IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK*******************************************

Shawn P. Dudla,Plaintiff,

- against -

John E. Jordan,Scott D. Polodna,John W. Campbell, et al,

Defendants.*******************************************

STATE OF NEW YORK )COUNTY OF SARATOGA ) ss.:

Shawn P. Dudla, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I. PARTIES

U.S. DISTRICT COURTN.D. OF N.Y.

ORIGINAL FILED

JUL 18 2014

LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN, CLERKALBANY

VERIFIED CIVIL RIGHTSCOMPLAINT PURSUANT TO42 U.S.C. § 1983

Civil Case No.: / /^/-Q^S^TCTcrm/^FT)

1. Plaintiff - Shawn P. Dudla - has a mailing address of P.O. Box 1227 or 458 Route 146,

Clifton Park, New York 12065-0804.

2. Defendant - John E. Jordan (hereinafter Judge Jordan) is a Circuit Court Judge and

has a mailing address of 9th Circuit Court - Civil Division 22, 2 Courthouse Square, Suite 6465,

Kissimmee, Florida 34741-5487.

3. Defendant - Scott D, Polodna (hereinafter Judge Polodna) is a Circuit Court Judge

and has mailing address of 9th Circuit Court - Civil Division 20, 2 Courthouse Square, Kissimmee,

Florida 34741.

4. Defendant - Cathy Stephens (hereinafter Stephens) is the Judicial Assistant assigned

to Judge Jordan and has a mailing address of 9th Circuit Court - Civil Division 22, 2 Courthouse Square,

Suite 6465, Kissimmee, Florida 34741-5487 and is employed by Osceola County, Florida.

5. Defendant - Osceola County Florida (hereinafter OCF), is represented by the Osceola

County Attorney's Office (hereinafter OCAO) who has a business address of 1 Courthouse Square,

Suite 4200, Kissimmee, Florida 34741 with whom Jordan, Polodna and Stephens are employed by.

2

6. Defendant - State of Florida (hereinafter SOF) is represented by the Florida State

Attorney General's Office (hereinafter FSAGO) located at The Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL 32399

and Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are employees of the State of Florida who pays their salaries and

has oversight over them.

7. Defendant - John W. Campbell (hereinafter Campbell) is an attorney who has a

business address of 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3350 Tampa, FL 33602 and is a partner in Constangy

Brooks & Smith, LLP.

8. Defendant - Constangy Brooks & Smith, LLP (hereinafter CBS) is a law firm and has

a business address of 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3350 Tampa, FL 33602 and John W. Campbell is

an employee and partner in said firm.

II. JURISDICTION

9. Plaintiff claims Federal Jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the

jurisdiction to cases under the U. S. Constitution.

10. This is a Civil Action seeking relief and/or damages to defend and protect the rights

guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff brings the suit pursuant to Federal Rules of

Procedure 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of certain protections guaranteed to him by the First, Fifth,

Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution, by the Defendant(s) John E.

Jordan and Scott D. Polodna under the color of law in their capacity as judges in the 9th Circuit Court –

Civil Divisions 20 & 22 of Osceola County, Florida, Defendant Stephens who is acting under color of state

law and John W. Campbell and Constangy, Brooks and Smith, LLP, Defendant(s) who have conspired

and/or colluded with those acting under the color of law. The Court has Original Jurisdiction over this

Civil Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 28 U.S.C. § 1331, §1343(3) & (4) and § 2201.

11. Further each of the named Defendant(s) are citizens or entities of the United States, the

3

Plaintiff herein at all times was a resident in New York State and at all times documented herein the

claim(s) regarding injury to the Plaintiff accrued while the Plaintiff was in the State of New York.

12. Furthermore, during the term of the Florida proceedings as documented in detail below,

the Osceola County Florida court lacked both Subject-matter and Personal Jurisdiction over a fraudulent

Florida complaint filed by a Florida based attorney John W. Campbell a partner to a Florida based Law

Firm, Constangy, Smith & Brooks, LLP. Campbell knew the filed complaint was fraudulent, that he was

committing an egregious deception upon the Florida court and defrauding the Plaintiff of justice within

the Florida court. Campbell did nothing but acerbated the injuries of injustice and perpetuated the

litigation of injustice upon the Plaintiff with the help of both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan.

13. The Florida court under the guise and color of law ruled on matters before it in the clear

absence of Subject-matter and/or Personal Jurisdiction thus depriving the Plaintiff of his Due Process

Rights and Equal Protection of the Law found under the (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

of the United States.

14. Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan, as documented in detail below, not only breached their

Oath(s) of Office to protect, serve and uphold Florida State Statutes, Precedent Case Law and the Florida

State Constitution, but more importantly they breached their Oath(s) of Office to protect, to serve and

uphold the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land.

15. Attorney Campbell, as documented in detail below, not only breached his Bar Oath to

protect, serve and uphold Florida State Statutes, Precedent Case Law and the Florida State Constitution, but

more importantly he too breached his Bar Oath to protect, to serve and uphold the Constitution of the United

States, the supreme law of the land.

16. Judge Polodna, Judge Jordan, and Campbell breached, ignored and refused to uphold their

professional Canons and Florida State Statutes in an effort to hinder or obstruct and prohibit the Plaintiff from

4

prevailing in the court room. This was a direct denial of the Plaintiff’s rights of due process and equal

protection of the law as found under the (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

17. The Federal Question(s) before this Court are:

a) How can an attorney’s initial first pleading (the complaint), that appears upon its

face to be fraudulent, admitted to naming a single movant that did not have standing or capacity

to sue by the very same attorney that filed such, remain sustainable and preserved to continue

litigation if the only party commencing the action is not named or assigned within a contract that

is in dispute which is the basis for the action; and that said attorney knew and the court was made

fully aware that the party named within the commenced action does not have Standing or

Capacity to sue; and that said attorney knew and the court was made fully aware that the

commenced action was filed within a county court of improper venue; and that said attorney

knew and the court was made fully aware that service of process of the aforementioned

complaint upon the defending party (Plaintiff herein) was never effectuated, was improper and/or

defective and the court refused to uphold and/or ignored the defending party’s (Plaintiff herein)

Statutory and Constitutional Rights of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws?

b) The defending party (Plaintiff herein) filed multiple separate and distinct Affirmative

Defense Motions against the aforementioned action. All of the Plaintiff’s Affirmative Defense

Motions provided the court with a preponderance amount of material evidence in support of the

Plaintiff’s motion(s) for dismissal of the action. All of the Plaintiff’s Affirmative Defense Motions

provided the court numerous amounts of Precedent Case Law to support dismissal of the action. All

resulting in the court rendering ambiguous vague denial order(s) for each motion that were

completely devoid of legally sufficient reason(s) and/or demonstration of legally sufficient reason(s)

from the court for denial especially after the defending party (Plaintiff herein) raised the issues in

5

contention before the court. The Constitutional question at bar is how is said court not depriving the

Plaintiff of his statutory due Process Rights and is not denying him Equal Protection of the Law(s) as

found under the (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America?

c) Campbell initially commenced the Florida action on behalf of a single movant party (no other party in mention throughout the pleading) that lacked Standing and the Capacity to Sue;

and filed the action in a county court of Improper Venue; and violated Florida Statutes of service as

the Process of Service was improper and defective upon the defending party (Plaintiff herein); and

due to the aforementioned the court lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction to rule over the issues and

Personal Jurisdiction over the defending party. The Constitutional Question before this Court is how

can this Court deem there is a relevant procedural connection between the parties and the Florida

court to qualify Absolute Immunity and Absolute Privilege in this Instant Action before this Court?

d) With both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan, breaching there “Oath of Office”,

violating Florida Statues and ignoring precedent “Case Law”, how does this not deny the Plaintiff

of his due process rights and equal protection of the law as found under the (14th) Fourteenth

Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

e) With the Plaintiff not being present, Attorney Campbell, during closed door

proceeding(s) with the court made undisclosed arguments plus presented undisclosed material

evidence to the court. The Plaintiff was neither apprised of nor granted the ability of redress. With

neither the court or Campbell, either prior to a proceeding or after a proceeding and prior to any

ruling or decision being rendered by the court, presenting the aforementioned to the Plaintiff for

redress, how is that not unduly prejudicing the defending party (Plaintiff herein) from properly

defending against such an action and not violating the defending party’s (Plaintiff herein) due

process rights and equal protection of the law as found under the (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of

6

the Constitution of the United States?

f) Campbell filed a motion for leave to File an Amended Complaint that was not

only in violation of Florida Statute, the motion openly admitted to both the Court and the

Plaintiff that the single movant party named within the initial complaint lacked standing and the

capacity to sue in the Florida case action. The defending party (Plaintiff herein) contested the

movant party’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, by raising the issue the Florida court

lacked both Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction over the proceedings due to

Campbell’s admission and could not grant any such relief. The Florida court, during the

aforementioned hearing on the matter to amend stated, “your (Movant) motion is going to make

most of this stuff irrelevant” and the court then granted the motion without allowing defending

party (Plaintiff herein) to fully redress the issue. (See Telephonic Hearing Transcript Exhibit

13, page 4, line 18) The Constitutional question before this Court is how do Jurisdictional issues,

both Subject-matter and Personal become irrelevant to a Motion for Leave to Amend without it

denying the arguing party’s due process rights and equal protection of the law?

g) With Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan, ignoring countless number of Florida Statutes, including but not limited to, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 1.100(c)(1),

1.110(b), 1.120(a) & (b), 1.130(b), 1.140(b)(1), (3) & (5), 1.150 and 1.210(a), raised by the

Plaintiff and submitted within his multiple separate distinct Affirmative Defense Motion(s), with

attorney Campbell’s complaint and amended complaint with attachments being legal nullities, as

they were not in compliance with Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Rules 2.505(e) &

2.516 and decisional law that overwhelmingly support a court decision to Dismiss the case for

Lack of Standing and Capacity to sue, lack of Subject-matter” jurisdiction, Improper Venue and

Improper Service how are Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan not deprived of Subject-matter

7

jurisdiction and not deprived of Personal jurisdiction over defending party (Plaintiff herein).

How are Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan actions not denying and depriving the Plaintiff of his

due process rights and/or not depriving the Plaintiff of his rights to equal protection of the law as

found under the (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

18. This Court does have Subject Matter Jurisdiction with Statutory and Constitutional power to adjudicate over the Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C. §1331,

§1343(3) and (4) and §2201.

III. LITIGATION IMMUNITY/ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT EXIST

19. The Florida action commenced by attorney Campbell on behalf of the sole movant Von

Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchel the School Orlando (hereinafter Von Curtis) is fraudulent and a sham. By

Campbell filing a fraudulent instrument upon the Florida court, Campbell perpetrated fraud upon the

Florida court and is therefore subject to punitive damages for violating statutory law and the Florida Bar

Canons of Professional Conduct & Responsibility. The Florida court has no relevant procedural connection

to the action commenced as the following details:

a) Campbell openly admitted the sole movant Von Curtis lacked Standing and the

Capacity to Sue as the corporation is not a named party within the contract agreement in dispute.

Von Curtis in the Florida action cannot sue or be sued and therefore any Subject-matter before

the Florida court regarding Von Curtis as a movant in the Florida case action and based upon the

contract agreement in dispute is moot. Hence, since Von Curtis was the sole named movant in the

Florida case action, the Florida court lacks Subject-matter Jurisdiction.

b) Based upon the fact that Campbell filed the Von Curtis action in a Florida county

court of Improper Venue, Osceola County Florida court lacks Subject-matter Jurisdiction.

8

c) Campbell openly admitted the sole movant Von Curtis lacked Standing and the Capacity

to Sue as the corporation is not a named party within the contract agreement in dispute. Hence, since Von

Curtis was the sole named movant in the Florida case action and therefore has no legal right to sue or be

sued, the Florida court does not have Personal jurisdiction over the movant party Von Curtis.

d) The Florida court never had Personal jurisdiction over the defending party (Plaintiff

herein) in that matter as Process of Service was never effectuated and is defective.

e) Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have been ruling on matters before them in

the complete absence of all jurisdiction.

f). With Campbell knowingly and openly admitting to Von Curtis having a lack of

Standing and the Capacity to Sue, having filed the Florida action in an Improper county court Venue,

the Florida court would not and could not have jurisdiction over the Subject-matter before it.

g) Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan also would not and could not have Personal

jurisdiction over the sole movant Von Curtis. Logic would dictate, without Subject-matter or

Personal jurisdiction over the sole movant party Von Curtis, there is no procedural connection

between the Florida court and the sole movant Von Curtis in the Florida commenced action.

h) With the defending party (Plaintiff herein) not being properly served in the Florida

action, service being defective and a complete absence of a record of an Original Affidavit of

Personal or Mailing Service being filed with the court or the county court clerk’s office in Florida,

the Florida court would not have Personal jurisdiction over the defending party (Plaintiff herein).

Logic would dictate, without Personal jurisdiction over the defending party (Plaintiff herein), there

is no procedural connection between the Florida court and the defending party (Plaintiff herein) in

the Florida commenced action.

i) Without the Florida court having Subject-matter and Personal jurisdiction over the

9

parties in the Florida action, logic would dictate that there is no relevant procedural connection

between the Florida court and the parties and therefore there is no Absolute Immunity or Absolute

Privilege as found under doctrine.

IV. AS TO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

20. When a Judge knows that he/she lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid

state statutes and/or case law expressly depriving him/her of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.

21. Because they are unable to address the issues concerning Subject-matter jurisdiction and

Personal jurisdiction raised by Plaintiff, Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to demonstrate that

they have both Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction in the Florida matter. This is because

they clearly know they are acting in complete absence of Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal

jurisdiction. Any Judiciary ruling in the complete absence of all jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.

V. BACKGROUND – CONTRACT FORMATION, PERFORMANCE & FRAUDULENT

FLORIDA ACTION COMMENCED BY THE DEFENDANT(S)

22. Plaintiff was commissioned, April of 2012, by Giulio Veglio (hereinafter Giulio)

representing Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo, to perform Low Voltage Engineering Consultant work

regarding the relocation of the original school located at 1271 Semoran Blvd., Suite 131 Casselberry,

Florida 32707 whose location was in Seminole County Florida.

23. In May of 2012, Giulio requested of the Plaintiff to prepare, after weeks of design planning

and consulting with the Plaintiff, an Engineering Prospectus for potential contract bids to be placed on the

table regarding the redesign and relocation of the Low Voltage System Design of the new school location,

located at the Oveido Mall – 1700 Market Place Blvd., Suite 1120, Oviedo, Florida 32765 whose location

is in Seminole County Florida. A later fixed postal address for the new school became Paul Mitchell the

10

School Oviedo, 1285 Oviedo Mall Blvd., Oviedo, Florida 32765 whose location is in Seminole County

Florida. Upon information and belief, the project was placed out for multiple bids and the Plaintiff was

invited along with (4) four other bidding companies to place a bid. Plaintiff responded to the offer and

placed a bid offer personally with Giulio on or about July 12th, 2012 by e-mail. Giulio accepted the

Plaintiff’s bid package and stated to the Plaintiff that he was forwarding it to his partners for final

approval. Giulio altered the Plaintiff’s proposed bid without consulting him and sent it to his corporate

partners for approval, sending a CC copy of his correspondence to his corporate partners with $35,000.00

in unauthorized alterations, to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff, after careful consideration, withdrew his bid, on July

20th, 2012 because of the unauthorized alterations in his bid. Giulio subsequently, for two days following the withdrawal, left threatening voice mails and texts messages on the Plaintiff’s cellphone. Threatening to

ruin the Plaintiff’s business and threaten physical violence against the Plaintiff. On the third subsequent

day, July 23rd, 2012, Giulio sent multiple text messages, e-mails and voice mails to the Plaintiff asking him

to forgive him for his rants, outbursts and threats. Giulio plead with the Plaintiff to work-up another

proposal that would save him from having to place the project on hold, as he was already committed to the

construction start in June of 2012 with the General Contractor – MW Mitchell, Inc. The Plaintiff spoke

with Giulio in person, at his corporate residence, located at 426 State Street, Apt. #4002, Schenectady,

New York 12305, at 4:00 PM on July 24th, 2012 and a mutual agreement of a Bare Bones Design was

accepted between the parties that included only what was represented in the contract before this Court. A

strict warning was issued to Giulio that nothing more could be added to the contract without compensation

for any additions (Change Orders), being paid for upfront in full and all payments per the Contract

agreement had to be made on time as there was a zero tolerance margin to work with for any delays of

such. This clause is found within the “Contract Agreement” before the Court. The party’s contract

agreement was drafted the same day by the Plaintiff and presented to Giulio by way of e-mail. Giulio

11

accepted the draft and requested a 6pm meeting on July 27th, 2012 at the Paul Mitchell the School

Schenectady, located at 411 State Street, Schenectady 12305. Giulio, Giuseppe Veglio - Giulio’s

brother/business partner with the aforementioned school, Giulio’s IT Specialist – Bashwa “Shaker”

Shamshabad of Innosoul, Inc. and Plaintiff were present for the meeting that took place at 7:12 PM in the

schools teacher conference room. Originals of the contract were presented to Giulio and minor changes

were referenced by Giulio as needing to be made. To be specific, the name(s) on the contract were to be

“Giulio Veglio representing P.M. Veglio, LLC d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Oveido” and that John Paul

Dejoria for Paul Mitchell Systems and Winn C. Claybaugh were not to be signing the agreement per their

request. Giulio claimed he would be the sole representing party as he is the Registered Agent for the

school. The parties reviewed the draft contract and did so line by line. Equipment lists were reviewed and

explained. The Plaintiff agreed specifically to provide a new original of the contract reflecting said

changes and would do so by e-mail that night. Giulio offered to sign the existing copy of the contract

agreement and provide a private check for the deposit until the original was signed on July 31st, 2012.

Plaintiff accepted the check on the terms that it would not be deposited until the day of the signing.

Subsequently, Giulio had (4) four days to review the new contract that was sent via e-mail to him the night

of July 27th, 2012. Giulio and the Plaintiff entered into and signed the Contract Agreement on July 31st,

2012 in the Dean’s office of the Paul Mitchell the School Schenectady. Giulio asked that the check be returned to him that same day and time. Offering to the Plaintiff to have the deposit wired into the

Plaintiff’s business account so as to not delay the placing of purchase order deposits on equipment needed

for the project. Plaintiff agreed and stipulated that it may take up to 21 business days to obtain some of the

custom orders and that the start time may be delayed to the 24th of August. This was because the Plaintiff

was transporting the purchases by way of his company trailer and it would take (3) three days to get to

Oviedo, Florida. Giulio agreed to this and the agreement was ratified.

12

24. Plaintiff arrived at the Oviedo Mall site and work commenced on August 24th, 2012 and

went to November 2nd, 2012. During said period of time, Giulio breached the contract agreement more

than (52) times as stated and specifically detailed within the Plaintiff’s Federal Lawsuit dated March 25th,

2013 (see Exhibit 54). Giulio was warned numerous times that he had made specific changes and

“Change Orders” were drafted reflecting such. Giulio insisted the changes were necessary and the Plaintiff

was to submit the “Change Orders” for his signature and payment. The Plaintiff submitted numerous

“Change Orders” for Giulio to sign and pay. Giulio held on to the “Change Order Invoices” and

subsequently withheld his signature from them. The Plaintiff requested that the “Change Orders” be paid

immediately as monies from the original contract were being consumed by the numerous new changes

demanded by Giulio. The warnings fell on deaf ears and the Plaintiff suspended work on the remaining

portions of the contract on December 12th, 2012 after the Plaintiff sent invoices requesting and offering a partial payment arrangement for outstanding invoices in order to complete the remaining contracted work.

Giulio refused on the grounds that the original work had not been completed. The Plaintiff explained to

Giulio that he had been in breach of the contract for quite some time and that Giulio was responsible for

any completion delays per the “Indemnity Clause” in the contract agreement.

25. Giulio’s response to the Plaintiff’s offer was made clear on December 27th, 2012 when the Plaintiff, by way of defective Substitute Service that was served upon a family member of the Plaintiff, received a fraudulent

“Summons and Complaint”. The named plaintiff was Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando

(hereinafter Von Curtis), a party that was not a named party or an authorized assigned party to the Contract Agreement

dated July 31st, 2012. The Summons and Complaint did not have the Florida Mandate required initials of the Process

Server, the Server’s ID Number or the date and time of service on the first page. The Process Server never mailed a true

copy to the last known address of the named defending party (Plaintiff herein) as mandated by Florida Statute, §48.031

& §48.194 and N.Y.S. CPLR §308 for substitute service. Thus service was never effectuated as mandated under

13

Florida or New York State law. The Defendant named within the Documents was “Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu Visions

Entertainment Productions. No such company was a party to the Contract Agreement. The court of filing was the 9th

Circuit Court – Civil Division Osceola County. Which by Florida Statute was the wrong venue as “Von Curtis, Inc.” is

registered by the Florida Department of State as being located in Seminole County Florida. The Court should duly

note all consultant work, the purchase of materials and work performance per the Contract Agreement were either done

in New York State (outside the State of Florida) or in Seminole County Florida.

