In the small claims court here on Florida, I filed PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT in accordance with Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure giving the Defendants 30 days to respond. Defendants did not respond and I presented the MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT at the pretrial hearing. All defendant were present.

The judge said it is up to him (judge) if he would allow the Admissions or not and denied the Summary Judgment and sent us in for Mediation which turned out in Impasse.

I went on to tell the judge that the cause was to go be for a jury and he said that I must request it. I said that I did in the original Complaint. This judge didn't even rear the Complaint.

What am I to do?

Please read the Small Claims rules in Florida where you will find that in general you do not have the right to discovery unless the other side is represented by counsel, when you do have the right to discovery.

Motion for rehearing as quickly as possible.

Also motion for reconsideration (they are not the same thing).

I just received, via internet look up,as we do daily, that the defendants(4 people) now (10/12/2017)have counsel and here is filed a Motion To Dismiss as follows (redacted) [notes and emphasis added]:
CAPTION

COMES NOW, the Defendants REDACTED TOWING AND RECOVERY, LLC
et al, by and through undersigned counsel, and ?le herewith their motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rules l.l30, 1.210(a) and l.140(b)(6), Fla. R. Civ. P., and in support of same
state:
1. This is an action captioned “Amended Verified Complaint”, which alleges a
“deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of Plaintiff‘s
rights pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States of America and FL Statute Title XL Ch. 715.07”.
2. The Plaintiff claims damages, apparently as a result of the claimed constitutional
violation, “Which exceed $840.00.”
3. The “Amended Complaint” filed by the Plaintiff is largely composed of
nonsensical ramblings, is utterly devoid of legal merit, fails on its face to state a
cause of action and is therefore of no moment and should be dismissed.
4. As an initial matter, it should be noted that the “property” of which the Plaintiff
asserts he was unlawfully deprived was a vehicle which was, at the time pertinent
to this action, being unlawfully operated by one “Levi REDACTED". Who Was not licensed in the state of Florida to operate a motor vehicle. See LYNN REDACTED Police Department Q)j"en.\'e/'Incia'ent Report, attached hereto and incorpomted herein as Exhibit 1.
5. When Mr. REDACTED was stopped by officer Christopher REDACTED With the
Lynn REDACTED Police Department for an expired registration, it was discovered that
Mr. Schonwalder did not possess a valid drivers license, and he ill fact produced an
Israeli ldenti?eation card when asked for his drivers license.
6. The vehicle he was driving was not owned by or registered to him. The
registration of the vehicle was from another state and had in fact expired.

7. When Mr. Schonwalder was placed under arrest for driving without a valid drivers
license, Officer XXXXXXXXX followed department policy and informed the driver that
the car he was driving was subject to towing by a contracted tow service at his
expense. [LEVI TOLD OFFICE HIS PARENT WERE ON THE WAY TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE CAR]
8. The Delendant tow company was employed to tow the vehicle away and to store it
at the driver’s expense. [IT WAS PARKED IN A CVS PHARMACY PRIVATE PROPERTY PARKING SPACE]
9. Contrary to the assertions of the Plaintiff, this was not done pursuant to Florida
Statutes Section 715.07, but rather as a result of the criminal conduct of the driver
of the vehicle, “Levi XXXXXXXXXXXX”.
10. Consequently, the remainder of the Plaintiffs claims are either misplaced or
outright misapprehensions of the law.
11. Of particular note are the constitutional claims, which are apparently predicated
upon alleged violations of the ?fth and fourteenth amendments to the US
Constitution.
12. While these claims might seem super?cially attractive to the Plaintiff, the alleged
deprivation of property was not even alleged to have been perpetrated by a
government agent, and therefore the constitutional elements of the Plaintiff s claim
are not cognizable under Florida or Federal case law.[defendants are agents of the state via. corporation entity]
13. As an aside, and contrary to the claims of the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not
categorically refuse to return the vehicle, however said return was conditioned
upon payment of the fees for towing and storage. which the Plaintiff refused to
provide. [DEFENDANT CLAIMED TO BE CLOSED CONTRAY TO STATE STATUTE]
14. At the core of it all. the Plaintiff s claims are simply thinly-veiled attempts to avoid
the ?nancial consequences of his son’s decisions and to skip out on the tab for the
towing and storage of the vehicle his son was illegally driving.
15. As such, the plaintiff's frivolous complaint is subject to dismissal, with prejudice.
and the Defendant requests that this Co

