Motion Of Reconsideration To Vacate Final Judgment_1

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Richard Charman d/b/a IAM4OBAMA, NEIGHBORS OF ALLAPATTAH IN MIAMI Plaintiff(s) Vs. State of Florida Miami-Dade County Supervisor Miami-Dade County Department of Elections Obama for America, Inc., Democratic Party d/b/a Obama Campaign for Change Florida Campaign for Change And Olivia Lopes, Regional Director Lucy Laflemme, Miami Field Director Bruno Lopes, Field Organizer Damian Perez, Field Organizer Luis R. Garcia, Rep. District 107 et al Defendant(s)

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case No. ____________________________ ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OF RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST TO VACATE “ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT”

To the Honorable Court: Comes now, Plaintiff, Mr. Richard Charman, Pro Se, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and hereby request this Honorable Court to vacate its ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT dated September 15, 2009, as for ground on support of it the Plaintiff states and alleges as follows: FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1.

On April 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed his AMENDED COMPLAINT in compliance with the ORDER of this Honorable Court dated April 8, 2009 that dismissed without

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 2 of 8 prejudice, as moot, his COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF of November 4, 2008. 2.

On May 14, 2009, legal counsels of the opposite parties, concomitantly, filed their documents titled DEFENDANT OBAMA FOR AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

AND

INCORPORATED

MEMORANDUM

OF

LAW

and

DEFENDANTS FLORIDA CAMPAIGN FOR CHANGE, OLIVIA LOPES, BRUNO LOPES, DAMIAN PEREZ AND LUIS R. GARCIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW. 3.

On May 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed his “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND TO REQUEST LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE EVIDENCE” contending:

“Plaintiff, a disabled individual, diagnosed with a biochemical brain imbalance, filed this case “in forma pauperis” seeking a preliminary injunction, seeking from the Defendants Obama For America, Inc., Florida Campaign For Change and Obama For Change, along with other co-defendants, among other reliefs a letter of apology for the acts of scorn committed against the Plaintiff by the Defendants agents. In light of this trouble-free petition, subsequently, upon filing of Motion to Dismiss of the above mentioned Defendants, this Honorable Court ordered oral arguments on these motions and further ordered “….to notify the court immediately at (305)523-5580 of any disposition or settlement of this case……..”. In response, disregarding the order of this Honorable Court, the Defendants, in a show of force and waste of resources, aligned an army of law firms against the Pro se Plaintiff requesting the dismissal of Plaintiff’s original complaint without regard of their ability to write a simple letter of apology, not precluded by any moot doctrine as alleged. This Court should notice that Defendant Obama For America, Inc. added Keisha A. McGuire as co-counsel of record, in addition to John F. O’Sullivan and the Law offices of Richard and Stephen Rosenthal, who are independent law practitioners, although sharing the same last name. This Honorable Court, in a Salomonic

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 3 of 8 decision, granted the dismissal without prejudice of the Original complaint allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Moreover, the Plaintiff, who halted the development of his business and devoted his time and his own financial resources and those of close family and supporters to support the campaign, has exhausted all means to reasonable present his case, without being an unnecessary burden to the tax payers, requires outside assistance in order to bring a balance of equities between the parties; particularly, in framing his allegations in terms of the statutes most favorable to his situation, and rephrasing those allegations in terms to bring them within the ambit of constitutional protection and/or any applicable statute.”. 4.

On June 9, 2009, this Honorable Court ORDERED and ADJUDGED. as partially I quote: “As Plaintiff recognizes, he has no constitutional right to counsel in this civil case. I therefore deny Plaintiff’s request, but refer Plaintiff’s case to the Volunteer Lawyers’ Project for the Southern District of Florida for potential representation.”

5.

On or about August 11, 2009, Attorney Keisha McGuire contacted the Plaintiff by phone requesting to meet on August 24, 2009 at her office located at Mellon Financial Center, 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, Fl 33131, along with the attorneys for Obama For America (in person) and Florida Campaign for Change, Olivia Lopez, Lucy LaFlemme, Bruno Lopes, Damian Perez and Luis R. Garcia (via telephone), “for the purpose of bringing to a closure an incident that unfortunate incident that shouldn’t have to happens”. She requested to keep it confidential and as per Plaintiff request she agreed to send a confirmation by email, as she did with copy to: John F. O’Sullivan; Richard B. Rosenthal; Stephen F. Rosenthal; Rob Telfer and Mark Herron (see Exh, MOR017).