26. The defending party (Plaintiff herein) subsequently filed with the Florida court, (2) two

motions alleging the Florida court’s lack of Subject-matter and Personal jurisdiction plus a preponderance of

evidence submitted in support by the defending party (Plaintiff herein) that proved Von Curtis lacked

Standing and the Capacity Sue. The motions, Motion for Summary Judgment, dated February 6th, 2013 and

Motion to Dismiss Complaint, dated April 3rd, 2013 both requested relief to have the action dismissed, as detailed and exhibited within. Telephonic Hearing proceeding(s) took place, on April 1st, 2012 and June 11th,

2012, respective to the motion(s) submitted. The defending party (Plaintiff herein) made both written and

oral argument against the Von Curtis complaint and each of the defending party’s (Plaintiff herein) motions

were dismissed without court explanation or a clear demonstration of the decision on the matter(s) and

Orders rendered in the same manner.

27. During the April 1st, 2013 Telephonic Hearing, Judge Polodna granted Campbell’s “Leave to Amend the Complaint” even after the attorney by way of his motion admitted, “By error, the

incorrect plaintiff was listed in the pleadings and the correct plaintiff should be listed instead” and in oral

testimony stated, “And I apologize to Mr. Dudla and to the Court for the error that took place on that. I don’t

think there is any question though based upon the contract or the attachment’s, even Mr. Dudla’s Motion for Summary Judgment the correct name of the Plaintiff is the LLC, Limited Liability Corporation that is on

the contract and it is to that I seek to amend the complaint” reciting such as Von Curtis’ reasons for the

14

relief requested. The defending party (Plaintiff herein) emphatically objected to the decision of Judge

Polodna. Judge Polodna clearly ignored his objections, even though the attorney Campbell had openly

admitted that Von Curtis was the wrong plaintiff and had now demonstrated that the sole movant to the

action, Von Curtis lacked Standing and Capacity to Sue. That during the April 1st, 2013 proceedings

Judge Polodna specifically stated that he had not taken authority over the matter. This would indicate

that Judge Polodna had not taken jurisdiction over the matter, had no authority to rule on the matter and

that Judge Polodna was making rulings in the absence of Jurisdiction.

28. The Plaintiff in this instant Action filed his U.S. District Court, Northern New York

Action on March 25th, 2012 against Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando, P.M.

Veglio d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo and Giulio Veglio. This was prior to the April 1st, 2013

Telephonic Hearing, the date Judge Polodna claimed he had not taken authority over the Von Curtis

action. After being raised as a contested issue by the defending party (Plaintiff herein) Judge Polodna

refused to state or demonstrate on what grounds the judge had Subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues

before the court and Personal jurisdiction over the defending party (Plaintiff herein) to the action in

Florida. Since the Florida Court lacked Subject-matter and Personal jurisdiction over the defending party

(Plaintiff herein) the Florida case should have been deemed a nullity and based upon the

aforementioned, this Federal Court has primary and original jurisdiction over this instant action. VI. STATEMENTS OF FACT

29. That on July 31st, 2012 a contract agreement was freely entered into and executed at 411 State Street, Schenectady in the State of New York by and between the “Client” Giulio Veglio,

individually and representing P.M. Veglio d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Oveido, whose principle place

of business address is or was 1700 Oviedo Market Place Blvd, Suite 1120, Oviedo, Florida 32765

15

located in Seminole County and the “Contractor” Shawn P. Dudla d/b/a Nu Visions Enterprises, P.O.

Box 1227, Clifton Park, New York 12065-0804.

30. That a majority of all consultant work, project materials purchased and work performance

was rendered within the state of New York with exception of the final work product being installed into

the aforementioned “Clients” principle place of business address located at 1700 Oviedo Market Place

Blvd, Suite 1120, Oviedo, Florida 32765 located in Seminole County Florida.

31. That a dispute between the aforementioned parties arose regarding non-payment of

service(s) rendered and work product(s) supplied that were outside of the scope of the original contract

agreement (hereinafter Change Order Invoices). The “Contractor” suspended the remainder of the

installation in the Oviedo Mall until a small portion of the outstanding balance was paid. The “Client”

refused to make this payment.

32. That on December 27th, 2012 attorney Campbell filed a Summons and Complaint against a defending party not named on the aforementioned contract agreement and on behalf of a movant not

named on the aforementioned contract agreement.

33. A family member, pursuant to Florida Statutes, was improperly served the Summons and

Complaint on or about January 17th, 2013 and Plaintiff was not personally served nor was there ever

service by way of mailing of the Summons and Complaint.

34. That from the date of February 5th, 2013, the date the Plaintiff filed his first motion to dismiss,

to the present date of this Complaint, the Plaintiff has filed (20) twenty distinct and separate pleadings to the

Florida court that prolifically demonstrate the Florida Osceola County court did not have Subject-matter

jurisdiction due in part the sole named movant did not have standing or capacity to sue, the Osceola county

court was an improper venue for the action and the court did not have Personal jurisdiction over the defending

party (Plaintiff herein). That because there was improper service of the initial first pleading on behalf of the

16

movant, pursuant to Florida Statute, attorney Campbell was not the “Attorney of Record”.

35. That each and every pleading submitted by the Plaintiff regarding this matter was never

refuted by Campbell by way of any written response or reply prior to the hearings on these pleadings

and there is no record or posting of such filed with the Osceola County Clerk’s Office as clearly

demonstrated on their “Case Detail Summary” report on file with the Osceola County Clerk’s Office.

36. That each and every pleading submitted by the Plaintiff regarding this matter was never refuted

by Campbell by way of any written response or reply prior to the hearings on these pleadings and upon

information and belief there are none recorded on file with the offices of Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan.

37. That a Federal Verified Diversity of Citizenship Complaint was filed by the Plaintiff with

the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on March 25th, 2013 that named

P.M. Veglio, LLC d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo, Giulio Veglio and Von Curtis Inc. d/b/a Paul

Mitchell the School Orlando (see Exhibit 54) that contained similar issues found in the Florida civil

action and was filed before the April 1st, 2013 hearing and before the granting of the Florida movant’s

“Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint”. The Plaintiff’s Federal filing prohibits the Florida sole

movant, Von Curtis, from amending the initial complaint to add the aforementioned parties to the

movant’s Amended Complaint as there are proceedings pending against these parties in New York State

for comparable issues and this would cause conflict with the New York State Federal Complaint. The

Plaintiff’s Federal filing is also better than (3) three weeks prior to the filing of the movant’s Florida

Amended Complaint with the Florida court which was filed in violation of Florida Law and in violation

of the court order that granted the motion to amend.

38. That at all times during the Florida proceedings upon which this Federal suit is based, the

Plaintiff was a resident of New York State and was not in the State of Florida for any of the proceedings

in the matter before the Florida Court.

17

39. That during the Florida State proceedings Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan were acting in

the complete absence of both Subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues and Personal jurisdiction over

the Plaintiff as there is Florida State Statute and/or case law that expressly deprived them of either

and/or both subject matter jurisdiction and/or personal jurisdiction as will be fully documented below.

40. That within all papers submitted by the Plaintiff before the Florida court, Plaintiff

consistently raised the issues that Judge Polodna and subsequently Judge Jordan lacked both Subject-

matter jurisdiction of the issues and Personal jurisdiction over him.

41. The Plaintiff has demanded numerous times that both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan

demonstrate that they have Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and they

both have refused to do so numerous times.

- AS AND FOR FIRST CAUSE FOR ACTION –

THE PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATED

42. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

paragraphs 1 through 41 as though fully stated herein.

43. That at all times during the Florida proceedings upon which this Federal suit is based, the

Plaintiff was a resident of New York State and was not in the State of Florida and never appeared

personally or by legal representation for any of the proceedings in the matter before the Florida Court.

44. That during the Florida State proceeding Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan were acting in

the complete absence of both Subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues and Personal jurisdiction over

the Plaintiff as there is Florida State Statute and/or case law that expressly deprived them of either

and/or both Subject-matter jurisdiction and/or Personal jurisdiction as will be fully documented below.

45. In all of the Plaintiff's papers before the Florida Court, Plaintiff consistently raised the

issues that Judge Polodna and subsequently Judge Jordan lacked both subject matter jurisdiction of the

18

issues and personal jurisdiction over him.

46. Campbell and CBS were never authorized under Florida law to represent Von Curtis,

Inc., P.M. Veglio LLC and Giulio Veglio during the court proceedings or to file any pleading in the

Florida matter as Campbell and CBS did not comply with Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule

2.505 Attorneys which states:

(e) Appearance of Attorney. An attorney may appear in a proceeding in any of the following ways: (1) By serving and filing, on behalf of a party, the party’s first pleading or paper in the proceeding.

47. The Plaintiff argued in all of his court pleadings that he was not properly served the

Summons and Complaint dated December 27, 2012, the Alias Summons and Amended Complaint dated

April 17, 2013 and that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him as he was not properly served as

required by Florida statute. The statute clearly requires both serving and filing of the summons and

complaint in order for Campbell and CBS to appear as an attorney of record. Campbell failed to do so

with both the Summons and Complaint and the alias Summons and Amended Complaint and therefore,

Campbell could not represent Von Curtis, Inc., P.M. Veglio LLC and Giulio Veglio during the court

proceedings or file any pleading in the Florida matter on their behalf as he was never authorized under

Florida law to represent them.

A copy of the Summons & Complaint is annexed as Exhibit 1 and the Alias Summons & Amended Complaint is annexed as Exhibit 2 and herein made part of.

48. Service of process was never effectuated by Campbell and CBS and therefore, Campbell

and CBS did not meet the Florida statutory requirements of appearance to be the "attorney of record", in

the matter and the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff for the following reasons:

a. Campbell never filed with the court and never served upon the Plaintiff and never

filed with the court his notice of appearance in the alternative of serving and filing of the

summons and complaint.

19

b. Campbell never served and never filed the “Complaint” with a signed “Certificate

of Service” in violation of Fla. R. Jud. P. 2.516(f). This alone makes service improper and a nullity.

c. The process server’s “Return of Service Form” and an “Affidavit of Service” was

never filed with Court Clerk’s Office in violation of Florida Statute 48.031(5). This also alone

makes service improper and a nullity.

A copy of Court Clerk’s Office Detail Summary Sheet annexed as Exhibit 3 and herein is made part of.

d. As substituted service was performed for the service of Campbell’s first initial

pleading, the Summons and Complaint dated December 27th, 2012, the Plaintiff was never

served by mail a copy of the summons and complaint as required by Florida law and New York

State Law in direct violation of Statute.

e. Service did not comply with Florida Chapter 48, Civil Practice and Procedure,

Process and Service of Process, §48.031 Service of process generally; service of witness subpoenas.

(5) A person serving process shall place, on the copy served, the date and time of service and his or her identification number and initials for all service of process.

f. Date and time of service was missing on the summons and complaint, the server's

initials were missing and the process server's identification number was missing.

g. Service did not comply with Section 48.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which sets

forth the requirements for service of process, it provides:

(1)(a) Service of original process is made by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition, or other initial pleading or paper or by leaving the copies at his or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents.

h. The server did not inform the person they served of the papers contents.

i. Service did not comply with Florida Chapter 48.194 Personal service outside state.

(1) Except as otherwise provided herein, service of process on persons outside of this state shall be made in the same manner as service within this state by any officer authorized to serve process in the state where the person is served. No order of court is

20

required. An affidavit of the officer shall be filed, stating the time, manner, and place of service. The court may consider the affidavit, or any other competent evidence, in determining whether service has been properly made. Service of process on persons outside the United States may be required to conform to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

j. Plaintiff raised in his papers before the court that the person who was served was

not informed of the contents of the papers and that the papers failed to state the date, time of

service, the server's identification number and initials. Even the Alias Summons and Amended

Complaint failed to state a full date, server's identification number and the server did not inform

the person served of the contents.

k. As the strict requirements for service was not met, Campbell and CBS did not

meet the requirement of serving the papers on Plaintiff as required by Florida statute.

l. As the strict requirements for service was not met, the Court did not obtain

personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.

49. As Plaintiff was not properly served and Campbell never filed in the alternative a “Notice

of Appearance” as required by Florida statute, Campbell did not meet the requirement to make him and

CBS the "attorney of record".

50. As Campbell never properly served the summons and complaint, he had no authority to

submit to the court his motion to amend complaint.

51. As the summons and complaint were not properly served, Judge Polodna never acquired Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and had no authority to grant Campbell's motion to amend complaint.

52. Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule 2.505 (d), (e) & (h) requires every pleading

and other paper of a party represented by an attorney to be signed by at least one "Attorney of Record".

The record is devoid of any documentation that Campbell and CBS complied with Florida Rules of

Judicial Administration, Rule 2.505 and that Campbell is an “Attorney of Record” in the matter.

53. All of Campbell's motions and/or pleadings, including but not limited to, complaint,

21

motion to amend complaint, amended complaint, motion to compel, motion for order to show cause and

motion for sanctions should all have been struck from the record by Judge Jordan because they were all

signed and filed by Campbell who was not an "Attorney of Record" at the time the pleadings were made

which renders the noncompliant pleadings by Campbell and CBS a legal nullity.

54. That Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan conspired with or colluded with Campbell to

ignore the facts that the Plaintiff was not properly served as required by Florida Law and they knew

Campbell had no authority to file any pleading with the court as the Plaintiff was not properly served

and Campbell was not the “Attorney of Record”.

55. Judge Polodna and Campbell conspired or colluded to ignore the fact that Campbell

violated Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule 2.505 Attorneys:

(e) Appearance of Attorney. An attorney may appear in a proceeding in any of the following ways:

(1) By serving and filing, on behalf of a party, the party’s first pleading or paper in the proceeding.

56. Judge Polodna, Judge Jordan and Campbell knew Rule 2.505(e) requires every pleading

and other paper of a party represented by an attorney to be signed by at least one "Attorney of Record".

57. Both Judge Polodna and Campbell knew that an attorney has the authority to act on

behalf of a client only if that attorney is the “Attorney of Record”. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.505(h). To

be the attorney of record, the attorney must serve and file a first pleading on behalf of the client, file a notice of appearance, or act as substitution counsel with the consent of both the client and the court. See

Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.505(e). If an attorney is not the “Attorney of Record”, he lacks authority to act on

behalf of a party in court proceedings.

58. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that all pleadings made and filed by

Campbell are a nullity as Campbell was not the “Attorney of Record” for the reasons stated above and

for the following reason:

22

a. The Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule 2.505(e) requires both serving and filing of the

Summons and Complaint, dated December 27th, 2012, in order for Campbell to appear as

the “Attorney of Record”. Campbell failed to do so with the Summons and Complaint and

therefore, Campbell could not represent Von Curtis, Inc. during the Court proceedings or

file any pleading in the Florida matter on Von Curtis, Inc.'s behalf as he was never

authorized under Florida law to represent Von Curtis, Inc.

59. Judge Polodna, Judge Jordan and Campbell knew that Campbell was not the "Attorney of

Record" as service was never effectuated pursuant to Florida statute and they knew that there was case

law to this effect.

Strict adherence to Rule 2.505(e) is required, as “the parties and the court must know with whom they must deal.” Pasco County v. Quail Hollow Props. Inc., 693 So.2d 82 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997).

60. Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that Campbell never served the complaint with a

"Certificate of Service", knew that no affidavits of service were filed with the court and knew Campbell

never filed a “Notice of Appearance” with the Court. Therefore, Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew

that Campbell was not an "Attorney of Record" and upon information and belief conspired with or

colluded with Campbell to cover up this fact.

61. That as both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that Campbell did not properly serve

the summons and complaint they knew they lacked Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.

62. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that there was case law that expressly

deprived each of them of Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and therefore, they knew they had no

authority or jurisdiction to continue and they continued to act in complete absence of all jurisdiction as there

is both case law and state statute that expressly deprived them of Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.

a. It is axiomatic, that a judgment entered without due service of process is void. N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 960 So.2d 810, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Dor Cha, Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 876 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Falkner v.

23

Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 489 So.2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Moreover, where a judgment is void due to defective service, the party seeking to vacate such a judgment need not show any other basis for vacating the judgment. Willoughby v. Seese Realty Inc., 421 So.2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

b. “Without proper service, a court may not proceed in the matter.” Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions, Co., 969 So.2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)

c. "A summons properly issued and served is the method by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant." (Citing Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Florida Practice and Procedure § 8:20 (2007 ed.)).

d. "It is well settled that the fundamental purpose of service is to give proper notice to the defendant in the case that he is answerable to the claim of plaintiff and, therefore, to vest jurisdiction in the court entertaining the controversy." Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 2001) (quoting State ex rel. Merritt v. Heffernan, 195 So. 145, 147 (Fla. 1940)).

e. “Strict construction of, and compliance with, statutes governing service of process is required.” Shurman v. Atl. Mortgage & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 2001).

f. “Strict compliance with the statutory provisions governing service of process is required in order to obtain jurisdiction over a party.” See Schupak v. Sutton Hill Assocs., 710 So.2d 707, 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); and Sierra Holding, Inc. v. Inn Keepers Supply Co., 464 So.2d 652, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Baraban v. Sussman, 439 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)

g. “Jose Vidal appeals from a non-final order denying his motion to quash service of process. He claims that service was defective because the process server failed to note the time of service on the copy of the complaint served. Because the requirement to note the time on a copy of the complaint is a statutory requirement of service, and strict compliance with statutory requirements of service is mandated, we conclude that failure to note the time of service renders the service defective.” Vidal v. Suntrust Bank, 41 So.3d 401 (Fla. App., 2010).

63. That based upon the above documentation, both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are

incapable of demonstrating that they had Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff in the Florida matter. If

they were capable of doing so, they would have done so.

64. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to address the issue of Personal

jurisdiction as they were both fully aware that they were acting in complete absence of all jurisdiction as

they did not have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.

24

65. That on July 31st, 2012 Plaintiff entered into a contract with P.M. Veglio, L.L.C. - d/b/a

Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo and Giulio Veglio in Schenectady, New York with Giulio Veglio

signing the contract for work to be done at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard, Oviedo, Florida 32765.

A copy of the Contract in Dispute is annexed as Exhibit 4 and herein made part of.

66. That Oviedo, Florida is located in Seminole County Florida and not Osceola County as

claimed by Campbell.

Geographic Documentation is annexed as Exhibit 5 and herein made part of.

67. Campbell filed a complaint dated December 27th, 2012 against Shawn Dudla - d/b/a Nu

Visions Entertainment Productions on behalf of Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando

(Von Curtis, Inc.) claiming a breach of contract. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the contract

Plaintiff had with P.M. Veglio, LLC. and Giulio Veglio. The complaint (See Exhibit 1) stated:

“2. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard, Oviedo, Florida 32765.”

“3. Defendant is an individual operating a business from New York but doing substantial business in Florida, although he is not authorized by law to do so either as an individual or under a fictitious name.”

“6. Venue of this action is proper in Osceola County in that the contract was formed in Osceola County, the performance and breach of the contract occurred in Osceola County and the damages to Plaintiff occurred in Osceola County, Florida.”

“7. Von Curtis has performed all conditions precedent to this action being filed, or, in the alternative, such conditions precedent have occurred or have been waived.”

68. Pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 47, §47.011 - Where actions may be begun:

Actions shall be brought only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located. This section shall not apply to actions against nonresidents.

69. Pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 47, §47.025 – Actions against Contractors:

... To the extent that the venue provision in the contract is void under this section, any legal action arising out of that contract shall be brought only in this state in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located, unless, after the dispute arises, the parties stipulate to another venue.

25

70. Von Curtis, Inc. address was stated in the Complaint as 1700 Oviedo Marketplace

Boulevard, Oviedo, Florida 32765 which is in Seminole County. Plaintiff's address is in New York

State. Neither party has an address in Osceola County. In violation of FRCP 1.130 no documentation

was attached to the Complaint or the Amended Complaint to support these allegations by Campbell that

this matter may be heard in Osceola County.

