Larry Bradshaw, Fort Myers, Florida

Blythe Masters – JP Morgan Chase
September 16, 2014
Who Is Affected ?
October 16, 2014

Larry Bradshaw, Fort Myers, Florida

As a Homeowner who has been served with three mortgage foreclosure complaints, all within the past five years, and all pertaining to the same residence in Lee County, Florida; I have often wondered if it is possible to seek justice in Lee County, Florida?

My story, as a pro se defendant, has gone down a path that has produced more questions about the integrity of our justice system than I can possibly ask at this point. I have certainly learned a great deal about mortgage foreclosure complaints,Florida law, Florida’s civil rules of procedures, and the Rocket Docket Program. However, my experiences continue to leave me with the same question; is it possible to seek justice in Lee County?

I would like to share a Charlie Green “Rocket Docket” experience that I discovered while seeking justice during my latest mortgage foreclosure complaint. As I understand it, part of the integrity of the justice system, as well as the responsibility of the Clerk of Court is to maintain the accuracy of the Docket. My discovery may give rise to a new meaning of the word “Rocket” in the Rocket Docket Program.

On February 22, 2010 I attend a Hearing on Plaintiff Motion to Compel filed on October 1, 2009, filed by Attorney Mitchell Rothman of Florida Default Law Group, P.L. the Hearing was set to be heard by Judge Michael McHugh. However, where upon checking in with Judge McHugh’s judicial assistant, I was told that the hearing was not on McHugh’s docket sounding that day? At that discovery, McHugh’s assistant directed me to go to Judge George Richards Court Room on a lower floor where the case had purported to have been transferred. My Father and I hurried to Judge Richards Court room only to find the door was locked, but there were two attorneys in the court room alone. I recognized one attorney as being Gregg Goetz.  Immediately, I returned to Judge McHugh’s court room where his assistant personally escorted my father and I back to Judge Richards Court Room to find the door locked as well.  Judge McHugh’s assistant then asked my Father and I to wait as she searched for someone with a key to get into the court room. Upon returning the door was unlocked by a bailiff and we all went inside where the assistant checked the computer and found that Judge Richards had heard the case and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel. The discovery was consistent with the original minutes recorded from Judge Richards Court dated 2/22/10.

On March 15, 2010 Judge McHugh issued a “corrected Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in which he stated, “This cause having come before the Court on February 22. 2010, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and having reviewed the aforementioned documents and having heard the arguments of Plaintiff counsel and the Defendant, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ordered and adjudged as follows:

1. Plaintiff Motion to Compel is hereby granted.

2 Defendant has twenty (20) days to respond to discovery”.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find it odd that there are no minutes recorded by Judge McHugh after he claims to have heard the case. With that said, I filed an objection to the corrected order, and a Motion to Disqualify Judge McHugh with an affidavit, which he denied as legally insufficient, but the docket only shows the objection being filed on 3/25/10. I then amended my Motion to disqualify Judge McHugh and refilled it on 4/5/10, with a similar denial on 4/14/10.

To say the least, I was completely confused as to how two different judges heard the same arguments at the same time on the same day when they were on two different floors of the Court House? Not to mention that Judge Richards denied the Motion to Compel on the day of the hearing, and Judge McHugh granted the same motion to compel about three weeks later.

This appears to be clear and convincing evidence of a “conspiracy to commit fraud” (cover up), a fraudulent act (switching the minutes of the court where the Motion to Compel was “denied: on the hearing day 2/22/10, by Judge Richards, but later switched to indicate the Motion was granted.  I believe this was done to clear the way for a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff that if appealed, this Court would see the Motion to Compel Discovery was granted indicating I had refused to exercise my discovery rights and therefore waived such right, thus supporting the trial courts granting of a summary judgment through the Rocket Docket Program.

The court documents can be viewed by clicking the link below

I have since filed for a Writ of Mandamus with the 2nd DCA which reveals more information yet, as to how the Rocket Docket Program in my experience has left me with out an adequate remedy of law. The 2nd DCA has since issued a Mandamus Response to show cause.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *