140(f)(l), 9.200(a)(l), 9.200(f)(2), and 9.200(e) and

controlling precedent as follows herein.

13.Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(f)(l) states, "The clerk of the lower

tribunal shall prepare and serve the record prescribed by rule 9.200 within 50

days of the filing of the notice of appeal."

14.The pertinent part of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(l) states,

"the record shall consist of the original documents, exhibits, and transcript(s) of

proceedings, if any, filed in the lower tribunal.. .."

15.Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(f)(2) states, "If the court finds the

record is incomplete, it shall direct a party to supply the omitted parts of the

record. No proceeding shall be determined, because of an incomplete record,

until an opportunity to supplement the record has been given."

16.Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(e) states, "The burden to ensure that

the record is prepared and transmitted in accordance with these rules shall be on

the petitioner or appellant."2

17.The progress docket transmitted by the clerk of the lower tribunal shows that an

incomplete record of the proceedings was transmitted to this Court.

2. By the way, the Appellant in this case is the State of Florida which has chosen
to pursue this appeal in spite of the fact that the lower court lacked jurisdiction
to enter any sanctions judgment against the Appellee on July 3 1,2003 and in
spite of the fad that this Court lacks jurisdiction to even hear any appeal by the
State of Florida based on the dismissal of a contempt charge.
18.The Rules do not provide that this Court may allow the Appellee to attach non-

existent records to his answer brief which the Rules and controlling precedent

require the Appellant and the clerk of the lower tribunal to provide if any such

records did exist. Instead, controlling precedent requires this Court to dismiss

this appeal if the record on appeal does not show that the lower court's subject

matter jurisdiction had been properly invoked.

19. "This court is enjoined to follow controlling decisions of the Florida

Supreme Court; indeed, the court is powerless to do otherwise." Regan v. 177'

Industrial Credit Co., 469 So.2d 1387,1390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) approved,

487 So.2d 1047 (Fla.1986) citing HofSman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 43 1 (Fla. 1973).

(Emphasis added).

20. "All rules prescribed for court procedure are binding on the court and its clerk

as well as on litigants and their counsel." Esch v. Forster, 127 So. 336,336

(Fla. 1930).

21.Due process requires a complete record on appeal. See, e.g., Zhomas v. State,

828 So.2d 456,457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) and Berube v. State, 771 So.2d 1263

(Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

22."An accurate and comprehensive record of the proceedings below is absolutely

essential to fair and efficient appellate review." Haist v. Scarp, 366 So.2d 402,
404 (Fla. 1978). "This Court should provide every incentive to parties to

develop and preserve an adequate record." Id.

23. Failure to timely file directions to the clerk and to prepare and serve the record

as required by the appellate rules requires dismissal of the appeal. In re

LoJon's Estate, 12 So.2d 587,589 (Fla. 1943).

24.The record must show that the lower court's subject matter jurisdiction

had been properly invoked, and if an appellant fails to produce the record

with the pleading showing that a cause of action has been filed against the

appellee, then the appeal must be dismissed. Woo&-Hoskins-Young Co. v.

Taylor Development Co., 122 So. 224,225 (Fla. 1929).

25."A party must either be in a suit or out; there is no area of limbo where it is

subject to recall. Once a party is dropped from a suit, that party can be joined

again only by service of process." Hertz International, LTD v. Richardson, 3 17

Sodd 824, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

2 6 3 is hdarnental to our concept of justice that the rights of an individual cannot

be adjudicated in a judicial proceeding to which he has not been made a party

and in which the moving party has failed to bring him properly into court.

Alger v. Peters, 88 So.2d 903,906 (Fla. 1956). If a party wants to obtain a

judgment against a person, that party should take the simple steps required to
bring that person into the jurisdiction of the court according to the dictates of

due process. Id.

27.Before a trial court's potential jurisdiction of the subject matter can be

exercised, it must be lawfully invoked and called into action by pleading and

process. Lockwood v. Pierce, 730 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) citing

Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768 (Fla. 1927). When no proceedings have been

brought against a particular person or entity, the court does not have subject

matter jurisdiction to enter a judgment against that person or entity, and if any

such judgment is entered, it must be reversed. Id.

2S.Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by waiver, agreement, or

error of the parties or counsel or by the exercise of the power of the court.

84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So2d 1297,1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

(Emphasis added). The entry of an order or judgment without jurisdiction is a

fundamental error which requires the appellate court to vacate that order or

judgment. Id. Once a court has lost jurisdiction, a court may only acquire the

jurisdiction to determine a cause through a lawfully instituted proceeding. Id. at

1299.