71. The complaint states:

“6. Venue of this action is proper in Osceola County in that the contract was formed in Osceola County, the performance and breach of the contract occurred in Osceola County and the damages to Plaintiff occurred in Osceola County, Florida.”

72. The contract was signed in Schenectady, New York by Giulio Veglio and Shawn Dudla,

not in Osceola County as claimed by Campbell. In violation of FRCP 1.130, no documentation was

attached to the Complaint or the Amended Complaint to support Campbell's allegation that the contract

was signed in Osceola County.

73. No work was done by the Plaintiff in Osceola County as the Contract clearly states the work

was to be done at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard, Oviedo, Florida 32765 which is in Seminole

County. Campbell does not state or substantiate any physical address in Osceola County where any work

was performed by the Plaintiff because no work was done in Osceola County. All work was performed in

Seminole County. In violation of FRCP 1.130, no documentation was attached to the Complaint or the

Amended Complaint to support this allegation by Campbell that work was done in Osceola County.

74. Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have conspired and/or have colluded with Campbell to

ignore the fact that the complaint was signed in Schenectady, New York and that no work was done in

Osceola County as they have refused to address these issues and have refused to have an evidentiary

hearing concerning this even though the Plaintiff was entitled to an evidentiary meeting.

75. Von Curtis, Inc. could not have performed all conditions precedent to the filing of the Florida

26

action as Von Curtis, Inc. is not a party to the Contract and was not mentioned in the contract in dispute.

76. Von Curtis, Inc. was never a party to the contact in dispute and is not even mentioned in

the contract in dispute. Plaintiff had no knowledge of Von Curtis, Inc. until Campbell filed Von Curtis,

Inc.'s suit against him for allegedly breaching the contract with P.M. Veglio, L.L.C. and Giulio Veglio

while claiming Plaintiff had the contract with Von Curtis, Inc.

77. Plaintiff filed an Affidavit in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss the

Complaint and raised several issues, including but not limited to the court's lack of Subject-matter

jurisdiction, Personal jurisdiction and improper venue which were completely ignored by Judge Polodna and

Judge Jordan. Further, Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to allow Plaintiff to have an evidentiary

hearing concerning these issues even though they are mandated by Florida statute or case law to do so.

A copy of the Motion and Affidavit is annexed as Exhibit 6 and herein made part of.

78. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that Von Curtis, Inc. lacked standing and

capacity to sue as Von Curtis, Inc. was not a party to the contract in dispute, was not mentioned in the

contract in dispute and Campbell provided no documentation to the court that Von Curtis, Inc. had both

standing and capacity to sue and was entitled to sue the Plaintiff.

79. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are incapable of demonstrating that Von Curtis,

Inc. had either or both standing and the capacity to sue and this is the reason why they have refused to

address this issue.

80. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are incapable of demonstrating that the complaint

was filed in the correct venue and this is the reason they have refused to address this issue or have an

evidentiary hearing concerning venue.

81. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew they lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction over

the issues in the Complaint for the following reasons.

27

a. That Von Curtis, Inc. lacked standing and capacity to sue as Von Curtis, Inc. was

not a party to the Contract in dispute and no documentation was provided to the court documenting

that Von Curtis, Inc. had any interest in the Contract in dispute.

b. The Complaint was filed in the wrong county venue as none of the parties reside

in Osceola County. Von Curtis, Inc. had an address of Oviedo, Florida which is in Seminole

County and Plaintiff is located in New York.

c. All work performed by Plaintiff was performed in Oviedo, Florida located in

Seminole County and therefore the alleged injury or injuries did not accrue in Osceola County.

Therefore, the complaint was filed in the wrong county venue.

d. Campbell never filed the “Complaint” with a signed “Certificate of Service” in

violation of Fla. R. Jud. P. 2.516(f), a signed "Certificate of E-mail Address" and violated Fla. R.

Jud. Admin. Rule 2.505 attorneys Notice of Appearance that makes the complaint a legal nullity.

e. The contact in dispute had a indemnification clause in it which prohibited P.M. Veglio,

LLC and Giulio Veglio from suing the Plaintiff if money was owed for services rendered, work

performed and product purchases received outside the scope of the contract in dispute. Campbell

openly admitted in both Complaint and Amended Complaint that money was owed to Plaintiff.

82. The contact in dispute had an indemnification clause which states:

ADDENDUM - F Additional Terms and Conditions

6. ANY BALANCE NOT PAID AS AGREED, THE CLIENT SHALL, INDEMNIFY

AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CONTRACTOR, HIS AFFILIATE(S) OR ASSOCIATE(S) AND EMPLOYEES BY HEREBY WAIVING ANY RIGHT TO DAMAGES, LEGAL OR OTHERWISE THAT MAY INCUR AND WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DELAY(S) IN THE PROJECTS COMPLETION SCHEDULE AS A RESULT OF ANY SUCH BREACH IN THE AGREEMENT.

8. THE GUARANTEE IS VOID:

A. IF FULL PAYMENT IS NOT MADE ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT.

28

B. IF REPAIRS OR ALTERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE OR ATTEMPTED ON ANY GUARANTEED ITEMS BY ANYONE OTHER THAN CONTRACTOR.

83. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that the Indemnification Clause of the

Contract in dispute prevented the Plaintiff from being sued by Von Curtis, Inc. P.M. Veglio LLC and

Giulio Veglio as there was case law to this effect which deprived them of Subject-matter jurisdiction

which they completely ignored.

“Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other and is allowable only where the whole fault is in the one against whom indemnity is sought.” Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards,4 So.2d 490, 492–93 (Fla.1979)”

84. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew they lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction over

the Amended Complaint for the same reasons that they lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction over the

Complaint as stated above.

85. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan lacked Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff

concerning the Amended Complaint on behalf of P.M. Veglio, LLC and Giulio Veglio (not mentioned in

the motion to amend complaint) as the alias Summons and Amended Complaint were not served as

required by FRCP Rule 1.070 PROCESS, Florida Statute 48.031(5) and 48.194 for the following reasons:

a. The alias Summons and Amended Complaint was improperly served on behalf of

Von Curtis, Inc., P.M. Veglio LLC and Giulio Veglio. There was no mention of P.M. Veglio LLC

or Giulio Veglio in the caption of the Alias Summons or Amended Complaint.

b. There was no mention of P.M. Veglio, LLC or Giulio Veglio on the affidavit of

service and therefore they bare no direct or indirect correlation to the Alias Summons and

Amended Complaint.

c. The plaintiff was not personally served, was improper substitute served in

violation of Florida Statute and substitute service was improperly made as there was no alias

summons and amended complaint mailed to him within the required 10 days of the court order.

29

Furthermore, no alias summons and amended complaint was properly filed with the court within

the 10 days of the court order as required.

d. The full date and the Server's ID No. was missing plus a brief explanation of the

contents was never provided to whom substitute served and Florida Statue was completely

violated on all original process of all copies served by way of mailing the Alias Summons and

Amended Complaint to the Plaintiff's last know address by the person making the service.

86. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan lacked Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff

concerning the Amended Complaint on behalf of P.M. Veglio, LLC and Giulio Veglio (not mentioned in

the motion to amend complaint) as the alias Summons and Amended Complaint were not served as

required by the court order granting the filing of the amended complaint. The court order required the

amended complaint to be filed and served within 10 days of the court order.

Copy of the 04-10-2013 court order is annexed as Exhibit 21 and herein is made part of.

a. The Amended Complaint was untimely as it was not properly filed with the court

within the 10 days of the court order as mandated and required by the court order granting the

motion to amend as it did not have an alias summons with it on the April 17th, 2013 date of filing

or provided with the Amended Complaint to the Plaintiff when served by mail from Campbell.

b. The Amended Complaint was not properly filed with the court until after the

Alias Summons was obtained from the court clerk’s office by Campbell on April 25th, 2013

which was well beyond the required 10 days to be filed pursuant to the court order granting the

motion to amend the complaint.

c. The improper substitute service of the Amended Complaint was not attempted

until April 29th, 2013 which was well beyond the mandated 10 day service requirement of the

court order that granted the motion to amend.

30

87. The Plaintiff in this instant Action filed in U.S. District Court, Northern New York

Action on March 25th, 2013 against Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando, P.M.

Veglio d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo and Giulio Veglio.

A copy of the Federal Complaint is annexed as Exhibit 54 and herein made part of.

a. The Federal suit was filed prior to the April 1st, 2013 court hearing where the

court granted Campbell his motion to amend and was prior to the Amended Complaint being

improperly filed and improperly served upon Plaintiff.

b. The Federal suit was also filed before the Court Order dated April 10th, 2013 was issued.

c. That the Plaintiff raised the issue of the filing of the Federal lawsuit in his June

4th, 2013 Supplemental Affidavit in Support of his Motion to Dismiss dated April 3rd, 2013 that

he submitted to the court. The Federal lawsuit filing was before the issuing of the court order

dated April 10th, 2013 and before the filing of the Amended Complaint.

A copy of the Supplemental Affidavit in Support dated 06-07-2013 is annexed as Exhibit 10 and herein made part of.

d. That it was improper for Campbell to file his Amended Complaint naming Giulio

Veglio and P.M. Veglio, LLC within the Florida action knowing full well that a Federal

proceeding had already been commenced in New York State that named Giulio Veglio and P.M.

Veglio, LLC as defendants within the Federal lawsuit concerning monies owed to the Plaintiff.

e. Judge Polodna, Judge Jordan and Campbell were fully aware the Plaintiff’s filing

of the Federal suit in New York was prior to the granting of Campbell’s motion to amend and the

filing of said amended complaint. They completely ignored this critical fact. They knew full well

that P.M. Veglio, LLC and Giulio Veglio could not be named to the Florida action as they were

already named in the Federal suit and the same and/or similar issues were already raised against

Federal Defendants P.M. Veglio, LLC and Giulio Veglio within the Plaintiff’s Federal suit.

31

e. Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to address this critical issue of the

Plaintiff’s Federal suit as it relates to the Florida matter and have placed themselves above the

Federal court.

88. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to address the issue of improper county

venue, Von Curtis, Inc.’s lack of standing and capacity to sue, the lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction and

Personal jurisdiction and have refused to allow the Plaintiff an evidentiary hearing on these issues even

though he raised such a request in pleadings, orally requested an evidentiary hearing and is entitled to one

under Florida Law. This is a deliberate denial of due process and equal protection of the law by both

judges who are acting in complete absence of Subject-matter and Personal jurisdiction.

89. Campbell's complaint and amended complaint fail to contain any verifiable and

substantiated facts to show that Von Curtis, Inc. has a right to or is entitled to enforce the contract in

dispute. Campbell never established that Von Curtis, Inc. has a sufficient interest in the contract in dispute.

As such, both the Complaint and Amended Complaint should have been dismissed as a legal nullity.

90. Campbell's complaint and amended complaint on behalf of Von Curtis, Inc. should have

been dismissed because, as both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew, Campbell failed to allege

capacity to sue pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, §1.110(b) and §1.120(a). “Capacity to sue”

is an absence or a legal disability which would deprive a party of the right to come into court. 59

Am.Jur.2d Parties, § 31, (1971).

91. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew “standing” which requires that a party have a

sufficient interest in the outcome of litigation to warrant the court's consideration of its’ position.

Campbell presented absolutely no documentation to the court that Von Curtis, Inc. had any interest in

the outcome of the litigation, let alone, a sufficient interest.

92. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that there was case law that expressly deprived

32

them of Subject-matter jurisdiction and as such, had no authority to continue with the proceeding. The

following case law deprived them of jurisdiction which they both ignored.

The Florida Supreme Court stated that the "determination of standing to sue concerns a Court's exercise of [subject matter] jurisdiction to hear and decide the cause pled by the parties." Rogers & Ford Constr. Corp. v. Carlandia Corp., 626 So.2d 1350, 1352 (Fla.1993) The jurisdictional question can be raised at any time and can never be time- barred. DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1984).

“Standing has been equated with jurisdiction of the subject matter of litigation and has been held subject to the same rules, one of which is that jurisdiction of the subject matter (thus standing to bring suit) cannot be conferred by consent.” Askew v. Hold the Bulkhead Save Our Bays, Inc., 269 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); (See also Silver Star Citizen's Committee v. City Council of Orlando, 194 So.2d 681, 682 (Fla.4th DCA1967)). Standing requires that the party prosecuting the action have a sufficient stake in the outcome and that the party bringing the claim be recognized in the law as being a real party in interest entitled to bring the claim.

93. In both the Complaint and Amended Complaint Campbell states that Von Curtis, Inc. is a

foreign corporation and has its principal place of business at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard,

Oviedo Florida 32765.

a. Campbell fails to state that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the

United States of America, he does not state in which state of the United States of America, if

any, Von Curtis, Inc. was incorporated. He does not state whether Von Curtis, Inc. is authorized

to do business in the State of Florida.

b. Campbell has not alleged in what capacity Von Curtis, Inc. is suing the Plaintiff as

Von Curtis, Inc. was not a party to the contract in dispute or mentioned in the contract in dispute.

94. Campbell in the Amended Complaint (See Exhibit 2) states:

“3. P.M. Veglio, L.L.C. is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Osceola County, Florida.”

“4. Plaintiff Giulio Veglio is an individual living in Florida and working in Osceola County, Florida.”

95. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that Campbell's statements are insufficient in

33

law as they fail to meet the requirement of Florida law as follows:

a. Campbell fails to state any address for P.M. Veglio, LLC or Giulio Veglio in

Osceola County and fails to state the principal place of business for P.M. Veglio, LLC as he

knew it was in Altamonte Springs, Florida which is in Seminole County. Campbell knew that

P.M. Veglio, LLC and Giulio Veglio did not reside in Osceola County.

b. Campbell fails to state exactly what the business is that P.M. Veglio LLC does in

Osceola County.

c. Campbell claims that Giulio Veglio lives in Florida, but conveniently fails to state

his address in Florida.

d. Campbell states that Giulio Veglio works in Osceola County but fails to state exactly

what type of work he does in Osceola County and where exactly he works in Osceola County.

96. Campbell has been able to cover this up with the help of Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan

who are acting in complete absence of Subject-matter and Personal jurisdiction.

97. In the Federal suit titled Shawn Dudla - d/b/a Nu Visions Enterprises v. P.M. Veglio,

LLC - d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo, Von Curtis, Inc. - d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

Giulio Veglio and Winn C. Claybaugh, Civil Case No.: 13-CV-0333, their attorney, Maria C. Tebano,

filed a Verified Answer stating:

“2. ADMIT that part of the allegations contained in paragraph enumerated "2" that P.M. Veglio, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company that does business in Seminole County. ...”

“3. ADMIT that part of the allegations contained in paragraph enumerated "3" that Von Curtis, Inc. is a foreign corporation located in Seminole County; ...”

“4. ADMIT that part of the allegations contained in paragraph enumerated "4" that Giulio is a 50/50 owner of Paul Mitchell the School- Schenectady located at 411 State Street, Schenectady, New York 12305; that up until August of 2012, Giulio resided at 800 Spring Valley Road, Altamonte Springs Florida 32714; and that there is an Exhibit 3 attached to the Amended Verified Complaint...”

34

“7. ADMIT that part of the allegations contained in paragraph enumerated "14" Plaintiff was hired by Giulio representing Paul Mitchell the School Orlando, to perform work regarding the relation of the school located at 1271 Semoran Blvd., Suite 131 Casselberry, Florida 32707 located in Seminole County Florida.”

A copy of the Tebano Verified Answer is annexed as Exhibit 7 and herein made part of

98. Campbell in the Amended Complaint further states:

“20. All rights, claims and interests of Giulio Veglio under the contract-related claims asserted in Counts I, II and III have been assigned to Von Curtis, Inc.”

“21. All rights, claims and interests of P.M. Veglio, L.L.C. under the contract-related claims asserted in Counts I, II and III have been assigned to Von Curtis.”

99. Maria C. Tebano in her Motion to Change Venue to the Florida Court dated April 24, 2014

states:

“3. On July 31, 2012, the parties entered into a contract for the performance of services by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendants at the Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo, which is located in the State of Florida. Annexed hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the Contract that is the subject of this litigation.”

Tebano is clearly admitting the contract was with Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo and not Paul

Mitchell the School Orlando which would be Von Curtis Inc. Tebano is representing Von Curtis, Inc. in

the New York Federal action.

A copy of Tebano Motion to Change Venue is annexed as Exhibit 8 and herein made part of.

100. That Campbell stated and openly admits in his “Verified Affidavit of Attorney” dated April 24, 2014 (Tebano’s Exhibit C) that Veglio held the rights to the contact.

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared John W. Campbell, Esq. who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

“1. Suit was filed on behalf of Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando against Mr. Dudla in Florida on December 26, 2012. It was filed in the name of the real party in interest which is the school, but upon Mr. Dudla raising objection to the named Plaintiff, the Complaint was amended to add other Plaintiffs who did hold the contract rights. Plaintiff Giulio Veglio was joined in that capacity and as a Plaintiff for a claim for Mr. Dudla's violation of Chapter 934, Florida Statutes.”

Campbell is again admitting that it was Giulio Veglio who held the contract rights and not Von

35

Curtis, Inc. Further, Campbell never included Giulio Veglio in his motion to Amend Complaint. The

Contract was with Giulio Veglio and P.M. Veglio, LLC d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo and not

with Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando.

“3. Thereafter, Mr. Dudla has filed lengthy repetitive motions and pleadings in an apparent attempt to obstruct progress of the case. He has filed repetitive and voluminous motions attacking every aspect of the case and has done so repeatedly despite adverse rulings. His motions attacking subject matter jurisdiction, en personam jurisdiction, venue, even his own name and identity, have all been denied by the Court. Mr. Dudla filed an appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals and he lost that appeal. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Fifth District Court of Appeals and that was denied. He then proceeded to repeat his motions and arguments before the Trial Court.”

Plaintiff's arguments were either ignored or denied without a proper decision rendered demonstrating

the reason(s) for denial by the Court and they were never addressed by either Judge Polodna or Judge Jordan

or the Fifth District Court of Appeals.

“4. Mr. Dudla has also refused to respond to discovery or to Court orders on discovery matters.”

“7. On October 8, 2013 I served an additional request for production upon Mr. Dudla. He responded to that discovery with note objections, all consisting of the same objection:

Alleged named Defendant's Answer: Not Applicable. Plaintiff Von Curtis, Inc. does not have and has not a Contract Agreement or an Assigned Contract Agreement by and between the named Defendant and therefore lacks standing, the capacity to sue and is not entitled to the information requested.”

A copy of Verified Federal Affidavit of Campbell is annexed as Exhibit 9 and herein made part of.

101. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.130(a) provides in pertinent part: “All bonds, notes,

bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought or defense

made, or a copy thereof or a copy of the portions thereof material to the pleadings, shall be

incorporated in or attached to the pleading.” A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action

must be granted if the document on which the complaint is based is not attached.

36

102. Campbell never attached a copy of the assignment of the contract in dispute as related to

Von Curtis, Inc. claims of assignment within their Complaint and Amended Complaint as required by

FRCP 1.130. Further, the Plaintiff emphatically has denied ever authorizing such and was never given a

copy of the alleged assignment of the contract in dispute as related to the Complaint and Amended

Complaint claims.

103. There is no document attached to the Complaint or Amended Complaint that evidences

Von Curtis, Inc. had a relationship with P.M. Veglio LLC and Giulio Veglio. The inability to attach the

documentation evidencing Von Curtis, Inc.'s right to bring the action is not in compliance with F.R.C.P.

1.130, evidencing any assignment of a right to Von Curtis, Inc. to file its Florida action.

104. Judges Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that standing requires that the party prosecuting

the action have a sufficient stake in the outcome and that the party bring the claim be recognized in the

law as being the real party in interest entitled to bring the claim. This entitlement to prosecute a claim in

Florida Courts rests exclusively in those persons granted by substantive law, the power to enforce the

claim. Certainly Judges Polodna and Judge Jordan have conspired with Campbell to look the other way.

105. Plaintiff argued in his Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss dated June 7th, 2013 as he stated:

9. It should be duly noted that nowhere within the contract in dispute, can the Plaintiff, Von Curtis, Inc. be found as an assigned party or implemented as such nor named as a third party beneficiary to this contract in dispute.