6.

On or about August 23, 2009, one day previous to our scheduled meeting Attorney Keisha McGuire called the Plaintiff asking if he was ok with postponing the meeting for September 25, 2009. Plaintiff stated that he had no problem with that and that he would try to find an attorney to represent him at that meeting to which she was in agreement, as she stated on her confirmation email sent later on that same day (see Exh. MOR010). The aforementioned email was forwarded to at least four attorneys

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 4 of 8 of whom only one, Attorney Jason M. Murray of Carlton Fields, replied stating he can not represents Plaintiff on this matter (see Exh. MOR010). As of today, Plaintiff is waiting for a response from the others attorneys contacted. 7.

On September 18, 2009, on Rosh Hashanah, Plaintiff received a document of this Honorable Court titled “ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT”, dated September 15, 2009, signed by Deputy Clerk of Court Lynn Surowiec, on which it was stated that “…Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Olivia Lopez, Lucy LaFlemme, Bruno Lopes, Damian Perez, Luis R. Garcia and Obama For America as to Plaintiff’s claims for the reasons set for in the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall take nothing from the aforementioned Defendants and shall go hence without day. This case is CLOSED.” As a result Plaintiff contacted the Volunteer Lawyers’ Project for the Southern District of Florida by phone and, upon review of the record, the representative told Plaintiff that they were in the process of evaluating his case for potential representation but due to the fact that the case was closed there was nothing they could do, in term of filing a motion of reconsideration for him, because no decision to represent him have been taken so far. He was given the phone number of the Florida Bar of Attorney (1-800-342-8011), as an alternative. Plaintiff stated that it was improbable that the Florida Bar would take his case at this late juncture and file the aforementioned motion of reconsideration, which would be the most appropriate step. Left without viable alternatives Plaintiff stated that he would file the motion of reconsideration on his own. Then the representative of the Volunteer Lawyers’ Project for the Southern District of Florida told him that in the event that his motion of reconsideration was granted by the Court that he should contact the Project to reinitiate the process of evaluation for potential legal representation. ARGUMENT

Plaintiff accepts that he incurred in negligence by not notifying the court of the proposed settlement meeting but this excusable neglect was due to the fact that when Plaintiff was approached by Attorney Keisha McGuire she stated that this should be kept confidential. Beside that Plaintiff was already engaged in a campaign in support of President Obama’s proposed Strong

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 5 of 8 Public Option (see Exh. MOR003, MOR005, MOR007, MOR012, MOR013, MOR014, MOR018, MOR020) in reference to the Health Care Reform Overhaul being considered by the US Congress, and this offer along with a Field Organizer job offer, never materialized, (see Exh. MOR002, MOR006, MOR009, MOR015, MOR016) by one of the Democratic Party support organizations -Democracy For America (DFA)-, distracted the attention of Plaintiff. This is an excusable neglect covered under Rule 60. Relief From Judgment or Order, which states “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding…”. This is specifically stated on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. It is Plaintiff contention that the Court erred when closed his case without reviewing the status of its own submission of this case to the Volunteer Lawyers’ Project for the Southern District of Florida for potential representation, as stated on its ORDER of June 9, 2009, violating the spirit of the letter as set forth in the Administrative Order 93-106 by which the Volunteer Lawyers’ Project for the Southern District of Florida was created. On its fifth paragraph the aforementioned Order signed by Norman C. Roettger, Chief Judge of the United States District Court, states: “5.- The Court anticipates that all members of the bar of this District will want to participate and to volunteer to take cases referred by this project. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court reiterated recently (June 23, 1993) that all members of the Florida bar has an obligation to provide counsel to help meet the legal needs of the poor. In re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, So.2d, 18 FLW S348 (Fla. 1993) (“Justice is not truly justice if only the rich can afford counsel and gain access to the courts.”)”. As not to leave margin to doubts, respect to the role of the members of the judicial system in discharging their duties, Chief Judge Norman C. Roettger stated, I quote: “Finally, the Project shall have the full cooperation and able assistance of all judges, magistrates, clerks, and staff of this court in fulfilling its mission.” The above, concerning the purpose of the creation of this Project, is reiterated on its website home page reading: The Volunteer Lawyers' Project for the Southern District of Florida was created at the suggestion of the Civil Justice Advisory group for the Southern District of Florida in 1993. The Group concluded that volunteer legal assistance for the Court’s unrepresented, indigent civil litigants would accelerate resolution of these cases. The Court unanimously approved the Group’s recommendation to form the Volunteer Lawyer’s Project as set forth in Administrative Order 93-106*. Although it serves and assists the Southern District, the Project is independent of the Court.