29.0nce a party has been dismissed from an action, the trial court is divested of

jurisdiction over that party and the trial court may only regain jurisdiction over
that party by personal service of original process. See. e.g., Federal Ins. Go. v.

Fatolitis, 478 So.2d 106, 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

30. If an examination of the record shows that the trial court did not have

jurisdiction, an appellate court must reverse the judgment. See. e.g.,

Mansfiled v. Swan, 11 1 U.S. 379,381 (1884).

3 1. Violation of a right made specific by statutes, rules or settled interpretations of

them is a violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 242 which provides criminal penalties for a

deprivation of rights under color of law. US. v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267

(1997).

32.As no panel has been assigned to this case, all orders entered in it are void as

they are contrary to the clear mandates of Article 5, $ 4 of the Constitution of

Florida and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.210(a)(l).

33.A~the Appellant has failed to produce a complete record as required by Florida

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200, the dictates of due process, and controlling

precedent, this Court is required to dismiss this action. In re Lofton's Estate, 12

So2d 587,589 (Fla. 1943).

34. As the Appellant has failed to produce any pleading showing that the lower

court had jurisdiction to enter any order concerning the Appellee after the

Appellee's withdrawal as counsel was approved without any reservation of

jurisdiction as of October 1,2002 as required by the dictates of due process and


controlling precedalt, this Court is required to enter ;aa order dismissing h i s

appeal. See, e.g., Woo&-Nosh-lroe4ng Co. v. Taylor Develoymevrt Co., 3 22

v. &an, I E I U.S. 379,3E X (I884),


So. 2 4 , 2 2 5 (Fla. 19299)itnd &.firrisfiEed

WHEREFORE, the Appellee respectfuily reqtlests &;at this Corart

immedi;itely comply with Adicie 5, !j 4 of the Constitaion of Florida and Florida

Rule of Jttdicial Adnlinistration 2.21 O(aH1j by assiping a panel to this case and

immediately somply with the Florida Rules of ,4ppellate Procedure and controtling

precedent by issuing an order dismissing this appeal.

CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE AVD COMPLIANCE

I I-IIFiREBY CERnFV that this document earnplies with the requirenlents of

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2) and that a copy hereof has bee11

Funlished by U.S. Mail to Donna S. Koch, Assishnt AAomey General, at 3507 E.

Fror~tageRoad, Suite 200; Tampa, FL 33607, facsimile phone n m b e r 813-281-


+- -
5500 an this -^-day of October, 2008.

Mark A. Adarns
P.O. Box 1078
Valrico, FL 33595
Exhibit A
2NU ~ I W H K TCOIIRT
OF APPEAL
POST OFFICE ROS327
I.AXELAND. FL 338024327
(863)494-2290

September 15,2008

Mark A. Adams, JDlMBA


P. 0. Box 1078
Valrico, FL 33595

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your letter of September 10, 2008, which makes requests for
access to judicial records. These are governed by Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.420. As to your requests:

1) I am advised that during your visit to the court on September 10, 2008, you were
provided the case file in 2006-278 so your request for inspection has been
fulfilled. If you wish a copy of the file, please advise us and we will conduct a
page count, and upon receipt of the required fee of $1 per page we will provide
you a copy of the file. All records referenced below are housed in the court's file-
-and may be inspected by perusing the file--except the docket report which is an
electronic document generated from the court's case management system, which
may be inspected at this office upon reasonable notice.
2) There are no records that disclose the identity of judges assigned to 2006-278.
No panel has been assigned and it is unlikely one will be until briefing has been
concluded.
3) The records that disclose the dates orders issued in this case would be the
copies certified by the clerk to be true copies of the orders themselves, which
number twelve. These can be viewed by looking at the file in this office or we
would be pleased to copy and provide them to you for $1 per page and each of
them consume a single page. Also there is a docket report that will ~dent~fy the
date each order issued. This is six pages in length and will be provided for the
fee of $6. The records that disclose the dates the individuals ruled upon matters
that resulted in issued orders are housed within the court file and number twelve,
and will be provided to you at a cost of $12. These are the orders themselves.
These are not the same twelve documents alluded to above, which are records
certified by the clerk to be true copies of the actual orders. There are no records
that provide the full name of judges engaged in the rulings on any of these
orders.
Mr. Mark Adams
September 15,2008
Page Two

4) As noted in answer #3 above, there are no records that provide the full name of
judges engaged in entering rulings in this case. As for the dates of the orders,
this was addressed in answer to question #3.
5) This court maintains no incoming mail logs or other records showlng what this
court receives by mail on any given day.
6) This court maintains no records documenting internal distribution of mail to
judges.
7) Docirce~itsthe caurt may have that reflect the diatrib~tionor circilatran of a
submlsslon for cons~derat~onof its judges are part of the decision-making
process and are exempt from disclosure per rule 2 420(c)(l)

Sincerely,

8
dames irkh hold
Clerk
Exhibit B
R\i THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA Case No.: 2 9 6 - 7 7 8


L.T. Case No's:
01-009347-CI-015
Appellant, CTCAB36199MMANO
VS.