10. It should be duly noted, that prior to the Court’s April 1st, 2013 hearing on the matter of the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the Plaintiff (Von Curtis, Inc.) Motion for Leave to Amend, the subsequent dismissal of the Defendant’s Motion by the Court with the granting of the Plaintiff (Von Curtis, Inc.) Motion for Leave to Amend by the Court with a subsequent Order of the Court for the aforementioned, dated April 10th, 2013, the Plaintiff Von Curtis, Inc. was never a named party on the contract in dispute and was never an assigned party to the contract or implemented as such nor named as a third party beneficiary to the contract in dispute.

A copy of the Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss dated June 7th, 2013 is annexed

as Exhibit 10 and herein is made part of

37

106. Plaintiff argued in his Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss dated April 3rd, 2013:

8. The Plaintiff, as named within the action, clearly had no contract with the Defendant, as named within the Complaint, as the Plaintiff's name does not appear on any portion of the actual contract and never was assigned therefore, this action must be dismissed.

A copy of the Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss dated April 3rd, 2013 is annexed as Exhibit 11

and herein is made part of.

107. Campbell in his Complaint and Amended Complaint on behalf of Von Curtis, Inc. fails to

state a cause of action as he does not include any factual allegations. Campbell fails to state whether

Von Curtis, Inc. is entitled to enforce the terms of the contract in dispute.

108. Campbell fails to state any work that was done by the Plaintiff that was not done properly.

Campbell just makes allegations with no proof attached to the complaint or amended complaint.

109. Campbell filed with the Court a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint dated March 20th, 2013 seeking to remove Von Curtis, Inc. as plaintiff and to replace Von Curtis Inc. with only P.M.

Vagelio, LLC. Said motion was improperly before the Court on April 1st, 2013 as Campbell was not the

"Attorney of Record" and it was piggy backed on the Plaintiff’s motion without his permission.

A copy of the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is annexed as Exhibit 12 and herein is made part of

110. That on December 31st, 2012 Judge Polodna was assigned to the case (See Exhibit 3) and at the

first hearing held on April 1st, 2013. Judge Polodna refused to address the issues of standing and capacity to

sue, Subject-matter jurisdiction, Personal jurisdiction and improper county court venue as documented above.

A copy of April 1st, 2013 Hearing Transcript is annexed as Exhibit 13 and herein is made part of.

111. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(1) Judge Polodna and subsequently Judge Jordan have

evaded and refused to document that the Court had “Subject-matter jurisdiction” over the issues and refused

to have an evidentiary hearing on it even though the issues were raised by Plaintiff in all of his pleadings.

112. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(2) Judge Polodna and subsequently Judge Jordan

38

have evaded and refused to document that the Court had “Personal jurisdiction” over Plaintiff in light of

the fact that Service of the “Complaint”, dated December 27th, 2012 and “Amended Complaint” dated

April 17th, 2013, was never properly effectuated pursuant to Florida Statute 48.031(5) & 48.194(1).

Further, Plaintiff was never properly served and was not properly or timely served pursuant to the court

order. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to address this issue and to have an

evidentiary hearing on it even though it was raised by Plaintiff in all his pleadings.

113. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(5) Judge Polodna and subsequently Judge Jordan

have evaded and refused to document that “Service of Process” of the “Complaint”, dated December

27th, 2012, upon the Plaintiff was done in accordance of Florida law.

114. Campbell never filed the “Complaint” dated December 27th, 2012 with a signed

“Certificate of Service” nor incorporated the “Certificate of Service” statement within the “Complaint”

in violation of Fla. R. Jud. P. 2.516(f). Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to address

this issue and to have an evidentiary hearing on it.

115. The process server’s “Return of Service Form” and an “Affidavit of Service” was never

filed with the Court Clerk’s Office in violation of Florida Statute 48.031(5). Both Judge Polodna and

Judge Jordan have refused to address this issue and to have an evidentiary hearing on it.

116. That prior to the Plaintiff’s April 1st, 2013 hearing, Judge Polodna conspired and /or colluded with Campbell to have his motion to amend the complaint heard on April 1st, 2013 in violation

of statute. Judge Polodna allowed Campbell to Cross-setting or “Piggy-Backing” the Hearings. This

is when a hearing is initially scheduled, the time set aside for the original motion is deemed to be

sufficient for that matter only. Adding additional motions is not possible unless there are no objections

by opposing counsel/parties to doing so and adequate additional time is available.

117. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss was already before the court and

39

scheduled for April 1st, 2013 @ 8:45 am.

118. Judge Polodna and Campbell colluded or conspired to violate the Florida Uniform

Administrative Policies and Procedures of the Civil Division of the Circuit Court, § 11(D)(2), by “Piggy-

Backing” Campbell's “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” on to the Plaintiff's (15) fifteen

minute Telephonic Hearing for his Motions only (4) four days prior to the Plaintiff's Hearing date of April

1st, 2013. Campbell and Judge Polodna did this without seeking consultation or authorization of the Plaintiff and unduly prejudiced the Plaintiff from properly defending against this instant action.

119. The Plaintiff had multiple pleadings to be heard on the scheduled April 1st, 2013 Hearing.

The primary pleading being his “Motion for Summary Judgment” dated February 6th, 2013 (See Exhibit 6)

to summarily dismiss the sole movant, Von Curtis, Inc.’s “Complaint” based upon the pleadings and for the

very same Affirmative Defenses detailed within this Federal Complaint. Plaintiff also was to be heard on his

“Affidavit in Opposition to plaintiff’s (Von Curtis) Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” dated

March 27th, 2013 (See Exhibit 14) and Plaintiff's “Affidavit in Opposition to Attorney’s Certificate of Compliance”, dated March 29th, 2013. Campbell submitted to the Court his “Certificate of Compliance” on

March 29th, 2013, (4) four days after the court had already set on March 25th, 2013 his motion to be heard on

April 1st, 2013 @ 8:45 am, the same day as the Plaintiff’s prescheduled Hearing. This was a direct violation

of Florida Statue as the Certificate was required to be submitted prior to being granted a hearing on any

motion. Campbell’s certificate submission was also three (3) days before the Plaintiff’s April 1st, 2013 court

date and received by the court the day before the court was to close in observance of the Easter holiday

weekend. This unduly prejudiced the Plaintiff as he was untimely noticed and the court violated procedural

due process by ignoring Campbell’s blatant violation of Florida Administration Order 2012-03. Campbell’s

Certificate of Compliance was blatantly false and Judge Polodna should have charged him with filing a false

instrument with the court. Judge Polodna looked the other way, ignored the violation, refused to hear the

40

Plaintiff’s objections and willfully failed to enforce the law.

A copy of the Affidavit in Opposition to Amended Complaint, Campbell’s Certificate of Compliance and Affidavit in Opposition to Certificate of Compliance are annexed as Exhibits 14, 15 & 16 and

herein are made part of.

120. Plaintiff filed for a “Motion for Summary Judgment”, dated February 6th, 2013 and entered

with the Osceola County Court Clerk on February 7th, 2013 and “Noticed a Telephonic Hearing” @ 8:45 am,

dated March 5th, 2013 on the matter and it was entered and set for hearing, by the Osceola County Court

Clerk on March 7th, 2013. (See Osceola County Clerks Detail Case Summary Plaintiff’s annexed Exhibit 3)

121. Campbell submitted to the Court a “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” dated March 20th, 2013 and entered by the Osceola County Clerk on March 21st, 2013. (See Exhibit 12)

122. Campbell submitted to the Court a “Notice of Telephonic Hearing @ 8:45 am” dated and

entered March 20th, 2013 and set for hearing by Judge Polodna on March 25th, 2013.

Copy of the Campbell’s Notice of Telephonic Hearing is annexed as Exhibit 17 and herein is made part of.

123. Campbell and Judge Polodna are well aware of Uniform Administrative Policies and

Procedures of the Civil Division of the Circuit Court, § 11(D)(2) as Campbell dictated the very same

policy restriction within Campbell “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Response and Opposition to Defendant’s

Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of the Trial Judge” in that he states on Page 6,

“The Motion for Evidentiary Hearing was not properly set for hearing and the Court was correct in not addressing that Motion given Defendant’s attempt to piggyback a motion without approval of the opposing party or the Court and without Notice of Hearing.”

This very same defiance of the statute is exactly what Judge Polodna and Campbell perpetrated

upon the Plaintiff prior to the April 1st, 2013 court hearing concerning the Campbell’s motion to amend

complaint. The Plaintiff is now being held to a higher level of compliance than that of Campbell.

Copy of the Memorandum Page 6 is annexed as Exhibit 19 and herein is made part of.

124. Campbell’s “Notice of Telephonic Hearing” was submitted without a “Certificate of

41

Compliance” as mandated by the “Administrative Order 2012-03 Establishing Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Circuit Civil Court Guidelines”.

Copy of the Administration Order 2012-03 is annexed as Exhibit 20 and herein is made part of.

125. That only after Plaintiff herein submitted his “Affidavit in Opposition to plaintiff’s Motion for

Leave to File Amended Complaint”, dated March 27th, 2013, Campbell filed a “Certificate of Compliance”

dated March 29th, 2013 and entered by the Osceola County Clerk on April 2nd, 2013, the day after the Plaintiff’s

Hearing. (See Osceola County Clerks Detail Case Summary Plaintiff’s annexed Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 15)

126. The Plaintiff filed an immediate “Affidavit in Opposition to the Certificate of

Compliance” dated March 29th, 2013 regarding his “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” and

Campbell actually never did meet his compliance pursuant to Statute as Campbell never conferred with

the Plaintiff concerning his certificate of compliance. Campbell’s “Certificate of Compliance” also did

not comport with the “Administration Order 2012-03 establishing Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Circuit

Civil Court Guidelines” as it did not specify the (3) three dates and times that Campbell had made

attempts to confer with Plaintiff nor did it specify the substance of the attempts.

Copy of the Affidavit in Opposition to Certificate of Compliance is annexed as Exhibit 16 and herein is made part of

127. Plaintiff was unduly prejudiced by the aforementioned as Judge Polodna gave preferential

treatment to Campbell during the April 1st, 2013 Hearing as follows:

a. Judge Polodna allowed Campbell to present his case first stating:

“I'm going to go ahead and start with you, Mr. Campbell, because I think your, your first motion is going to make most of this other stuff irrelevant, I think, if you're, although you can proceed forward you have a motion for leave to amend the complaint.” (See Exhibit 13, Page 4, Lines 18 ~ 23)

b. Plaintiff should have procedurally been heard first as his motions were filed prior to

Mr. Campbell’s and the Plaintiff’s motions regarding “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and "Personal”

42

jurisdiction have precedence over all other motions before the court.

c. Campbell and the Judge Polodna dominated the proceedings time that was allotted

to the Plaintiff for his motion and pleadings. Judge Polodna only gave the Plaintiff (2) two minutes

out of fifteen minutes to make his defense case against the sole movant Von Curtis, Inc.’s

“Complaint” and during that period of time was abruptly cut off by Judge Polodna before the

Plaintiff was capable of offering any proof into the record in case of an appeal.

d. Judge Polodna, refused to allow the Plaintiff to address the issue of “Subject-matter”

and “Personal” jurisdiction by interrupting and cutting off the Plaintiff’s testimony and offer of proof.

This was a clear denial of the Plaintiff’s due process rights and equal protection of the law.

e. The Judge Polodna ignored the Plaintiff’s other pleadings, the “Affidavit in

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” and “Opposition to the

Certificate of Compliance”. Judge Polodna immediately ruled in favor of Campbell over the

Plaintiff’s strong objections.

128. Judge Polodna ignored a key ancillary issue, an “Indemnity Clause” in the contract in

dispute that holds harmless the Plaintiff from damages and prohibits the commencement of any legal

recourse by any “Client” that requests and receives goods and services and fails to pay for such that was

outside the scope of the “Contract in Dispute”.

129. Judge Polodna knew he lacked both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal”

jurisdiction over Plaintiff. Judge Polodna refused to dismiss the complaint against the Plaintiff in court

on April 1st, 2013 and issued an order to allow Campbell to amend his complaint knowing full well he

had no authority or jurisdiction to make such an order. This is supported by the fact that Judge Polodna

during the court proceeding stated he "was not taking authority over the case" and refused to document

how he has both Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction.

43

130. That Campbell filed a Motion to Amend Complaint dated March 20, 2013 (See the Motion to Amend annexed as Exhibit 12). Campbell filed his motion stating:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby moves the Court for

the entry of an order permitting it to file an Amended Complaint, which Amended Complaint will substitute in its place a new Plaintiff, P.M. Vagelio, LLC, as Plaintiff. By error the incorrect Plaintiff was listed in the pleadings and the correct Plaintiff should be listed instead. Additionally, new claims and problems with the work performed by Defendant have been discovered since the original Complaint was filed. and those area of work have been set out in the Proposed Amended Complaint. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Proposed Amended Complaint.

Defendant will in no way be prejudiced by this substitution. The statute of limitations has not run and this change only serves to correct the parties' names to reflect correct parties under the contract to this action.

131. Campbell admits that Von Curtis, Inc. is the wrong plaintiff and for this reason alone the

Complaint should have been dismissed as Von Curtis, Inc. lacked standing and capacity to sue.

Campbell states that Von Curtis, Inc. will be replaced by P.M. Vagelio, LLC as the new plaintiff. This

was never done and as will be documented, Campbell continues to claim that Von Curtis, Inc. is a party

to the action. Further, the only new plaintiff listed is P.M. Vagelio, LLC.

132. This Court should take notice that Giulio Veglio is not mentioned as a new plaintiff. As

will be documented Campbell is claiming that Giulio Veglio is joined as a party to the proceeding yet no

motion was entered and no order was issued to join him as a plaintiff to this action. This clearly shows

that Campbell is committing a fraud upon the court and the Plaintiff herein with the help of Judge

Polodna and Judge Jordan as they have refused to address this issue. It should be noted that the company

44

listed is P.M. Vagelio LLC and the name on the Contract was Veglio, not Vagelio.

133. Another error that has been raised is that the defendant is listed as Shawn Dudla d/b/a

Nu-Visions Entertainment Production and the contract was with Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions

Enterprises. The wrong defendant is listed which has also been ignored by all.

134. The following was stated during the April 1st, 2013 (See Exhibit 13) proceeding:

Page 4

THE COURT: ... If the -- I'm going to go ahead and start with you, Mr. Campbell, because I think your, your first motion is going to make most of this other stuff irrelevant, I think, if you're, although you can proceed forward you have a motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Judge Polodna should have started with Plaintiff as his issues of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction

and “Personal” jurisdiction needed to be addressed before the court could continue and the Plaintiff had

filed his motion first in the matter. Further, Judge Polodna knew allowing Campbell to address the issue

of the amending of his complaint was not going to make the issues of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction irrelevant.

Page 7

MR. CAMPBELL: And I apologize to Mr. Dudla and to the Court for the error that took place on that. I don't think there's any question though based upon the contract or the attachments, even (inaudible) Mr. Dudla's motion for summary judgment that the correct name of the Plaintiff is the LLC, limited liability corporation that is on the contract and it is to that I seek to amend the complaint.

Campbell is admitting to the court for second time that the wrong plaintiff was listed. Now, he is

seeking to remove Von Curtis Inc. and put the LLC as the plaintiff.

MR. DUDLA: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you very much again. I think and foremost this is a matter, an error. The subject matter and personal jurisdiction is required before any other motions can actually be heard. As you've heard, that Mr. Campbell has stated, that he has made an error completely within all of his pleadings in regards to who the actual Plaintiff should be. Doing so, that subjects, this proceeding's in jeopardy due to the fact that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the Court to make relevant a decision on the matter itself. Without subject matter jurisdiction, all right, the Court can't make or

45

authorize a decision on the matter, so his motion for amend or leave to amend is irrelevant at this point. Both parties on the complaint that has been presented before the Court are in error, are incorrect. There is no such company as Nu Visions Entertainment Productions. Von Curtis, Incorporated is not associated with a contract in any matter whatsoever. If you'll review over the contract, Von Curtis is not even assigned on the contract as well. By just his motion alone he openly admits that this was a complete and total error which puts subject matter in jeopardy. Basically, as well, personal jurisdiction is not involved because neither party, not even Von Curtis, Incorporated is located in Osceola County. Von Curtis, Incorporated doing business as Paul Mitchell the School Orlando is located in, was located as of, up until October 6th of this past year, which is 2012, was located in Casselberry. Casselberry is located in Seminole County. They relocated the school to Oviedo. Oviedo is located in Seminole County. I don't see how this Court, Osceola County, has jurisdiction over the matter itself.

The contract was never ever formed, ever formed by and between Von Curtis, Inc. and Shawn Dudla, doing business as Nu Visions Entertainment Productions. The contract clearly shows and states that it is between Guilio Veglio, doing business as an incorporated LLC, which is P. M. Veglio, LLC, as Paul Mitchell the School Oviedo. I was Shawn Dudla, doing business as Nu Visions Enterprises. There is no such corporation or company or name or DBA of Nu Visions Entertainment Productions. Both of them, all entities, are located outside of Osceola County. I don't see how --

THE COURT: All right, you're, you're just getting, Mr. Dudla, you're just getting in the

second motion which I don't really, --

MR. DUDLA: Okay.

THE COURT: -- I don't really need to hear because -- MR. DUDLA: Right. Well the, the motionfor amend -- THE COURT: (Inaudible). MR. DUDLA: I apologize.

THE COURT: Mr. Dudla, can you hear me? MR. DUDLA: Yes, I can. THE COURT: Okay, you need to stop. When I, when I talk to you stop talking because

you need to listen to me. Here's what I'm gonna do. You have an answer to one motion to amend. Florida does allow liberal amendments, that's a given, so I'm going to grant Mr. Campbell's motion to amend.

MR. DUDLA: I wish to make a formal objection on that matter, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You need to listen to my ruling. Mr. Dudla, please listen to my ruling. As

for your motion for summary judgment, yours is going to be denied without prejudice because a motion for summary judgment is the wrong

46

motion to be filing for personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. He's gonna serve you with a new complaint and then if you have a motion for, to dismiss for personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction for your own personal self,you can file those, but they're not to be motions for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is a ruling in the merits of the case and that's not where we're at in this case at this time. So, if you answer the complaint, which it looks like you may have already answered it (inaudible) today, you may be waiving personal jurisdiction, but you probably should seek an attorney to ask him about these issues.

THE COURT: And that's, that's why I've ruled and I'm gonna allow Mr. Campbell to submit an order that shows the motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice.

MR. DUDLA: Your Honor, can I please ask. Why are you taking the authority on this

matter that I did not ask for dismissal?

THE COURT: And I, and I just told you. You need to see a lawyer because --

MR. DUDLA: I did have, I did have that and I did have that as a dismissal.

THE COURT: Mr. Dudla, you're not listening so I'm gonna terminate this phone conversation pretty soon if you don't, if you don't stop, because I'm not taking authority over the case. If you have a motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, you can file that within the prescribed times under the rules of procedure once the second amended complaint is filed and is served. If you don't want to do that and you don't want to seek a lawyer, that's perfectly fine, but a motion for summary judgment is the improper motion to be filing at this point by you. So I'm denying that motion without prejudice. It means that you can bring it up again in the future if and when the time is right for a motion for summary judgment.

135. Judge Polodna refused to address Plaintiff's arguments of lack of standing and capacity to

sue, venue, subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Judge Polodna dismissed the plaintiff's

motion arguing the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction in the matter and then

grants Campbell the right to amend his petition. Then Judge Polodna states "because I'm not taking

authority over the case." Judge Polodna most certainly took authority of the case knowing full well that he

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the issues and personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the matter.

136. All of the pleadings filed in the Florida Court and all of Judge Polodna's Orders and all of

47

Judge Jordan's Orders except for the very last (2) two Orders contained the following caption:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

137. According to Florida law all orders and pleading are required to "name of the first party

on each side with an appropriate indication of other parties". As P.M. Veglio and Guilio Veglio are not

named and there is no indication of them in the caption of any of the pleadings or court orders, the court

has not recognized them as parties to the proceedings. Therefore, Von Curtis, Inc. is the only recognized

party to the action and Von Curtis, Inc. lacks standing and capacity to sue.

Fla. R. Civ. P. Rule 1.100(c)(1) - Every pleading, motion, order, judgment, or other paper shall have a caption containing the name of the court, the file number, and except for in rem proceedings, including forfeiture proceedings, the name of the first party on each side with an appropriate indication of other parties, and a designation identifying the party filing it and its nature or the nature of the order, as the case may be.

Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are fully aware of this statute and decided to ignore it to

the benefit and tactical advantage to Campbell.

138. Judge Polodna's Order dated April 10th, 2013 states:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THIS CAUSE coming on before the Court on April 1, 2013 on Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court having heard argument of counsel for Plaintiff and argument from Defendant and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon

48

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend is hereby granted and Plaintiff is hereby given leave to file and serve an Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is denied without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Osceola County, Florida this 10 day of April, 2013.

A copy of the Order dated April 10th, 2013 is annexed as Exhibit 21 and herein is made part of.

139. Judge Polodna was fully aware that he lacked both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and

“Personal” jurisdiction in this matter and that he had no authority or jurisdiction to render said Order

dated April 10th, 2013.

140. Further, Judge Polodna knew that Campbell's motion to amend was not properly before the court as it was filed after the Plaintiff filed his motion and Campbell piggy backed onto the Plaintiff's motion.

141. During the April 1st, 2013 hearing, Judge Polodna made disparaging, threatening,

condescending comments directed at Plaintiff. Such comments, included but not limited to, “You are not a

Lawyer and you probably don’t understand the Ruling”; and “I don’t really care”; and “I don’t care how

much education you have”; and “I don’t want to parse words with you, but that’s why you should seek a

lawyer because this is legal stuff that I am talking about …”; and “Okay, I don’t, I don’t need to discuss

this any further with what you plan on doing”. These comments by Judge Polodna clearly demonstrate that

the matter had already been determined to Campbell's benefit and he has no use for pro se litigants.

142. That Campbell filed an Amended Complaint (See Exhibit 2) for Damages and Injunctive Relief dated April 17th, 2013 with the caption:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to. No mention of PM Veglio LLC or Giulio Veglio)

49

143. Campbell then states:

2. Plaintiff Von Curtis is a foreign corporation doing business in Osceola County, Florida and using the fictitious name of Paul Mitchell the School Orlando, and with its principal place of business at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard, Oviedo Florida 32765.

3. P.M. Veglio, LLC is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Osceola County, Florida.

4. Plaintiff Guilio Veglio is an individual living in Florida and working in Osceola County, Florida.

144. The address listed for Von Curtis, Inc. is Oviedo, Florida which is located in Seminole

County. Campbell deliberately fails to list the full address for P.M. Veglio, LLC. and Giulio Veglio in

Osceola County, Florida as they have no business location in Osceola County and are located in

Seminole County. The Contract in dispute was for work to be done at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace

Boulevard, Oviedo Florida 32765 and is so stated in the Contract.

145. That according to the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations Von Curtis,

Inc. lists a Florida Address of 1271 Semoran Boulevard, STE 131, Casselberry FL 32707 and Casselberry,

Florida is located in Seminole County and states the registered agent as Giulio Veglio, 800 Spring Valley

Rd. Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 and Altamonte Springs, Florida is located in Seminole County. This

documentation was provided to the Court and ignored by both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan.

Copy of Florida Dept. of State for Von Curtis, Inc. address listing is annexed as Exhibit 22, Casselberry, Florida County Listing is annexed as Exhibit 23 and Altamonte Springs, Florida County listing is annexed

as Exhibit 24 and herein is made part of.

146. That according to the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations P.M. Veglio,

LLC is located at 800 Spring Valley Rd. Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 and Altamonte Springs, Florida

is located in Seminole County. This documentation was provided to the Court and ignored by both

Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan.

Copy of Florida Dept. of State for P.M. Veglio, LLC address listing is annexed as Exhibit 25 and herein is made part of.

50

147. Campbell is deliberately committing a fraud upon the Court and the plaintiff as he is fully

aware that Von Curtis, Inc., PM Veglio, LLC. and Giulio Veglio are not located in Osceola County

Florida and they have no address associated with them in Osceola County. No work was performed by

the plaintiff in Osceola County. All work was done in Seminole County. This documentation was

provided to the Court and ignored by both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan.

148. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are fully aware that a suit may only be brought in a

county where one of the party's reside, or have their place of business or alleged injury or injuries accrued.

None of the plaintiff's in the Florida action reside, or have their place of business in Osceola County and

none of the alleged injury or injuries could have accrued in Osceola County. Both Judge Polodna and

Judge Jordan are involved in the cover up of this fact and they know that Oviedo, Casselberry and

Altamonte Springs are not located in Osceola County, Florida. Therefore, the suit was filed in the wrong

county court venue and Judges Polodna and Judge Jordan lack “Subject-matter” jurisdiction.

149. Campbell goes on to falsely states in his Amended Complaint (See Exhibit 2):

9. Defendant Dudla prepared a contract for the performance of certain work for Von Curtis, the owner and operator of a school under construction in Osceola County, Florida. A true and correct copy of the contract, including change orders between the parties that altered and expanded the original contract between Plaintiffs and defendant, are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 1 ("the Contract").

Campbell does not give the address of the school under construction as he knows it is in Oviedo,

Florida Seminole County and not Osceola County. Further, he was required to provide proof of this

pursuant to FRCP 1.130. Nowhere in the contract in dispute is Von Curtis, Inc. mentioned. The work

was to be performed at the new School located at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard, Oviedo Florida

32765, which is located in Seminole County and not Osceola County as stated by Campbell. Further,

this is the amended complaint and Campbell is still claiming that the work was done for Von Curtis, Inc.

and not P.M. Veglio, LLC.

150. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are fully aware that Oviedo, Florida is not located

51

in Osceola County and this is the reason they refuse to address this issue and are deliberately violating Plaintiff's right to a court of proper jurisdiction.

151. Campbell goes on to falsely state in his Amended Complaint:

“10. By error which was not noticed, Defendant Dudla prepared the contract incorrectly, putting in the body of the Contract that the parties with which he was making the contract, Guilio Veglio, Winn Claybaugh and John Paul DeJoria, erroneously noting them as the operating under the business name of P.M. Veglio, LLC d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School - Oviedo.”

Campbell is now arguing that Von Curtis, Inc. is the correct Plaintiff even after orally testifying

on the record to the court and stating within his filed motion to amend his complaint that Von Curtis,

Inc. was the wrong plaintiff.

152. An e-mail from Giulio Veglio, dated July 24th, 2012 to Laura Hubbard, PDF Architects, Project Manager and CC to the Plaintiff states:

“The company that needs to be on the proposals and contracts is PM Veglio, LLC. Shawn, can you reply to this e- mail with the revised proposal by the end of the day if you can or at the latest tomorrow morning Thank you.”

A Copy of E-mail is annexed as Exhibit 26 and herein is made part of.

153. Plaintiff cell phone texted Giulio Veglio and asked him "What is the schools corporate

name and the owners names.” Guilio Veglio replied with:

“Contract is not names it pmveglio LLC Owners Guilio Veglio John Paul Mitchell systems Winn Claybaugh”

A Copy of Text is annexed as Exhibit 27 and herein is made part of.

Nowhere is Von Curtis, Inc. mentioned as a party to the contract in dispute by Guilio Veglio to

Laura Hubbard the architectural project manager. Therefore, there was no error as to the parties to the

contract in dispute as falsely stated by Campbell.

154. Campbell goes on to falsely state in his Amended Complaint and covered up by both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan:

“14. The intended contracting party for the business was Plaintiff Von Curtis, the

52

owner and operator of the school at which the work was done.”

This statement contradicts Campbell's motion to amend where he twice claimed Von Curtis, Inc. is

the incorrect and wrong plaintiff and was to be substituted out in favor of P.M. Vagelio LLC as the new

plaintiff. Further, Campbell’s proposed Amended Complaint within his motion is completely different from

his filed Amended Complaint he filed with the court. Campbell perpetrated a bait and switch fraud upon

the Plaintiff and the court. Judge Polodna allowed this to happen. (See and compare Exhibits 2 & 12)

155. Campbell goes on to falsely state in his amended Complaint:

“15. It was always the intent of the parties that the owner and operator of the school at which the work was being done would be the party to the Contract.”

“16. The mistake in the name of the parties was a mutual mistake.”

Plaintiff never heard of Von Curtis, Inc. until they filed a lawsuit against him. There was no

mutual mistake or any mistake as to who the parties to the Contract were to be. The names were given

by Guilio Veglio to both Laura Hubbard the project manager and to the Plaintiff.

156. Campbell goes on to falsely state in his Amended Complaint:

“17. The parties at all times acted in accord with the intent in that all communications regarding the work involved employees of Plaintiff Von Curtis, not P.M. Veglio.”

This is totally false. Plaintiff had no knowledge of Von Curtis and the main contact for Plaintiff

herein was Guilio Veglio and there was no allegation in any of Campbell's papers that Guilio Veglio was

an employee of Von Curtis, Inc. and/or was acting on behalf of Von Curtis, Inc

157. Campbell goes on to falsely state in his Amended Complaint:

“18. Dudla executed the Contract, agreeing to perform certain services and provide certain material in Osceola County Florida where the school was under construction.”

This statement by Campbell is knowingly false as the work, according to the contract in dispute,

was to be performed at 1700 Oviedo Marketplace Boulevard, Oviedo, Florida 32765 which is located

Seminole County, not Osceola County as claimed by Campbell. Campbell did not give an address

because he knew the address was in Oviedo, Seminole County.

53

158. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan are fully aware of the contract in dispute, where the

work was to be performed and are fully aware that Oviedo is not in Osceola County. Further, Campbell

has never stated any physical address for work done by Plaintiff that was located in Osceola County.

159. Campbell goes on to falsely state in his Amended Complaint:

“19. As a result of the incorrect entries by Defendant Dudla, Plaintiffs are uncertain as to who the contracting party actually is.”

“20. All rights, claims and interest of Guilio Veglio under the contract-related claims asserted in Counts I, II and III have been assigned to Von Curtis Inc.”

“21. All rights, claims and interests of P.M. Veglio, L.L.C. under the contract-related claims asserted in Counts I, II and III have been assigned to Von Curtis.”

Campbell contradicts himself. In ¶19 the plaintiffs don't know who the contracting party is? In ¶20

and ¶21 two of the parties are supposedly assigning their rights to Von Curtis, Inc. but no documentation

was presented supporting that the contract in dispute related claims were assigned to Von Curtis, Inc.

160. The Plaintiff has not been provided in any documentation before the Florida Court, that

documents that all or any rights, claims and interest of Giulio Veglio under the contract-related claims

asserted in Counts I, II and III have been assigned to Von Curtis Inc. Further, the Plaintiff was never

notified of this and never approved of this assignment in breach of the contract in dispute. Now that the

Plaintiff has raised this issue, Campbell will probably have a back dated assignment. If he already had

the assignment it would have been attached as an exhibit.

161. The above clearly demonstrates that Campbell is making one false statement after another

in order to defraud the Plaintiff and has the help of Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan covering up for him

by denying the Plaintiff his rights to due process and equal protection of the law.

162. That on June 11th,, 2013 another hearing was held concerning Plaintiff's motion to

dismiss as the court lacked both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction. Campbell was

personally in the courtroom with Judge Polodna and the Plaintiff was on the phone. It should be

Judically noticed, that his was suppose be a Telephonic Hearing between all parties. At no time did

54

Campbell notify the Plaintiff or the court prior to the hearing that he was personally appearing. That

during the hearing Judge Polodna and Campbell are taking all actions to avoid the arguments raised by

the Plaintiff of the lack of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction. For example,

Campbell states on page 14:

MR. CAMPBELL: And as Your Honor can see from the affidavits that we did file, the amended complaint was unquestionably properly served upon his mother. It was noted on that summons, the initials, date, time of service were noted on the summons, and in fact Mr. Dudla doesn't dispute that. Instead he tries to go back and say that there's a problem with the original complaint and I don't like what happened in the first hearing before Your Honor and he tries to bring that up and say that this case is null and void which incorrect as a matter of law.

A copy of the June 11th, 2013 Transcript is annexed as Exhibit 28 and herein is made part of.

163. Campbell is admitting that the service of the Amended Complaint was not properly

effectuated and was improperly substitute served. This Court should take notice, Campbell claims

service was proper upon Plaintiff's mother, but not upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff has clearly documented that

the original service was definitively not properly done and that the service of the Amended Complaint

was not properly served, see ¶14 and ¶47 for more detailed documentation. Further, the service upon

Plaintiff’s mother was not proper.

164. Campbell does not address the issue that the alias summons and amended complaint were

not properly filed within the 10 days of the court order as required.

165. Judge Polodna had no personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff to grant Campbell his

motion to amend his complaint. Nowhere does Campbell present any evidence that the parties resided in

Osceola County, that work was done in Osceola County, Campbell simple claims during this proceeding

that because the amount of damages is more than $15,000 that is sufficient for "Subject-matter"

jurisdiction. This is absurd.

166. The June 11th, 2013 transcript clearly shows that Judge Polodna and Campbell were

55

working together to deprive the Plaintiff of his rights of due process and equal protection of the law and

to cover up the court's lack of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in the matter.

167. During the June 11th, 2013, Judge Polodna made disparaging, threatening, condescending comments directed at Plaintiff during the June 11th, 2013 proceeding. Judge Polodna, clearly denies the

Plaintiff’s due process right to be heard on an objection as he states, “I, I don’t need to hear your formal

objection when there’s no actual court reporter here”; and “I, I’m not gonna to sit here and listen to your

argument that I’ve already heard and already read through your affidavit”; and “I don’t really, it’s none

of my concern what you are gonna do at this time. Okay?”

168. That, upon information and belief, during the June 11th, 2013 telephonic proceeding, Judge

Polodna questioned Campbell as to whether Osceola County was the proper county court venue for the

proceedings. Campbell, having personally appeared live, during what was supposedly to be a Telephonic

Hearing, which gave Campbell a tactical advantage and upon information and belief, Campbell provided

information or documentation to Judge Polodna that was never shared with or given to the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was never given the opportunity to review said document or information and Judge Polodna never

apprised or described it as well to the Plaintiff. That immediately upon receipt by the court, of the

aforementioned information or documentation, Judge Polodna ruled against the Plaintiff’s Motion for

Dismissal. The Plaintiff was clearly prejudiced by this as he never had the opportunity to defend or

permitted redress against what was handed to the Judge. This also could be construed as an Ex Parte

communication between Judge Polodna and Campbell as the Plaintiff was not physically present at that

time, the judge had a person to person consultation with Campbell and the Plaintiff was never apprised as

what was exchanged between the two.

169. That Judge Polodna issued another Order dated June 25th, 2013, knowing he lacked complete jurisdiction to do so, denying the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss that was filed immediately

56

following the April 1st, 2013 last court proceeding and after Judge Polodna was notified of the Federal court proceeding in New York. The court order stated:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE coming on before the Court on June 11, 2013 on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Court having heard argument of counsel for Plaintiff and argument from Defendant, with Plaintiff having agreed to proceed despite the lack of an actual motion by Defendant, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be and the same is hereby denied. Defendant shall have twenty (20) days to file an Amended Answer and Defenses if he so chooses. Should Defendant choose not to file an Amended Answer and Defenses, then this case shall be at issue.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Osceola County, Florida this 25 day of June, 2013.

A copy of the June 25th, 2013 Order is annexed as Exhibit 29 and herein is made part of

170. That during the hearing on December 16th, 2013, Judge Polodna again refused to address

the issues of lack of standing and capacity to sue, subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction

over Plaintiff. He ignored Plaintiff's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing dated December 7th, 2013 on

these crucial statutory issues as defined within Fla. R. Civ. P. Rule 1.140(b). Judge Polodna then granted

Campbell's motion to compel. Plaintiff then attempted to make a motion for the disqualification/recusal

of Judge Polodna. Judge Polodna immediately interrupted Plaintiff and requested Campbell prepare the

order granting Campbell's motion to compel discovery and then hung up the phone on Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is annexed as Exhibit 30 and herein is made part of

57

171. Judge Polodna knew he had no authority or jurisdiction to grant Campbell's motion to

compel as he knew he lacked both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in the matter.

172. The following was stated at the hearing on December 16th, 2013 (See Exhibit 31):

Page 4

THE COURT: Okay. And then Mr. Dudla, I know we have a court reporter here for the first time and I've warned you in the past not to record anything and it appears in your filings that you have some kind of transcript from a previous hearing and the only thing I can assume is that it was illegally tape recorded, so that -- I just want to make sure –

MR. DUDLA: Your Honor, it was not illegally recorded –

THE COURT: Mr. Dudla, this is the last time I'm gonna allow you to appear

telephonically and you're not gonna berecording anything and anything that has any reference to a tape recording is gonna be stricken. That you apparently had it transcribed by someone in New York, so all of that is illegal and is gonna be stricken from the record.

MR. DUDLA: Your Honor, you do not have jurisdiction within the State of New York.

Page 5

THE COURT: Mr. Campbell, you may proceed with your motions.

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. DUDLA: Your Honor, I am formally objecting to Mr. Campbell being allowed to proceed first on the matter as I do have motions before this Court regarding an evidentiary hearing which has precedence over any motion --

THE COURT: Okay Mr. Dudla, I have not asked for your motions yet. I am asking to

hear Mr. Campbell's motions.

Page 9

MR. DUDLA: ...I wish to make it clear, all right, that Mr. Campbell's case is equal to that of a house of cards in that it rests squarely upon the December 27th, 2012 Summons and Complaint as it's pointing to foundation. Without his pleading being legitimate before the Court, Mr. Campbell's entire case will collapse. I clearly demonstrated and I preserved my rights to my defenses by and through my motions and response to pleadings filed with this Court. Florida Statute -- Florida's Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.14(b), clearly protects my defenses raised in these motions and response to

58

pleadings filed that cannot be deemed waived if they were raised in my motions and response to pleadings filed. I clearly raised the defense issues against Von Curtis, Inc., all right, having lack of standing and capacity to sue, improper venue, and the Court not having subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction and service on the Summons and Complaint being improper and not having followed Florida Statute.

The Complaint was fatally flawed. Mr. Campbell openly admitted such during the April 1st proceedings. And his prior Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint, all right, Mr. Campbell specifically made it clear, all right, and categorically made it clear that Von Curtis, Incorporated was not and is not a Plaintiff in this matter. All of Mr. Campbell's motions for discovery are on behalf of Von Curtis, Incorporated. Mr. Campbell's motion, and specifically his Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint, all right, specifically stated substance -- if you'll hold on, please -- Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby holds this court for an entry of an order permitting it to file an amended Complaint, which Complaint will substitute in its place a new

Plaintiff, PM Vagelio LLC, that is V-a-g-e-1-i-o-l-l-c, as Plaintiff by error. The incorrect Plaintiff was listed in the pleadings and the correct Plaintiff should have been listed. Mr. Campbell, during his testimony in the April 1st proceeding, specifically stated to both the Court and myself, and I quote, and I apologize to Mr. Dudla and to the Court --

Page 11

THE COURT: Mr. Dudla --

MR. DUDLA: --to the error that --

THE COURT: Mr. Dudla, regarding the quoting people, unless you have a court reporter transcript, you can't quote people. And that was my whole point --

MR. DUDLA: I do have a court reporter transcript –

Page 12

MR. DUDLA: Your Honor, all right, as I stated before and I will state it again, all right, all right. Improper venue is tied to subject matter and personal jurisdiction of this Court. An evidentiary hearing on these matters has precedence over other, all other motions before this Court has, as a matter of practice and found in dozens of precedent case law. All right. Your Honor, Mr. Campbell, under all of his exhibits, specifically requests for the production ofdiscovery by way of Von Curtis, Incorporated as the Plaintiff. It is captioned within each and every one of his exhibits. If you will please look at each and every one of his exhibits, he so states such. Mr., Mr. Campbell has specifically stated that, and based on his motion for leave to amend, that this is the wrong Plaintiff and could not be the Plaintiff in this matter. This is

59

where I make my opposition in that I did not have, did not and would not have the necessity to answer any of his discovery based on the fact that a Plaintiff that is not before this Court, all right, has requested such.

Page 13

MR. DUDLA: Rebuttal, sir?

THE COURT: No. All right, I'm going to grant –

MR. DUDLA: Are you denying my right to --

Page 14

THE COURT: I am going to grant the motion --

MR. DUDLA: Are you denying my right to --

THE COURT: Mr. Dudla, you need to be quiet? I'm gonna grant the motion to compel the discovery and require that you answer the interrogatories and the request for production, I believe, was the other documents, within 10 days.

MR. DUDLA: Your Honor, then I'm making a motion for your, your disqualification

and recusal as an oral motion and I will --

THE COURT: Mr. Campbell, if you will prepare that order and submit it to the Court? You do not need to run it by Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dudla.

MR. CAMPBELL: I will do so.