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 6 of 8 The program’s goal is two-fold: to provide pro bono legal representation for indigent, pro se federal court litigants, and to expand opportunities for lawyers to satisfy their professional obligation to provide legal services to indigent litigants. Through the program, persons with civil, non-habeas claims in federal court without the benefit of legal representation may be assigned volunteer lawyers willing to represent them pro bono. The eligibility requirements of the Project, according with its website, are as follows: 1 - You have filed a civil lawsuit in the Southern District Court AND 2 - You are a pro se plaintiff (you don’t have an attorney) AND 3 - You have been granted indigent status by the court and cannot afford an attorney AND 4 - Your lawsuit is not about your criminal sentence or the terms of your incarceration. Given his actual circumstances, Plaintiff is confident that when the time comes for him to be interviewed by the Volunteer Lawyers’ Project of the Southern District of Florida to verify eligibility he will meet all of them. It is evident that the present case represents a challenge for all parties. However, now more than ever the words of Don Eugenio Maria Hostos are truer, when he stated: El que abandona en un momento de desidia su derecho; el que no siente lastimado el suyo cuando lastima el de otro; el que sordamente se promete cobrar por medio de la fuerza la justicia que se resiste a pedir al tribunal; el que ve sin sobresalto la violación de una ley; el que contempla indiferente la sustitución de las instituciones con la autoridad de una persona; el que no gime, ni grita, ni brama, ni protesta cuando sabe de otros hombres que han caído vencidos por la arbitrariedad y la injusticia, ese es cómplice o autor o ejecutor de los crímenes que contra el derecho se cometen de continuo por falta de cumplimiento de los deberes que lo afirman. For all the above and in the name of justice Plaintiff requests from this Honorable Court to: 1.

VACATE its FINAL JUDGMENT

2.

ORDER The Volunteers’ Project for the Southern District of Florida to inform the Court of the status of the evaluation of Plaintiff eligibility for potential legal representation.

3.

ORDER Defendants to promptly inform this Honorable Court of any negotiation and/or settlement agreement.

Respectfully submitted, today September 22, 2009, in Miami, Florida,

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 7 of 8

____________________________ Richard Charman PRO SE d/b/a IAM4OBAMA, NEIGHBORS OF ALLAPATTAH IN MIAMI 1201 NW 32ND St. Miami, Florida 33142 (305)636-4400 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, hereby, certify that on the 22nd of September 2009, a true and exact copy of the foregoing was delivered to Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida, for the Defendant State of Florida, at: Office of Attorney General, State of Florida, The Capitol PL-1, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050; to Patra Liu, Esq., C.I.G., Assistant Inspector General/Legal Counsel, Miami-Dade County General Attorney Office, located at Stephen P. Clark Center 111 N.W. 1rst Street, Suite 2510, Miami, Florida 33128; to Defendants Obama for America, Inc. d/b/a Obama Campaign for Change, Florida Campaign for Change, through their legal counsels Attorneys Keisha A. McGuire and John F. O’Sullivan, from the Law Firm HOGAN & HARTSON LLP, at Mellon Financial Center, 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, Florida 33131 and to Richard B. Rosenthal, from the Law Firm THE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD B. ROSENTHAL, P.A., at 169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1422, Miami, Florida 33131 and Stephen F. Rosenthal, 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800, Miami, Fl 33130. Also, to: co-Defendants Oliva Lopes, Lucy Laflemme, Bruno Lopes, Damian Perez and District 107 State Representative Luis Garcia, through their legal counsel Attorney Robert J. Telfer III, from the Law Firm MESSER, CAPARELLO & SELF, P.A., at 2618 Centennial Place, Tallahassee, Florida 32308.

Respectfully submitted, today, September 22nd, 2009, in Miami, Florida.

____________________________ Richard Charman PRO SE d/b/a IAM4OBAMA, NEIGHBORS OF

Richard Charman Vs. State Of Florida et al Case Num. 08-23076-CIV-GOLD/MCALILEY Page 8 of 8 ALLAPATTAH IN MIAMI 1201 NW 32ND St. Miami, Florida 33142 (305)636-4400