15. As such, the plaintiff's frivolous complaint is subject to dismissal, with prejudice.
and the Defendant requests that this Court do so.
16. The Defendant has been forced to retain the undersigned attorney to combat the
abuse of the legal process in which the Plaintiff has engaged, and has agreed to pay
him a reasonable fee for his services, and the Plaintiff should be forced to pay said
attorney lees insofar as his conduct has resulted in frivolous litigation.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request this court dismiss the plaintiffs complaint,
for an award of attorncy’s fees and for all other relief to which defendants prove
themselves entitled.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of October, 2017.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [PLAINTIFF NOTE--NEVER REVEIVED AND NO SENT EMAIL COPY ATTACHED]
I HEREBY CERTIFY that 21 tme and correct copy of the foregoing Was furnished
via electronic mail to the Plaintiff, on the above-referenced date.
ABCD LAW FIRM-RICHARD ABC, III, Esq.
Florida Bar No.1
Attorney for Defendants [4]

EXHIBIT - 1
LYNN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Offense I Incident Report
GENERAL OFFENSE INFORMATION Report Type: Cumulative Report

On XX/XX/2017, at approximately 12:40 p.m., I was patrolling the area
of State Road XXX and Highway XX. I observed a 1984 red Mercedes-
Benz passenger car, bearing license plate BACON with an expired
registration decal. After confirming the registration ofthis vehicle was
expired as of 6/9/2017, I conducted a traffic stop at 1317 HOHO Avenue. I
made contact with the driver, who identified himself as Levi via a Commonwealth of Israel ID permit.
I asked Mr. XXXXXX for a valid driver's license, and he pointed
at the ID card he handed me and stated that he had one. I conducted a
computer check and was unable to verify a valid license in any state, or
any other identifiers for Mr. XXXXXXX.
Further investigation also revealed no social security number for Mr.
XXXXXXXXX. Due to the above facts, Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX was placed under
arrest for No Valid DL and secured in double locked cuffs and placed in
t

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS:
VERIFIED MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
If any statement below is found to be incorrect or not standing in law the rest is in full force and effect.
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Ministry, by and through the undersigned Karl XXXXXXXXXXXX enters this response in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and as grounds therefore would show that there is a dispute as to the material facts, as evidenced below.
FACTS
The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety and we state thus:
1. No proof of receipt of email has been put into the record of the supposed emailing of the Motion to Dismiss that Defendant says he sent us. We just found it today, Oct. 17, 2017 on the Web docket DAILY CHECK.
2. The frivolous accusations Defendant has expressed about the proper or non-proper way the car was towed has no bearing on this case.
3. The Defendant has admitted that they towed Plaintiff’s car claiming to be closed in violation of Florida Statute 2015 FL Statute Title XL Ch. 715.07 – (2)(a)1a). “Any towed or removed vehicle or vessel must be stored at a site within a 10-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of 500,000 population or more, and within a 15-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of less than 500,000 population. That site must be open for the purpose of redemption of vehicles on any day that the person or firm towing such vehicle or vessel is open for towing purposes, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and, when closed, shall have prominently posted a sign indicating a telephone number where the operator of the site can be reached at all times. Upon receipt of a telephoned request to open the site to redeem a vehicle or vessel, the operator shall return to the site within 1 hour or she or he will be in violation of this section.” (Emphasis added)