THE COURT: And that completes this hearing.

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much, Your Honor. MR. DUDLA: Your Honor? MR. CAMPBELL: I will submit the order today. MR. DUDLA: Your Honor? THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

A copy of the December 16th, 2013 Transcript is annexed as Exhibit 31 and herein is made part of

173. Judge Polodna is deliberately suggesting Campbell to violate Florida statute and the

Plaintiff's right to have a copy of the proposed order in order to review it before the court signs the order.

174. Judge Polodna ignored all of the Plaintiff's arguments concerning the fact the court

lacked Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction and continued in the complete absence of all

jurisdiction.

60

175. That the Plaintiff filed a written Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of Judge Polodna dated December 23rd, 2013, received by the Court on December 26th, 2013.

A copy of the Motion for Disqualification/Recusal is annexed as Exhibit 32 and herein is made part of.

176. Judge Polodna allegedly signed an Order granting Campbell's Motion to Compel on

December 23rd, 2013. This Order was not posted to the Osceola County Clerk's Court Detail Summary Sheet

until December 30th, 2013. This posting is three (3) days after the posting of Plaintiff's

disqualification/recusal motion and (7) seven days after service pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin., Rule

2.516(2) "Service by mail is complete upon mailing" The Plaintiff's Motion was mailed on December 23rd, 2013. This certainly raises the issue of Judge Polodna back dating his order to make it look as if it was made

before Plaintiff filed his motion for disqualification/ recusal. In any event, Judge Polodna knew he had no

authority to issue said order as previously documented and as Plaintiff attempted to make his motion for

disqualification/recusal in court on December 16th, 2013. This means Judge Polodna made the following

Order in violation of Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330 and Florida Statute 38.10 clearly states

that a Judge is required to immediately stop a proceeding and proceed no further once a motion, whether oral

or written, for disqualification/ recusal has been made on the record. Judge Polodna never stopped the

proceeding, ordered Campbell to prepare the Order and then hung up on the Plaintiff. The Order states:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

THIS CAUSE coming on before the Court on December 16, 2013 on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and the Court having heard argument of counsel for Plaintiff and argument from Defendant and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon

61

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Compel be and the same is hereby granted and Defendant shall have ten (10) days in which to fully and completely respond to the Requests for Production, produce the requested documents and answer the interrogatories.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Osceola County, Florida this December, 2013.

A copy of the December 26th, 2013 Order is annexed as Exhibit 33 and herein is made part of

177. That Judge Polodna made the following ruling concerning his disqualification/recusal:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION/RECUSAL OF TRIAL JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of Trial Judge, filed December 26,2013. The Court did not receive notice of the Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of Trial Judge until January 28, 2014 when Defendant filed Notice of Motion for Disqualification of Trial Judge by Default. The Default is not appropriate since the Court was not appropriately noticed. Someone named J. Tayes apparently signed for the package that contained the Motion from USPS. Furthermore, the address the package was sent to was the 9th Circuit Court Civil Division, not Judge Polodna. Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule 2.330(c) states the Motion must be served on the subject judge. However, now the Court has received the Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of Trial Judge's attached to the Notice of Motion for Disqualification of Trial Judge by Default, the Court is able to review the Motion. The Court has reviewed the Motion, is fully advised in the premises, and FINDS as follows:

A. This is an Initial Motion to Disqualify under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule2.330(d)(1). Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule2.330(d)(1) states: "[a] motion to disqualify shall show: (1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge." Fla. R. J. Admin Rule 2.330. Defendant stales in his Motion that "this Court has shown a pattern of behaving or ruling in a manner that is: preventing or hindering the Alleged aforementioned Defendant from receiving a full, fair, impartial hearings or the full, fair, impartial administration of justice." Motion for the Disqualification/ Recusal of Trial Judge,

pg. 1.

B. The Court finds the Motion to be legally sufficient without passing on the truth of

62

the facts alleged in accordance to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Rule 2.330(f). It is therefore.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion for the Disqualification/ Recusal of Trial Judge is GRANTED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Osceola County, Florida on January 29, 2014.

A copy of the Recusal order is annexed as Exhibit 34 and herein is made part of.

178. Campbell was provided preferential treatment by Judge Polodna during all three hearings, the

April 1st, 2013, June 11th, 2013 and December 16th, 2013, in that Campbell was always allowed to make first

argument regardless of whether procedurally or by statue the Plaintiff should have had the right to make his

arguments first and Judge Polodna refused to address Plaintiff's arguments of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction,

“Personal” jurisdiction, improper county court venue or the indemnification clause in the contract.

179. Each and every proceeding brought before Judge Polodna, he states he is aware of the

Plaintiff’s pleadings and would provide an opportunity to hear them later during said proceeding and then

would ignore the Plaintiff's pleadings completely. Judge Polodna ignored five crucial pleadings that were

entered in the Osceola County Clerk’s office but were never heard. That on December 16th, 2013 he was to

hear the Plaintiff’s “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” dated served December 7th, 2013 (See Exhibit 30) and received by Court via e-mail on December 11th, 2013, and received by the Court by mail on December

13th, 2013. Judge Polodna received this pleading in triplicate prior to the Monday, December 16th, 2013

hearing. To date of the filing of this motion, the Court has yet to file the aforementioned motion with the

Court Clerk’s Office and it has yet to be posted on the Court Clerk's “Detail Summary of the Case” and the

Plaintiff has yet to receive a time/date stamped copy for his records even though such was requested of the

Court and a prepaid envelope provided for such. This really didn’t matter to Judge Polodna, as he ignored

the pleading on December 16th, 2013 as a whole. As he abruptly cut the Plaintiff off who was reading into

63

the record an oral Motion for the Disqualification and Recusal of the Judge. Judge Polodna abruptly

concluded the proceeding and hung up on the Plaintiff. This is a prime example of how the Plaintiff is

being treated during each and every hearing before the Court.

180. Because of Judge Polodna’s actions, this matter has perpetuated over a year and has

become a financial burden on Plaintiff as the Plaintiff has been owed a substantial amount of money from

the true contracted parties, Guilio Veglio and P.M. Veglio, LLC d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School – Oviedo.

181. Because of Judge Polodna's refusal to address the issues of standing and capacity to sue,

Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction and the issuing of court orders that he had no authority

or jurisdiction to make, Plaintiff was forced to file a Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of Trial Judge.

182. Jon B. Morgan, Administrative Judge then made an Order of Reassignment stated:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT

This cause having come before the court and the court being duly advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED

I. An Order Granting Defendant's Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of Trial Judge was signed on January 29, 2014.

I. That this case be reassigned from the Honorable Scott Polodna to the Honorable John Jordan.

DONE AND ORDERED in Kissimmee, Florida this 30th day of January, 2014.

A copy of the Order for Reassignment is annexed as Exhibit 35 and is herein made part of.

183. That after being assigned to the case, Judge Jordan issued the following order:

64

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT FUTURE HEARINGS

IT IS ORDERED that a CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled for hearing on MAY 21,2014, at 11:00 a.m. (30 minutes is reserved for this hearing) at the Osceola County Courthouse, 2 Courthouse Square, Kissimmee, Florida 34741, Room 5C before the Honorable John E. Jordan, Circuit Court Judge.

Effectively immediately NO telephonic hearings are permitted in this action. Parties must appear in person or by their legal counsel for all scheduled hearings regarding this action. Parties may submit written Memorandum of Law in lieu of their in person appearance.

Pursuant to the Administrative Order 2012-03, effective April 12,2012, a mandatory meet and confer process is established for motions set for hearing in the Circuit Civil Divisions and shall occur before scheduling the hearing with the Court. Parties are Ordered to fully comply with said Administrative Order. (See Attached Form)

DONE AND ORDERED at Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida, on this 5 February 2014.

A copy of the Jordan 02-05-2014 Order is annexed as Exhibit 36 and herein is made part of

184. This Court should take notice, the Plaintiff is no longer allowed to have telephonic hearings

and upon information and belief this is in retaliation for the motion to disqualify a former colleague and

for the legal record made in New York of the indiscretions of the Florida Court during any proceeding.

Plaintiff is now forced to fly to Florida, paying for a hotel room and rent a car for a (15) fifteen minute

hearing or hire a Florida attorney at a minimum cost of $2,500.00 or file a memorandum of law that

prevents the Plaintiff from making redress of arguments and statements made by the attorney that are

above, beyond and outside the scope of the attorney's motion(s). This Order was intentionally and

deliberately created by Judge Jordan in order to deprive the Plaintiff of his rights to due process and equal

protection of the law and to cover up the illegal actions in the courtroom.

65

185. The Plaintiff strongly and emphatically believes the order was also issued to force the

Plaintiff to appear before Judge Jordan in Florida in an effort to have the Plaintiff arrested for recording in

New York State the illegal court proceedings.

186. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider, Vacate Orders and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint

dated February 12th, 2014 raising the same issues concerning the court lacking “Subject-matter”

jurisdiction, “Personal” jurisdiction, the sole movant Von Curtis lack of standing and capacity to sue,

wrong county court venue and that Plaintiff could not get a fair trial in Osceola County.

Copy of Motion to Reconsider … is annexed as Exhibit 37 and herein is made part of.

187. That on March 7th, 2014, Judge Jordan held an Ex Parte hearing with Campbell concerning Plaintiff's

Motion to Reconsider, Vacate Orders and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with no record of what was stated in court.

188. That on or about March 7th, 2014, Judge Jordan made the following Order knowing that he

lacked both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal jurisdiction. Notice, Judge Jordan uses a single line

P.C.A (Per Curiam Affirmance) denial without any reason or basis for the order. Both Judge Polodna and

Judge Jordan use the P.C.A. in order to prevent the Plaintiff from appealing their orders knowing the

Appellate court cannot make a ruling on a P.C.A. as there is no issue for them to address. The use of the

P.C.A. deprives the litigant of due process and equal protection of the law and is constitutionally illegal.

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando, Plaintiff,

v. Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions, Defendant.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER, VACATE ORDERS AND DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE coming on before the Court on March 7, 2014 on Defendant's Motion to Reconsider, Vacate Orders and Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and the Court having heard argument of counsel for Plaintiff and argument from Defendant by this Motion, Memorandum and supporting papers and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the

66

premises, it is thereupon

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Reconsider, Vacate Orders and Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Osceola County, Florida this 13 day of March, 2014.

A copy of the Order is annexed as Exhibit 38 and herein is made part of.

189. The Order states that the hearing was held on March 7th, 2014 and the Florida court heard

oral argument from Campbell. There was no telephonic hearing, no court reporter present and there is no

record of what was stated by Judge Jordan or Campbell. Plaintiff was not given the opportunity for redress

to Campbell’s oral statements to the court nor was he apprised or allowed to know what took place during

the hearing. This is illegal.

190. The Court ignored all of the Plaintiff’s arguments, upon information and belief, Campbell

never contradicted any of the documentation concerning the issues of lack of standing and capacity to sue,

improper county court venue, the Florida court lacking “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal”

jurisdiction as documented within Plaintiff’s motion. Campbell’s oral statements to the court are Ex Parte

Communications as he never provided them nor did the court provide them to the Plaintiff for redress. This is

a denial of Plaintiff's right of due process and equal protection of the law.

191. That on March 10th, 2014, Campbell filed a Motion for an “Order to Show Cause for Sanctions and to enter a Default against Plaintiff with the Florida court. This was allegedly filed to compel Plaintiff to

respond to Campbell’s discovery demands on behalf of Von Curtis, Inc. and for the following relief:

“5. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court strike the pleadings of Defendant Dudla and enter a default thereupon.”

“Plaintiffs further request that this Court enter and order for Defendant to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions in the form of a monetary award for making the original hearing on the Motion to Compel necessary as well as the hearing on this Motion for Sanctions.”

Copy of OTSC for Sanctions… Relief Page is annexed as Exhibit 39 and herein is made part of.

67

192. Plaintiff filed with the Court on April 2nd, 2014 a “Verified Affidavit in Opposition with

(8) eight Exhibits”, dated April 1st, 2014 which was also accompanied with a Memorandum of Law,

dated April 2nd, 2014 again documenting, including but not limited to, the lack of “Subject-matter”

jurisdiction, “Personal” jurisdiction, lack of standing and capacity to sue and wrong county court venue.

A copy of the Verified Affidavit in Opposition is annexed as Exhibit 40 and herein is made part of. A copy of the Memorandum of Law is annexed as Exhibit 55 and herein is made part of.

193. Again it should be duly noted, no opposition papers were ever filed by Campbell. Campbell

never responded to the Affidavit in Opposition or Memorandum in Law, Campbell never refuted in

writing any of the allegations submitted within said pleadings, never submitted a Memorandum in Law to

the Florida court or to Plaintiff, never informed him of his arguments he intended to make orally to the

court on the date of the scheduled hearing on April 8th, 2014. The Court never notified Plaintiff that such

papers or pleading were filed with the Court and Campbell never challenged or refuted any of the Exhibits

documented within the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Opposition.

194. That on April 8th, 2014 an Ex Parte hearing was held in the Florida court. Campbell and Judge Jordan were the only participants to the hearing on matters regarding Campbell’s aforementioned

Motion for an Order to Show Cause against Plaintiff.

195. It should be duly noted that during the April 8th, 2014 hearing there was no telephonic

hearing, no court reporter present and there is no record of what was stated by and between Judge Jordan

or Campbell. Plaintiff was not apprised or informed as by the court as to what took place during the

hearing nor given the opportunity for redress to Campbell’s oral statements or arguments to the Court.

Campbell’s “live” oral statements or arguments to the court are Ex Parte Communications as they were

never provided in writing to Plaintiff prior to the proceeding. Campbell never refuted the Plaintiff’s

pleadings in opposition or responded to in a written pleading any objection(s) to the same. This is an

absolute denial of due process and equal protection of the law.

68

196. Judge Jordan never made provisions to promptly notify Plaintiff of the substance of the Ex

parte Communication(s) or allowed him the opportunity to respond. After the subsequent hearing(s) took

place, Campbell would submit the next day a proposed order to the Court and subsequently (5) five days

later the order was signed by Judge Jordan and entered within the Court Clerk’s Office. Plaintiff received

the proposed order(s) (6) six days after the proceeding(s) took place and after the order was already signed

and entered. Plaintiff was never given the opportunity to object to the unsigned proposed order(s). This is a

further demonstration of another denial of his right to due process and equal protection of the law. Judge

Jordan signed the order in complete absence of “Subject-matter” and “Personal” jurisdiction.

197. Campbell was provided preferential treatment by Judge Jordan during the (2) two, the

March 7th, 2014 and April 8th, 2014, aforementioned proceedings in that Campbell was allowed to make

“Live Oral Argument(s)” that were outside the scope of the motions before the Court, without prior

knowledge of the Plaintiff. Judge Jordan never informed the Plaintiff of the substance of the statements or

arguments presented by Campbell nor did the order(s) of the court reflect any of these arguments and the

Plaintiff was never given the opportunity to defend or make argument or redress against the introduction of

such statements, arguments or material evidence introduced that were outside the scope of motions

presented before the Court by Campbell.

198. Each of the Plaintiff's pleadings accepted by the court had significant Affirmative

Defenses against any and all of the motions presented by Campbell. Upon information and belief, Both

Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan were helping Campbell to succeed with his motions. This is a clear and

concise indication of prejudice and bias toward the Plaintiff that hindered his ability to defend himself

on matters before a court that had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Both Judge Polodna and Judge

Jordan violated the Plaintiff’s Procedural Due Process Rights as follows:

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate,

69

permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:

“To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge. In general, a judge must discourage ex parte communication and allow it only if all the criteria stated in Section 3B(7) are clearly met. A judge must disclose to all parties all ex parte communications described in Sections 3B(7)(a) and 3B(7)(b) regarding a proceeding pending or impending before the judge.”

199. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have violated Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon 3 - A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:

(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are authorized, provided:

(i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and

(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.

(b) A judge may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge if the judge gives notice to the parties of the person consulted and the substance of the advice and affords the parties reasonable opportunity to respond.

(c) A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities.

(d) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to mediate or settle matters pending before the judge.

70

(e) A judge may initiate or consider any ex parte communications when expressly authorized by law to do so.

200. The aforementioned March 7th, 2014 and more specific the April 8th, 2014 proceeding(s) were

neither for scheduling, administrative purposes and was never an emergency that was inconsequential in nature

to the substance or issues on the merits and did in fact deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits.

201. Campbell did receive a tactical advantage over Plaintiff during the aforementioned

proceeding(s) as Campbell was able to make oral argument(s) and additional statement(s) outside the

scope of the motions presented to the court without the Plaintiff being present, without the Plaintiff being

able to make defense arguments to such and without the Plaintiff being informed by the Court as to what

arguments or statements were in fact made by Campbell or by the court during these proceedings.

202. Judge Jordan never asked Plaintiff’s consent to confer separately, by way of the Ex Parte

hearing(s), with Campbell in an effort to mediate or settle the matters pending before him.

203. There is no Florida Statue that allows Judge Jordan to have an Ex Parte Hearing

regarding substantive matters or issues on the merits to this Florida Action.

204. That Judge Jordan issued the following Order without any motion being filed with the court

concerning this issue and knowing he was issuing said order in complete absence of “Subject-matter” and

“Personal” jurisdiction.

VON CURTIS, INC. d/b/a PAUL MITCHELL THE SCHOOL ORLANDO, P.M. VEGLIO, L.L.C and GUILIO VEGLIO,

v.

SHAWN DUDLA d/b/a NU-VISIONS ENTERPRISES,

Plaintiffs, Defendant.

ORDER AS TO THE STYLE OF THE CASE

This cause coming on before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause on April 8, 2014, with the Court having noted that the style of the case has not changed

71

although new Plaintiffs have been added, and the Court having noted that this change in parties is readily visible to and has been known by Defendant, the Court thereupon has suasponte determined that the style of this case shall be changed forthwith to reflect the changed and additional parties.

It is THERE UPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The style of this case shall be amended to reflect the current parties as named in the Amended Complaint.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Osceola County, Florida this 14 day of April, 2014.

A copy of the Jordan 04-14-2014 Order is annexed as Exhibit 41 and herein is made part of

205. This is the First Order that lists P.M. Veglio LLC and Guilio Veglio as Plaintiffs. The Motion to Amend Complaint as documented above in ¶48, 130 thru 132 (See Exhibit 12) did not include Guilio

Veglio and the motion was clear in stating that Von Curtis, Inc. was to be replaced by P.M. Vagelio, LLC.

Therefore, Von Curtis, Inc. and Guilio Veglio should not be listed as Plaintiffs in the Florida action.

206. Judge Jordan was fully aware that there was no motion before the court to add Giulio Veglio to the matter and had no authority or jurisdiction to unilaterally do so.

207. Judge Jordan was fully aware that there was no motion before the court to correct the

style and no notice was given to the Plaintiff that the style was to be changed by judicial fiat.

208. This unilateral action by Judge Jordan clearly demonstrates that Campbell and Judge

Jordan are conspiring and/or colluding to manipulate the case and deprive the Plaintiff in the Florida action

of his due process rights. Further, the Alias Summons and Complaint were never properly served, were

untimely served and the caption of each document did not mention P.M. Veglio LLC or Giulio Veglio and

there is no indication of any other plaintiff to the action. It has been more than 120 days since the Alias

Summons and Complaint was filed but never properly served upon the Plaintiff as required by Florida

statute and pursuant to the April 10th, 2013 court order.

209. This Order was issued for the sole purpose of depriving the Plaintiff of his right to due

process and equal protection of the law and clearly supports Plaintiff’s statements that all of the orders and

72

pleadings in this matter erroneously had the wrong caption and therefore, the matter should have been

dismissed. This is a definitive Prima facia case of collusion between Campbell and Judge Jordan.

210. All previous pleadings and orders before the court, listed the defendant as Shawn Dudla

d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions. The name on the Contract was Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-

Visions Enterprises. Plaintiff argued in his pleading that the wrong defendant was listed for the Florida

proceeding. The Court should take Judicial notice Judge Jordan is correcting all of Campbell's caption

mistakes and violations of Florida law by judicial fiat.

211. After correcting the style of the court pleadings and orders, Judge Jordan signed the

Order granting Campbell everything he wanted and then some as it was Campbell who prepared the

Order for Judge Jordan and both knew it contained false statements of material facts. The Order received

April 18th, 2014 and is stamped by Jordan is titled:

VON CURTIS, INC. d/b/a PAUL MITCHELL THE SCHOOL ORLANDO, P.M. VEGLIO, L.L.C and GUILIO VEGLIO,

v.