MARK A. ADAMS,
...
-.
L.

d? 0
<c * .- ,
--,
-.
22 i td
ic 'yr LC
/ r,.--:<, .
7 *
.d

APPELLEE'S MOTION TO
,,.-. -.,. ,
.~.,': .
. , +;,+'..
..3
-
.-.a
,

4r,,.i 1 -7.7
REQUIRE PREPARATION OF THE RECORD IN i: ' ' 7;
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE^ ;::
-- -? T.
J.-
OR TO DISMISS THIS PROCEEDING 7
~
~

.. ' ,
i.A"
*. {\&*' ~,
\'.& >:. COMES NOW, the Appellee, MARK A. ADAMS, and files the Appellee's
?ibL kr;""J'
> l \

4
-_ I jl

t:, $, ,;:- Motion to Require Preparation of the Record in Compliance with the Rules of
3,P
b-"" ;L- Procedure or to Dismiss this Proceeding showing:
i;r ,.
$'
$"' i )&
\

1. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 provides for appeal proceedings in


.'<,u01s
"r" .c'. '
+,
I
.\y
2_, ,a
'4
criminal cases. e

n(
I"'
2. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(f)(l) .states, "The clerk of the lower
-7 l,
o " ,
bh*?
.
,
L,
4 tribunal shall prepare and serve the record prescribed by rule 9.200 within 50
63
-

..
\
:+
'
.,
, ., , days of the filing of the notice of appeal." '

Q 's
3. The pertinent part of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(l) states,

"the record shall consist of the original documents, exhibits, and transcript{s) of
Exhibit C
IN THE ClRCUIT COURT OF TXE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AM> FORPINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
cwa DW~SION
JEFFREY S. SMITH and
SHARON P.SMTM3,

Plaintiffs. .

VS.

CORPORATE SPORTS MARKETING


GROW, rPiC ,CHRISTOP= C m G ,
and DWAYNE MARTINS,

CORPORATE SPORTS 3 A A l W E m G
GROUP, INC.,

VS. CASE NO.: 01-9347-CI-015

JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHND.K E m ,


and LAFAYETTE MARKETING
GROW, INC., a Florida Corporation,

ORDER P m u m r n p J G WITBIER~WALME)SUBSTTTU~ONOF COUNSEL


AND DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

THIS MATIER came before the Court on October 1,2002 on tbe Motion for Protective
Order filed by Jesse L. Skipper, Esq. and John W. Day, Esq. on behalf of the Plaintiffs,

JEFFREY SMXI'II and SHARON SMITW,b d g certificate of senrtce date of September 30,

2002; the Motron to Withdraw of Jesse L. Skipper, and John W. Day, bearing cemficate of

service date of September 20, 2002; the Notice of Substitution of Colinsel (and apparent request

of Mark A. Adams, Esq. to withtiraw), bearing certificate of service date of August 29,2002; and

EXHIBIT B
- -.85
Defendants' Notice of Objections to the Withdrawal of Mark A. Adams, Esq. as Counsel and

Motlee of Substituhou of Cotmsef, beanng certificate af s m c e date of September 5,2002. The

Court, havmg conndered the motions and representahons of counsel at the heanng, and being

otherwise filly advised in the premises, hereby:

ORDEW as foHows:

1. Jesse L. Skipper, John W. Day and Mark A. Adams are hereby permitted to

withhaw from representation of any and all parties to this action to whom tbey were previously

counsel of record, effective October 1,2002.

2. The Court's prior order recognizing Joseph R. Park, Esq. as counsel of record for

John I>. Kerin and Lafayem Marketing Oroup. Inc. is I~erebyexpressly redfirmed

3 Plaintiffs JEFFREY S. SMITH and S W O N P. SMITH are now proceeding pro

se, and all hfme pleadings, p p , and othet matters to be sented on them may be served at the

following address:

5952 Curley Road


Wesley Chapel, Fiorida 33544

4. Plaintiffs' Nohon for Protective Order bearing certificate of service date of

September 30,2002 i s DENIED.

SO ORDERED this -day of October, 2002

CROCKETT FARNELL
Circuit Court Judge
Qr;
@%/
ocr ,'
p

'-HOCK*
%c*ErL
a@