4. Plaintiff would have paid for the vehicle if he could have gotten it within the 1 hour that he arrived at the XXXXXXX Towing to pick it up, but the employees would not release it for any amount of money on Sunday. They all said Plaintiff had to wait until Monday contrary to the law.
5. The Defendant has tried to state that this law only applies to some other purpose but there is no exception to this rule stated in the law. POLICE POLICY is not law.
6. Plaintiff refused to provide the extra fees added on for overnight storage contrary to the law stated above. Plaintiff would have gladly paid the fee within the one hour he was there on Sunday, July 9, 2017. And we have phone recorded proof of this.
7. If we had wanted to avoid paying fees we would not have put out so much money to bring the Defendant to justice for holding vehicles longer so he can get more money for the public at large. He not only does this to us but to all those whose vehicles he brings into his Towing yard on weekends.
8. A maxim of law states, “He who does not forbid a crime while he may, sanctions it.”
9. The defendants have not proven that they are entitled to any amount of money.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully moves this court for an Order denying the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Dear Dr. Graves,

You suggested we do a motion for reconsideration and a motion for rehearing but upon researching your website, you say that the motion for reconsideration is for Federal and a motion for rehearing is for state. So we can't do both, is that correct? You also mentioned, "Please read the Small Claims rules in Florida where you will find that in general you do not have the right to discovery unless the other side is represented by counsel, when you do have the right to discovery."

So, they now have counsel and we can request for admissions, correct? and can they request from us discovery? We do not have counsel.

Karl

Dear Mr. Graves, We think we have completed our reply to the Motion to Dismiss.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS:
VERIFIED MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXMinistries, by and through the undersigned Karl XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX enters this response in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court to deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and as grounds therefore would show that there is a dispute as to the material facts, as evidenced below.
FACTS
The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety and we state thus:
1. The frivolous and immaterial accusations Defendant’s attorney has expressed about the proper or non-proper reason the car was towed has no bearing on the four corners of this suit. The Defendants failed to site a law or statute giving the court direction to move the court to dismiss the case.
2. No proof of receipt of email has been put into the record of the supposed emailing of the Motion to Dismiss that Defendant’s attorney says he sent us. We just found it today, Oct. 17, 2017 on our daily check of the Court docket. We received the attorney’s Notice of Appearance on Oct. 11, 2017 but nothing else.
3. The Defendants towed Plaintiff’s car without getting permission from either the Plaintiff or the private business it was towed from in violation of 2015 FL Statute Title XL Ch. 715.07 – (2)(a)?The towing or removal of any vehicle or vessel from private property without the consent of the registered owner or other legally authorized person in control of that vehicle or vessel is subject to strict compliance with the following conditions and restrictions:. Also see Case of Richard STYPMANN et al. v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., 557 F.2d 1338 (1977)

4. There is no exception in 2015 FL Statute Title XL Ch. 715.07 that gives the Towing company the right to steal (seize) a vehicle just because it is the policy of a foreign public corporation to allow their Police force to do so. XXXXXXXXXX Towing company by law does not have the right to steal a car without giving due process to the Plaintiff by contacting Plaintiff for options. Maxims of law state, “That which was originally void (stealing), does not by lapse of time become valid.” And “The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals.”
5. If the Defendant has a contract with the City of Lynn Haven public corporation then that contract is between XXXXXXXX Towing, Inc. and the City of Lynn Haven public corporation. It does not give the Defendant the right to disobey the law as regards his responsibilities to those vehicles he tows. XXXXXXXXX Towing and its employees are required to follow the law when towing ANY vehicle according to Florida Statute Title XL ch. 715.07-1a (see #6).
6. The Defendant has admitted that they towed Plaintiff’s car claiming to be closed in violation of Florida Statute 2015 FL Statute Title XL Ch. 715.07 – (2)(a), 1.a. and 9. “Any towed or removed vehicle or vessel must be stored at a site within a 10-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of 500,000 population or more, and within a 15-mile radius of the point of removal in any county of less than 500,000 population. That site must be open for the purpose of redemption of vehicles on any day that the person or firm towing such vehicle or vessel is open for towing purposes, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and, when closed, shall have prominently posted a sign indicating a telephone number where the operator of the site can be reached at all times. Upon receipt of a telephoned request to open the site to redeem a vehicle or vessel, the operator shall return to the site within 1 hour or she or he will be in violation of this section.” (Emphasis added)

2015 FL Statute Title XL Ch. 715.07-9 “When a vehicle or vessel has been towed or removed pursuant to this section, it must be released to its owner or custodian within one hour after requested. Any vehicle or vessel owner or agent shall have the right to inspect the vehicle or vessel before accepting its return, and no release or waiver of any kind which would release the person or firm towing the vehicle or vessel from liability for damages noted by the owner or other legally authorized person at the time of the redemption may be required from any vehicle or vessel owner, custodian, or agent as a condition of release of the vehicle or vessel to its owner. A detailed, signed receipt showing the legal name of the company or person towing or removing the vehicle or vessel must be given to the person paying towing or storage charges at the time of payment, whether requested or not.”
7. Plaintiff would have paid for the vehicle if he could have gotten it within the 1 hour that he arrived at the XXXXXXXXX Towing to pick it up but the employees would not release it for any amount of money on Sunday, July 9, 2017. All employees that Plaintiff spoke with said that Plaintiff had to wait until Monday, July 10, 2017 to get his vehicle, contrary to the law.
8. Plaintiff refused to provide the extra fees added on for overnight storage contrary to the law stated above. Plaintiff would have gladly paid the fee within the one hour he was there on Sunday, July 9, 2017.
9. If we had wanted to avoid paying fees to the Towing company we would not have put out so much money to bring the Defendant to justice for holding vehicles longer than allowed by law. He not only does this to us but to all those whose vehicles he brings into his Towing yard.
10. A maxim of law states, “He who does not forbid a crime while he may, sanctions it.”
11. The defendants have not proven that they are entitled to any amount of money.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully moves the court for an Order denying the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

My dear friends,
I know there has been an argument for many years that the Constitutional "right to travel" CAN be interpreted to mean one has the right to travel in an engine powered vehicle capable of high speed and infliction of personal injury or death ... however that is NOT why the framers put that in the Constitution. The purpose was to prevent various states from setting up border crossings or otherwise preventing citizens of one state from entering another without paying a fee or otherwise being required to jump through some sort of hoops.
I have read the many quotes sent to me these past 20 years since I started this site, and they repeatedly are misread to distinguish "commercial" operation from "private", but that is because English is sometimes a complicated language for some people, especially those who pick out the parts of sentences they most like and ignore the rest.
The People of each state elected representatives to their respective legislatures and, as far as I've been told, EVERY state has laws requiring private AND commercial operators of engine-propelled vehicles capable of high speeds to license the vehicle, license the driver, and carry insurance to protect those who may be injured.
PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS FORUM TO CONTINUE THIS ARGUMENT!
The right to travel is the right to drive across state borders without being questioned or required to pay a fine or suffer any other consequence.
IT IS NOT THE RIGHT TO OPERATE AN ENGINE-PROPELLED VEHICLE CAPABLE OF HIGH SPEEDS POTENTIALLY CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS ... internet legal guru nonsense to the contrary notwithstanding.
AND THIS FORUM IS NOT THE PLACE TO ARGUE OTHERWISE.
If more of you would make an effort to learn how Republics are designed to operate, instead of listening to the internet legal gurus who want you to think we are all victims of a conspiracy, we might actually save our nation from the failure it is about to incur AS A RESULT OF THE LEGAL IGNORANCE OF ITS PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIGHT AND WIN IN COURT !
* Last updated by: JURISDICTIONARY on 10/23/2017 @ 10:21 AM *