SHAWN DUDLA d/b/a NU-VISIONS ENTERPRISES,

Plaintiffs, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ENTERING A DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT DUDLA

A copy of the Jordan 04-18-2014 Order annexed as Exhibit 42 and herein is made part of

212. The above order prepared by Campbell and signed by Judge Jordan makes multiple false

statements of material fact, for example:

a. This cause coming on before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order to Show Cause, on April 8, 2014, with Defendant having filed an affidavit and memorandum in opposition, and with Defendant having had an opportunity to be in attendance to present live argument in person or through counsel. Defendant was not in attendance, nor did he have counsel appear on his behalf. The Court, having considered the voluminous pleadings of this matter, the many filings of Defendant in his efforts to avoid responding to Plaintiffs' discovery, the many filings of Defendant in his efforts to avoid complying with the earlier Order compelling discovery, and the argument of counsel for Plaintiffs,

73

the Court finds as follows:

The Plaintiff notified the court in his papers that he could not afford to pay several hundreds of

dollars, if not more, to travel to Florida for a (15) fifteen minute proceeding or pay an attorney thousands of

dollars to appear.

213. Another example to the aforementioned false claims within the court order:

b. “It has not been disputed that Defendant received the discovery served by Plaintiffs.”

This is misleading and false, Plaintiff received discovery served by the sole captioned movant

plaintiff, “Von Curtis, Inc.” the very same litigant that Campbell admitted to being “the wrong plaintiff”

and the Plaintiff herein definitely disputed Von Curtis, Inc. having standing and capacity to sue within

his numerous defense pleadings. Plaintiff herein made the following response to Discovery:

“Alleged Defendant's Answer: Not Applicable (from this point forward known as N/A). Plaintiff Von Curtis, Inc. does not have and has not a Contract Agreement or an Assigned Contract Agreement by and between the named Defendant and therefore lacks standing, the capacity to sue and is not entitled to the information requested.”

214. Another example to the aforementioned false claims within the court order:

c. “It has not been disputed and appears clear that Defendant has chosen to willfully disregard the Order dated December 23, 2013 and while he has the ability to comply, he has chosen to disregard that Order.”

This is blatantly false and misleading as Plaintiff did not willfully disregard the December 23rd, 2013

Order as Plaintiff did dispute the requests, did submit answers to discovery and did dispute the “Order to

Compel” documenting Judge Polodna lacked both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction.

Campbell and Judge Polodna were attempting to force the Plaintiff into providing false statements of fact in

violation of Florida Law. As per the “Contract in Dispute” the Plaintiff had no business dealings with “Von

Curtis, Inc.” and “Von Curtis, Inc.” is not found anywhere within the “Contract in Dispute”. This was clearly

demonstrated within all of the Plaintiff’s motions and responsive pleadings before the Florida court.

215. Another example to the aforementioned false claims within the court order:

74

e. “The balance of the first response of Defendant and his subsequent memorandum and affidavit directed to opposing the Motion for Order to Show Cause fails to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs in their motions. The matters of venue and subject matter jurisdiction have been ruled upon and are not before this Court at this time.”

This is totally false. None of court orders issued in this matter have addressed the issues of

improper county court venue, “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and there has been no evidentiary hearing

concerning improper county court venue and “Subject-matter” jurisdiction even though the Plaintiff has

repeatedly asked for one.

216. Another example to the aforementioned false claims within the court order:

f. “Defendant did not address his failure to respond to discovery except by suggesting "entrapment" which is not a justification for willfully refusing to comply with an Order of this Court.”

The Plaintiff did respond to the discovery by taking the position that Von Curtis, Inc. lacked

standing and the capacity to sue as they were not a named party to the contract in dispute.

217. Another example to the aforementioned false claims within the court order:

g. “Defendant Dudla ignores the fact that there is not a single Plaintiff, Von Curtis, Inc., but instead there are multiple Plaintiffs (Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell The School Orlando, (hereinafter "Von Curtis"), P.M. Veglio, L.L.C. and Guilio Veglio as shown without dispute in the Amended Complaint and Defendant has not raised any issue regarding the standing or capacity to sue of parties other than Von Curtis, Inc.”

This is false as the Plaintiff clearly raised the issue that PM Veglio, LLC and Guilio Veglio

lacked standing and the capacity to sue the Plaintiff pursuant to the “Indemnity Clause” of the “Contract

in Dispute” as they owe the Plaintiff, for work outside of the scope of the “Contract in Dispute”, money

in the amount of $96,168.28 plus interest. The “Contract in Dispute” is poignantly clear, if any money is

owed for goods, work performed and services rendered outside of the scope of the initial contract and in

addition to it, the Plaintiff cannot be sued. Further, the Plaintiff argued that all work was performed in

Oviedo, Florida which is in Seminole county not Osceola county.

218. Furthermore, Campbell and Judge Jordan knew the statement is false as the Campbell and

75

Judge Jordan are masking the fact that all of Campbell’s pleadings solely caption “Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a

Paul Mitchell the School Orlando” as “Plaintiff” (singular) and the body of his pleadings identify the

aforementioned as “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff’s” as singular possessive of the pleading and do not identify

or caption any other litigant by name as required by Florida Statute. Campbell negates to address that

under Judge Polodna’s decision and order [ruled in the absence of jurisdiction], Campbell was only

permitted to insert into his amended pleadings “PM Vagelio, LLC” for which he never did and

Campbell was never permitted to insert “P.M. Veglio, LLC or Guilio Veglio”. Campbell negates to state

that there has been multiple dispute pleadings regarding this issue that the Plaintiff filed with the Court

that both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan ignored and never ruled upon. The Plaintiff did file

“Motion(s) to Dismiss the “Amended Complaint” that were never ruled upon by Judge Polodna and

Judge Jordan. The Plaintiff did file an answer to the “Amended Complaint” that questioned the validity

of service, the Court’s absence of jurisdiction, the Osceola County Court was improper venue, standing

and capacity to sue and based upon the “Indemnity Clause” in the “Contract in Dispute” and multiple

other Affirmative Defenses for which the Court refuses to address.

219. Another example to the aforementioned false claims within the court order:

h. “All other issues were argued and addressed before Judge Polodna, ruled upon by Judge Polodna, appealed by Defendant to the Fifth District Court of Appeals which rejected Defendant's appeal, reargued by Defendant before the Fifth District Court of Appeals with a Motion for Reconsideration, rejected again by the Fifth District Court of Appeals by an order denying his motion for reconsideration, and then ruled upon again by this Court in March, 2014.”

This is a knowingly false statement by Judge Jordan and Campbell. Plaintiff never received a

ruling on any of the issues raised before the Court that had any reason(s) or basis, fact(s) or finding(s) in

conclusion of law that justified the denial of Plaintiff’s motions. The court orders in this matter and the

transcripts of the proceedings before Judge Polodna clearly show that said statement is patently false.

There is no ruling addressing Von Curtis, Inc. lack of standing and capacity to sue, addressing the issue

Based upon the findings and rulings above, a default is hereby entered against Defendant

76

of improper county court venue, documenting how Osceola County court has obtained Subject-matter

jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.

220. Another example to the aforementioned false claims within the court order:

The above facts and communications including admissions by Defendant establish conclusively the willful noncompliance with an Order of this Court and is worthy of the appropriate sanctions that this Court determines to be reasonable. The multiple bold pronouncements of Defendant meet the standard of Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1984) and later cases with the same result. The holding in Mercer was Illustrative of the same type of intentional misconduct by a party such as Defendant Dudla:

We agree that the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances. Hart v. Weaver, 364 So.2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). A deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, Swindle v. Reid, 242 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness, Herold v. Computer Components International, Inc., 252 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971 ). In Santuoso, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court because the order entering default against the defendants for failing to comply with discovery did not recite that Santuoso's failure to submit to discovery was willful. 385 So.2d at 114. In the instant case the trial court found that the defendant's actions amounted to willful disregard. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the District Court of Appeal.

This Court finds that Defendant Dudla has engaged in "a deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority," has acted in "bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court" and has demonstrated "deliberate callousness" by his creation of a multitude of repetitious and ineffective evidentiary excuses to not comply with the Court's Order of December 23,2013.

Defendant Dudla has now ignored discovery for as long as fifteen ( 15) months and the Court Order of December 23, 2013 for over three (3) months with an offer that he would only now "cooperate" only if Plaintiffs' provided him with information "in good faith," presumably to his own self-defined subjective standard. This is the willful disregard of a valid order and warrants the entry of a default and an award of attorneys' fees. Defendant Dudla has apparently personally chosen this defensive strategy and has been stonewalling Plaintiffs in their discovery efforts. ...

The Court finds that no description could fit the conduct of Defendant Dudla in this case better, thus, striking his pleadings is the appropriate and only meaningful sanction available. As a result, it is

THEREUPON ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

227. This ruling clearly violates Rule 1.140(b) that holds any ground not stated shall be

77

Shawn Dudla as to liability, his defensive pleadings are hereby stricken, and Plaintiffs shall be entitled to recover their attorneys' fees for these motions. This Court will reserve jurisdiction to determine by trial the damages of Plaintiffs on their claims and to determine the proper resolution of Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees for these proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Osceola County, Florida this 18 day of April, 2014. Judge John E. Jordan

221. The above order was prepared by Campbell knowing he was not the "attorney of record" and

signed by Judge Jordan knowing he lacked both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in

the matter is travesty of justice and a total denial of Plaintiff's constitutional rights of due process and equal

protection of the law.

222. The fact that Campbell prepared the order and Judge Jordan, ignoring statute, case law

and the facts, signed the order clearly demonstrates a conspiracy or collusion between Campbell and

Judge Jordan.

223. Judge Jordan is awarding attorney fees to Campbell for his motions that he had no authority

to file with the court and he is penalizing Plaintiff for raising the issues of standing and capacity to sue,

improper county court venue, lack of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction.

224. Nowhere within the Order does Judge Jordan address the issues raised by the Plaintiff that Judge Jordan lacked “Subject-matter” jurisdiction or “Personal” jurisdiction over the Plaintiff in this matter.

225. This order clearly demonstrates and confirms that Judge Jordan and Campbell have

conspired and colluded to defraud and to extort tens of thousands of dollars from Plaintiff while depriving

and denying him of any defense he has raised, his rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

226. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan through their actions are clearly sending a message

to the Plaintiff that they will take adverse action against him so long as he continues to refuse to settle

the matter with Campbell.

(Notice: Plaintiff is singular and only one Plaintiff is referred to.)

78

deemed to be waived except any ground showing that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject

matter may be made at any time.

RULE 1.140 DEFENSES

(b) How Presented. Every defense in law or fact to a claim for relief in a pleading shall be asserted in the responsive pleading, if one is required, but the following defenses may be made by motion at the option of the pleader: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficiency of process, (5) insufficiency of service of process, (6) failure to state a cause of action, and (7) failure to join indispensable parties. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. The grounds on which any of the enumerated defenses are based and the substantial matters of law intended to be argued shall be stated specifically and with particularity in the responsive pleading or motion. Any ground not stated shall be deemed to be waived except any ground showing that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter may be made at any time. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief at the trial, except that the objection of failure to state a legal defense in an answer or reply shall be asserted by motion to strike the defense within 20 days after service of the answer or reply.

228. Because of Judge Jordan’s actions, this matter has perpetuated to the present and has become

a financial burden on the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff has been owed a substantial amount of money from the true

contracted parties, Guilio Veglio and P.M. Veglio, LLC d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School - Oviedo.

229. This ruling prepared by Campbell and signed by Judge Jordan clearly demonstrates they

are in collusion with each other to remove the very existence of all of the Plaintiff’s Affirmative Defense

pleadings in an attempt cover up or bury their indiscretions during this Florida Action.

230. That Campbell then filed with the court the following Notice:

Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando,

v.

Shawn Dudla d/b/a Nu-Visions Entertainment Productions,

Plaintiff, Defendant.

79

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE FOR TRIAL

Plaintiffs, Von Curtis, Inc. d/b/a Paul Mitchell the School Orlando, P.M. Veglio LLC and Guilio Veglio by and through their undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Rule 1.440, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, files this Notice for Trial and as grounds for said notice states that this action is at issue and ready to be set for Jury Trial. It is estimated that the trial will take approximately two days.

This Court should take notice it states, “ready to be set for Jury Trial ".

A copy of this Notice for Trial dated July 19th, 2013 is annexed as Exhibit 43 and herein is made part of.

231. That on April 23rd, 2014 Campbell sent the following threatening e-mail to Plaintiff after

Judge Jordan dismisses all of Plaintiff's Affirmative Defenses as documented above:

Mr. Dudla,

I am going to be scheduling a trial on the damages my clients have suffered, including the damages from your illegal interception of communications (please do not argue that it is legal in NY, that is irrelevant when you speak with people in Florida). A trial on the issue of damages is what is normally done once a default on liability is entered (which has occurred) and that is certainly our choice of action. I anticipate a full day for a non-jury trial before Judge Jordan. We have quite a list of damages because the work was in many regards incomplete and in many other regards very poor. We may actually get a trial done in somewhat less than a full day since all of your defenses have been stricken, but I would not want to reserve too little time and make you come down for trial twice.

I will be getting you a number of available dates but before I call the Court for dates, I wanted to know if there were any particular days or weeks when you are unavailable due to business matters that cannot be rescheduled. Please try to provide me the requested information before the end of the week so we can start scheduling the damages trial next week. I will not accept or agree to unreasonable delays (as you know from our past exchanges) but I also do not wish to be inconsiderate of your business, especially since we are hopeful that there will be a substantial award of damages against you personally and it will be our intent to pursue collection.

A copy of this Campbell’s E-mail is annexed as Exhibit 44 and herein is made part of.

232. That upon information and belief this e-mail by Campbell clearly demonstrates that Judge

Jordan and Campbell conspired to have Plaintiff's Affirmative Defenses to the lawsuit stricken in order to

defraud him or extort money from him to benefit of Von Curtis, Inc., P.M. Veglio and Guilio Veglio by

80

holding a trial where Plaintiff is not allowed to defend himself. Further, Campbell is now stating that it is to be

a non- jury trial before Judge Jordan in contradiction to his Notice for Trial (See Exhibit 43) that stated it was

to be a jury trial. Obviously, Campbell and Jordan are colluding to deprive Plaintiff of a jury trial in Florida

knowing full well that Judge Jordan is acting in complete absence of Subject-matter and Personal jurisdiction.

233. Campbell is also stating that it has already been determined that Plaintiff violated Florida

Law by allegedly recording conversations with Guilio in Florida. Yet they are deliberately ignoring the fact

that Campbell, in violation of FRCP 1.130, never substantiated these claims within his Complaint or

Amended Complaint with any supporting material evidence proving this to be true and at the same time he is

ignoring the fact that both New York State and Federal law would trump Florida law as to the recording of

phone conversations via interstate from New York. The Plaintiff has within his pleadings vehemently denied

the recording of anyone while he was within the state of Florida. Campbell by not supporting his claims

within his pleadings has demonstrated he cannot prove otherwise or he would have done so already. This

also further demonstrates a clear conspiracy between Judge Jordan and Campbell.

234. That the Plaintiff filed a Motion for the Disqualification/Recusal of Trail Judge dated April 23rd, 2014 to have Judge Jordan recused based upon the documentation herein, including but not limited to

his prejudiced against the Plaintiff, his lack of both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction, “Personal” jurisdiction,

violation of Florida Statute, improper county court venue, denial of the Plaintiff’s rights of due process and

equal protection of the law in the matter.

A copy of the Motion for Disqualification is annexed as Exhibit 45 and herein is made part of.

235. Judge Jordan then issued his Order dated April 25th, 2014 denying the Plaintiff's Motion

for Disqualification/Recusal and again refused to demonstrate that he had both “Subject-matter”

jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction of the matter.

A copy of the Order is annexed as Exhibit 46 and herein is made part of.

81

236. Judge Jordan knew he was incapable of demonstrating both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction

and “Personal” jurisdiction, and therefore, took the approach of blame the Plaintiff.

237. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike plaintiff's (Florida action) December 27th, 2012 Complaint

and Dismiss the Case dated May 5th, 2014 raising the issue for the first time that Campbell is not the

“Attorney of Record” as required under Florida law in order to file papers on behalf of his clients. Plaintiff

also again raised the issues of lack of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction; lack of “Personal” jurisdiction; wrong

county court venue; indemnification clause of the contract in dispute and that Von Curtis lacked both

standing and capacity to sue.

Copy of Motion to Strike and Affidavit in Support annexed as Exhibit 47 and herein is made part of.

238. That on May 19th, 2014 Judge Jordan rescheduled the case management proceeding to be

held on the same date as he was going to hear the Plaintiff's motion to strike by stating:

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RESET HEARING

IT IS ORDERED that the Hearing previously scheduled for May 21, 2014 is hereby reset to June 16, 2014 at 10:45 a.m. and has been added to the previously scheduled hearing at the Osceola County Courthouse, 2 Courthouse Square, Kissimmee, Florida 34741, Room 5C before the Honorable John E. Jordan, Circuit Court Judge.

DONE AND ORDERED at Kissimmee, Osceola County, Florida, on this 19 May 2014.

Copy of the Order is annexed as Exhibit 48 and herein is made part of.

239. It should be duly noted by this Court, the defending party (Plaintiff herein) never

submitted a “Motion to Reset Hearing” to the court. The Plaintiff submitted a letter to the court to

consider rescheduling the “Case Management Conference” scheduled for May 21st, 2014 in light of the

fact that the Plaintiff had a “Motion to Strike” pending with the court that if the motion was granted

would have rendered the need for the aforementioned conference moot. Further, this Court should duly

note, the Case Management Conference was not a hearing. Judge Jordan, by way of judicial fiat, took it

upon himself to render an order of the court to reschedule the “Case Management Conference” for the

82

same date and time as the Plaintiff’s hearing on his “Motion to Strike”.

A copy of the Letter to the court is annexed as Exhibit 49 and herein is made a part of.

240. That on June 16th, 2014 a hearing was held and the Plaintiff hired a Court Reporter for

the hearing as he could not afford to travel to Florida for a (15) fifteen minute hearing and he feared the

potential retaliation of the Florida court having Plaintiff face being arrested in Florida for the alleged

claim of recording his phone calls while in New York State. Again this was an Ex Parte hearing and the

Plaintiff was not given the opportunity for redress or to respond to Campbell's argument’s, statements

and introduction of any material evidence to the Court.

The following was stated during the hearing:

THE COURT: Okay. So we entered an order previously granting Mr. Dudla's request to reset the case management conference to today because we had a hearing on another matter. Now, these hearings were to start at 10:45. We have waited seven minutes. Mr. Dudla has failed to appear.

And Madam J.A., Ms. Cathy (phonetic), did Mr. Dudla contact you to indicate that he was running late for today's hearing?

MS. CATHY: No.

THE COURT: Has he indicated to you by mail or by telephone that he was or was not coming?

MS. CATHY: I received -- I talked to him on the phone and email. I don't know which one of them -- he inferred he would be appearing.

THE COURT: All right. Okay....

THE COURT: Okay. You two can talk.

Thank you, Madam J.A. So he has failed to appear. Now, we have a defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint. I read all of the pleadings on this. We also had our case management conference where you have to appear in person, and I'm very concerned that he failed to appear today for that.

Now, as everyone is aware, the Court previously entered orders denying defendant's motion to reconsider, vacate orders, and dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, where in detail we set out that he's just re-litigating issues. So Mr. Campbell, go ahead. He filed everything in writing, so what is your response to this?

83

MR. CAMPBELL: My response to the motion to strike, Your Honor, is that it is repetitive. It's virtually identical, and is identical in many places, to previous motions, previous arguments, previous case citations. And while this case is quite distinct factually -- because the case I am about to cite deals with a criminal case where a defendant was repeatedly filing motions to correct his sentence. The ruling of the Court and the citations -- previous cases, Florida Supreme Court, as well as Fifth DCA, hold very true. The case I'm citing to is Carr, C-a-r-r, against State of Florida, 917 So. 2d 1047, Fifth District Court of Appeals decision from 2006. And one part of that case cites, and I quote, "It is improper and a waste of Appeals decision from 2006. And one part of that case cites, and I quote, "It is improper and a waste of precious judicial resources for a defendant to file successive, repetitive motions for collateral relief which has been considered by the trial and appellate courts on the merits and denied." While the facts are the same, the legal principals are not. This motion is the same motion just styled a little bit differently, titled a little bit differently on what has already been ruled upon repeatedly by Judge Polodna, as well as by Your Honor, so I would respectfully request it be denied.

THE COURT: Okay. Having read everything, I agree it is repetitive. I'm going to deny it. If you

can prepare the order. Secondly, I'm going to be scheduling a hearing on a rule to show cause as to why the defendant should not be held in contempt for failing to appear in person today for the case management conference. It will give him an opportunity to explain to the Court why he should not be held in contempt an we will give you a date on that at a later time.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. I communicated -- or I tried to communicate with Mr. Dudla Monday a

week ago, as well as again last Friday; and I advised him one of the things that commonly occurs during the case management conference is the scheduling of a trial, or final hearing, as it would be in this case. And I requested that he provide me with dates when he might not be available for trial. I wanted to know that in advance so I could check my own calendar and come to this prepared to set a trial on damages on this matter. He did not respond to either email.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, that is absolutely one of the things we discuss, so we will go ahead

and set a date at this time, if you would like. Did you talk to my J.A. about available times? How much time do you need for it?

MR. CAMPBELL: I did not because I had not heard from Mr. Dudla; but I will be happy to do so

this afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How much time will it take?

MR. CAMPBELL: It will depend on whether he shows up or not. If he doesn't show up, a half a day.

THE COURT: Assume he shows up.

84

MR. CAMPBELL: Assume he shows up? A day.

THE COURT: Okay. Non-jury?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. So you need a day, non-jury. Okay. So I know we can accommodate

both parties. Why don't you contact my J.A. to get a date? In light of Mr. Dudla's failing to appear at the hearing today for the case management conference where we would have discussed setting this case for trial, I'm assuming he doesn't care when it's set. There was a notice of unavailability in this case, I believe, wasn't there?

MR. CAMPBELL: I haven't gotten everything he has filed. I did not get the motion to reschedule

the case management conference. So if there was one, I don't believe I've seen it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let's see. It might have been -- there is a fair amount of pleadings. There is none

for today.

MR. CAMPBELL: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Because he specifically discussed this one. Okay. So we'll do that. Go ahead and talk to her about getting a day on that end, and we will proceed forward.

MR. CAMPBELL: I will do so, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. You'll prepare the order denying the motion.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I will, Your Honor; and you or your J.A. or both of you will prepare the order to show cause?

THE COURT: Yes, we will do that.

MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. That will conclude the hearing.

Thank you, Madam Court Reporter.

A copy of the 6-16-2014 Transcript is annexed as Exhibit 50 and herein is made part of.

241. The transcript shows that this proceeding was well coordinated and orchestrated

beforehand as the Plaintiff hired a Court Reporter to record the proceeding. There are several statements

made by Judge Jordan, Campbell and the Judge Jordan's J.A. Cathy that were knowingly and patently

85

false statements and statements that are intended to intimidate and threaten the Plaintiff:

a. The Plaintiff never requested the resetting of any hearing date. He sent a letter to

the Court informing the Court that it would be an error to set a date for trial or hold a “Case

Management Conference when court hadn't ruled on his Motion to Strike concerning Campbell

not being the attorney of record. (See Exhibit 49)

b. The Plaintiff was never informed that it was mandatory for him to personally appear

for the “Case Management Conference”. Judge Jordan's Order setting the “Case Management

Conference” (See Exhibit 36) and his Order resetting the “Case Management Conference” (See

Exhibit 48) do not state that Plaintiff is required to attend. Therefore, Plaintiff had no way of

knowing that the “Case Management Conference” required him to personally appear in Florida.

c. The Plaintiff prepared a Memorandum of Law for his “Motion to Strike” as he

was not going to attend. Further, the Plaintiff informed the Court that he was not going to attend

by letter to the court dated June 11th, 2014 and received by the Court on June 12th, 2014.

Copy of the Memorandum Letter to Court date June 11th, 2014 is annexed as Exhibit 56 and herein is made part of.

d. Cathy, falsely stated to the court that she had talked to Plaintiff on the phone and

by e-mail. Plaintiff vehemently denies ever having had a conversation with Cathy regarding

appearing for this proceeding.

e. Cathy falsely stated that Plaintiff inferred he would be appearing. In fact, the

Plaintiff notified the court twice by letter that he was not going to appear. (See Exhibits 49 & 56)

f. Judge Jordan is very concerned that Plaintiff failed to appear for the Case Management

Conference, yet, he’s not concerned with the fact that he has refused to address any of the Plaintiff’s

issues concerning him not having Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction in the matter.

g. Judge Jordan admits he denied the Plaintiff's previous motions, but fails to state

86

that he never addressed any of the issues within these motions and has refused to demonstrate he

has both Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction in the Florida matter.

h. The motion was not repetitive as it raised the issue for the first time that Campbell

was not legally the “Attorney of Record” in the matter and had no authority to submit any papers

on behalf of his clients as he was not the “Attorney of Record”.

i. Campbell states and Judge Jordan agrees that Plaintiff's motions have already

been repeatedly ruled upon. Not once have the issues raised by the Plaintiff been addressed. The

motions were summarily denied without any explanations, demonstration or proof that Judge

Polodna and Judge Jordan had both Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction.

j. Judge Jordan is now going to hold the Plaintiff in contempt of court knowing full

well that the Plaintiff notified the court he was not going to attend, the court never informed him

that his appearance was mandatory and the fact that Judge Jordan knows full well he is

statutorily, procedurally and Case Law deprived of both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and

“Personal” jurisdiction in this matter and should not be ruling.

k. That threatening to hold the Plaintiff in contempt by way of a false claim is a

direct abuse of judicial discretion and power in attempt by Judge Jordan to threaten and

intimidate the Plaintiff into submission and coerce the Plaintiff into settling the matter with

Campbell. This further demonstrates judicial partiality and bias; Judge Jordan has no intention of

listening to any argument made by the Plaintiff.

l. The Court is stating it is setting a trial by a non-jury. In short, Judge Jordan is

going to hear the case knowing full well that he is prejudice, partial and bias against the plaintiff

and lacks both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.

m. Further, Campbell's Notice for Trial (See Exhibit 43) states that trial is to be by

87

jury. Obviously, Campbell is fully aware that Judge Jordan will give him what he wants in the

terms of damages and that is why he now wants a non-jury trial.

242. That it is not in the job description for Cathy Stephens, Judge Jordan's J.A., to present

false statements to the Judge to be placed on the Record during a hearing and upon information and

belief Stephens, as Judge Jordan’s Judicial Assistant (J.A.), helped Judge Jordan perpetuate the fraud

upon the Plaintiff and was an active participant in the proceeding.

243. That upon information and belief, Judge Jordan had Stephens make the false statements

for the Record because a court reporter was present.

244. That upon information and belief, Stephens has helped Judge Jordan suppress the Plaintiff’s papers before the court.

245. That the Plaintiff sent a Memorandum of Law letter to judge dated June 11th, 2014 that he

would not be able to attend the conference in person.

246. That on June 18th, 2014 Judge Jordan dismissed the Plaintiff's motion to strike by stating:

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

THIS CAUSE coming on before the Court on June 16, 2014 on Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs December 27th, 2012 Complaint and Dismiss the Case, the Court having heard argument of counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant not appearing, and relying upon cases such as Carr v. State of Florida 917 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) and the repetitive nature of Defendant's motion and arguments, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs December 27th, 2012 Complaint and Dismiss the Case be and the same is hereby DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Osceola County, Florida this 18th day of June, 2014.

A copy of Order is annexed as Exhibit 51 and herein is made part of.

247. Again, the Plaintiff has been denied his due process rights as the Judge Jordan has

refused to address any of the issues concerning “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction

88

in the Florida matter. Procedurally the Plaintiff was denied a proper Decision on the record. The decision

maker's conclusion must, rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing. Judge

Jordan’s decision makes no reference to any portion of the Plaintiff’s Motion before him and he clearly

makes no reference to what portions of the Motion are repetitive. This is typical of each and every

decision and order rendered by both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan. To demonstrate compliance with

this elementary requirement, the decision maker should state the reasons for his determination and

indicate the evidence he relied on.

248. That the above Order to deny Plaintiff's motion to strike was prepared by Campbell as

documented by his letter dated June 16th, 2014. It is the same day as the hearing. The letter states:

“Enclosed please find a proposed Order which reflects your ruling from the hearing held on June 16, 2014 on Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs December 27th, 2012 Complaint and Dismiss the Case. I believe this Order reflects the ruling of the Court. If the form and content of the Order meets with your approval, please enter same. I have also enclosed additional copies of the Order and postage prepaid and addressed envelopes for the Court's use in providing conformed copies of the Orders to counsel for the parties.”

A copy of Proposed Order Letter is annexed as Exhibit 52 and herein is made part of.

249. Judge Jordan is fully aware that he lacks both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in the Florida matter.

250. In the Amended Complaint (See Exhibit 2), Campbell made the following statements:

“37. Defendant Dudla has repeatedly illegally intercepted and recorded telephone conversations between himself and Plaintiff Guilio as well as between himself and agents and employees of Plaintiffs. The number of such interceptions and recordings is unknown to Plaintiffs, but Defendant Dudla has admitted having such by stating in writing "I have more documentation, photos, statements, Journal entries and Affidavits of Depositions plus witnesses, professional witness recorded conversations (some of which I am certain you don't want your partners to hear) e-mails and IM's to bring to the table than you can possibly imagine." (Emphasis in original)”

This allegation was never supported by any exhibit(s) to the Complaint or Amended Complaint

as required. Therefore, this argument is a nullity as it is in violation of FRCP 1.130(a).

89

38. Florida Statute §934.03 provides in pertinent part:

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:

(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:

1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2140855.2

2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;

(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation; shall be punished as provided in subsection (4).

251. This is nothing more than an attempt by Campbell to threaten and intimidate the Plaintiff.

“39. Defendant Dudla did, by his own admission, intercept and record numerous communications between himself and agents and employees of Plaintiff P.M. Veglio and agents of Plaintiff Guilio Veglio.”

“40. At no time did Defendant Dudla have the consent of any agent or employee of Plaintiffs or of Plaintiffs to intercept or record any electronic or other communication.”

90

252. Pursuant to New York State Law and Federal Law the Plaintiff was under no obligation

to inform anyone a call was being recorded as New York State Law and Federal law only requires only

require one person to the conversation know about the recording.

“41. Furthermore, Defendant Dudla has violated the law by using and threatening to use the illegally intercepted and recorded communications, each such act being yet another violation of Florida law.”

“42. Each of the illegal interceptions was committed in Florida in that each person speaking on behalf of and for Plaintiffs was in Florida at the time of the illegal recording.”

Campbell is clearly stating that only Florida Law counts in this matter.

253. Campbell goes on to cite Florida Statute § 934.10 provides as follows:

Civil remedies. (1) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 shall have a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications and shall be entitled to recover from any such person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate, including:

(a) Preliminary or equitable or declamatory relief as may be appropriate;

(b) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher;

(c) Punitive damages; and

(d) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

“44. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of law by Defendant Dudla, Plaintiffs have been damaged as have the individuals who were victimized by the illegal acts of Dudla.”

“45. The acts of Defendant Dudla were and continue to be malicious, warranting an award of punitive damages as provided for in the law.”

254. That upon information and belief, Judge Jordan and Campbell are colluding and

conspiring to force the Plaintiff to step in the State of Florida and when he appears at the court house, he

91

will be arrested and criminally charged for recording the three proceedings before Judge Polodna in

alleged violation of Florida Law.

255. That Plaintiff had an absolute legal right to record the court hearings as he was in the

State of New York and under New York Law only one party needs to know the call is being recorded

pursuant to Penal Law §250 eavesdropping:

§ 250.00 Eavesdropping; definitions of terms. The following definitions are applicable to this article:

1. "Wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs or necessary to protect the rights or property of said corporation shall not be deemed "wiretapping."

2. "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.

256. Campbell in his Affidavit to the Federal Court (See Exhibit 9) states:

“2. The very first pleading filed by Mr. Dudla was a Motion for Summary Judgment. At the first hearing Judge Polodna commented that Mr. Dudla may have waived defenses. Mr. Dudla gave indications that he was recording that telephonic hearing and it is possible that he still has that recording and may have had it transcribed.”

Campbell is clearly admitting that he and the Court knew that Plaintiff was recording the Florida

proceedings.

257. That Plaintiff had an absolute legal right to record the court hearings as he was in the State

of New York and as this was an interstate call, Federal Law would prevail. Federal Law requires only one

party needs to know the call is being recorded pursuant to U.S.C. 2511(2)(c),(d) eavesdropping:

(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.

92

(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortuous act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State,” 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c), (d).

258. Campbell has already stated that he and Judge Jordan are not going to entertain New York

Law and certainly, based upon all of Judge Jordan's actions in this matter, he or other Florida judges will

ignore Federal Law as it pertains to eavesdropping.

259. Campbell prepared the Florida court orders for the judges to sign that deprived Plaintiff

of his federal due process and equal protection of the law rights and his rights under Florida law which

was known by both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan.

260. On June 16th, 2014, Campbell sent the following e-mail to Plaintiff stating:

Mr. Dudla,

It is unfortunate that you have not responded to my e- mails and that you did not attend the mandatory Case Management Conference today.I will be scheduling the final hearing on damages this week. Again, if there are any dates or blocks of time you are not available due to a meaningful conflict, please advise immediately, otherwise we will proceed and not coordinate the date with you. At that time I would expect the Court will be less than sympathetic, as would I, to requests to reschedule the final hearing.

Your motion was denied as repetitive based upon legal authority presented by me to the Court. The Judge will be entering his own order regarding your failure to attend the Case Management Conference.

A copy of the Campbell’s e-mail annexed as Exhibit 53 and herein is made part of.

261. This e-mail clearly shows that Campbell had Ex Parte communication with Judge Jordan for the

third time. It shows that he presented documentation to the court that was not provided to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff

was not informed of what this documentation was and was not given an opportunity to respond or redress.

262. The case management order(s) and sent by the court (See Exhibit 36 & 48) make no

reference that personal appearances were mandatory for the case management conference. Again, Judge

93

Jordan is requiring the Plaintiff to travel to Florida from New York to discuss the case management of the

matter in a thirty minute hearing. This court should take notice, the June 16th, 2014 Case Management

Conference actually only lasted (3) three minutes maximum per the transcript. This is totally unreasonable

since this could be done over the phone. Further, Judge Jordan knows he lacks both “Subject-matter”

jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in the matter.

- AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -

PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED PROPER NOTICE ON NUMEROUS OCASSIONS

263. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

264. As documented above, the Plaintiff was denied proper notice. As an example of such,

Judge Jordan, on his own motion, changed the style of the case without any notice to the Plaintiff.

265. The plaintiff was denied proper notice when Judge Polodna allowed Campbell to piggy

back his motion to amend the complaint after the Plaintiff had filed for summary judgment to dismiss

the complaint.

- AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -

PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED HEARINGS ON CRITICAL MATTERS FILED WITH THE FLORIDA COURT

266. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

267. Plaintiff clearly has raised the issues that Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan lacked both

“Subject-matter” jurisdiction over the issues and “Personal” jurisdiction over the Plaintiff. Both of the judges

have refused to address or to document that they had both “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal”

jurisdiction in the Florida proceeding. The Plaintiff numerous of times, both written and orally, requested an

94

evidentiary hearing on these issue. The Plaintiff was legally entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these issues

and both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to grant the Plaintiff such.

268. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan also have refused, after being raised by the Plaintiff

numerous times, both written and orally, to address the issues of the complaint not being filed in the proper

county court venue and the issue of the indemnity clause found within the contract in dispute. Both Judge

Polodna and Judge Jordan have denied the Plaintiff an evidentiary hearing concerning these issues.

- AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION -

PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL

269. Plaintiff hereby realleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

270. The actions demonstrated above of both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan clearly

demonstrates that they held the Plaintiff to a higher standard than they did Campbell.

271. As documented above, both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan ignored all of the Plaintiff’s

pleadings that contained strong affirmative defense allegations and general defense allegations,

documentation in support of them plus supporting material evidence with supporting statute(s) and yet

allowed Campbell to make false statements of fact without any supporting evidence, documentation or

supported by statute to the Court. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan conspired or colluded with

Campbell as well to fix the proceeding in Campbell’s favor.

272. The Plaintiff fully documented this in his December 23rd, 2013 motion to have Judge Polodna Disqualified/Recused and in his April 23rd, 2014 motion to have Judge Jordan Disqualified/Recused.

A copy of the 12-23-2013 Motion to Disqualify Judge Polodna and the 04-23-2014 Motion to Disqualify

Judge Jordan are annexed as Exhibits 32 & 45 and is herein made part of.

95

- AS FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED CONFRONTATION AND CROSS EXAMINATION

273. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

274. Campbell’s e-mails to the Plaintiff, Letters to the court regarding court orders of past

proceedings and June 16th, 2014 Transcript of the proceeding clearly show that the Plaintiff was never given

the opportunity to dispute or redress arguments made by Campbell before Judge Jordan during the their

Ex Parte hearings especially since Campbell never once responded or refuted in writing the Plaintiff’s

pleadings.

275. That upon information and belief, during the hearing before Judge Polodna, on June 11th,

2013 @ 11:15 am in Hearing Room 6A, Campbell personally appeared at the Telephonic Hearing in Hearing room 6A and introduced evidence that the Plaintiff was never informed of concerning venue.

- AS FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED PROPER DECISIONS ON THE RECORD

276. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

277. All of the court orders issued in the Florida matter failed to address the critical issues of

“Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction so raised in contention by the Plaintiff and these

orders also failed to demonstrate that both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan had both “Subject-matter”

jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in the Florida matter.

278. Again, the Plaintiff has been denied his due process rights as the Judge Jordan has

refused to address any of the issues concerning “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction

in the Florida matter. Procedurally the Plaintiff was denied a proper Decision on the record. The Plaintiff

96

was denied proper decisions on the record. These orders rendered or conclusion must, rest solely on the

legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing. Judge Polodna’s and Judge Jordan’s decisions makes no

reference to any portion of the Plaintiff’s Motion(s) before them and he clearly makes no reference to

what portion(s) of the Motion are denied and the determinate reasons clearly depicted for denial. This is

typical of each and every decision and order rendered by both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan. To

demonstrate compliance with this elementary requirement, Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan should have

stated the reasons for their determination(s) and indicate the evidence they relied upon. Neither Judge

Polodna or Judge Jordan followed this elementary requirement in any of their orders.

- AS FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION -

PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED FLORIDA COUNTY COURT OF PROPER VENUE

279. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

280. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan refused to address the issue of improper county court

venue as they both knew full well that none of the parties resided in Osceola County and none of the work

was performed by the Plaintiff in Osceola County as the contract in dispute clearly stated the work was to be

done in Oviedo, Florida which is located in Seminole County.

- AS FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION -

HONESTY AND INTEGRITY OF ADJUDICATORS SHOULD BE IN QUESTION

281. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

282. That throughout the Florida proceeding both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan perpetuated a

fraud upon the Plaintiff as they knew full well that they lacked both “Subject matter” jurisdiction and

“Personal” jurisdiction in the Florida matter.

97

283. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan ignored both state statute and case law as documented

above that deprived them of such.

284. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan violated the Plaintiff’s rights of due process and equal

protection of the law as found and guaranteed under (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

285. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan restricted, obstructed and prohibited testimony

by the Plaintiff on the record that pertained to the Plaintiff contesting the fact that they do not have

“Subject-matter” and “Personal” jurisdiction and that Osceola county Court was the county court of

improper venue in the matter. The contested issue of Improper Venue alone deprived both of “Subject-

matter and “Personal jurisdiction.

286. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan were posturing and threatening to take action

against Plaintiff on the record during the proceedings.

- AS FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION -

HONESTY AND INTEGRITY OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE IN QUESTION

278. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

288. Campbell was allowed to file motions with the court that both Judge Polodna and Judge

Jordan knew contained false statements of fact and contained no supporting documentation attached.

289. Campbell was fully aware that he filed the complaint(s) in the wrong county venue.

290. Campbell was fully aware that Von Curtis, Inc. lacked both standing and the capacity to sue

in the Florida matter.

291. Campbell was fully aware that the Plaintiff was not properly served in the Florida matter.

292. Campbell knowingly filed false instruments to the court.

293. Campbell knowingly introduced material evidence and made arguments outside the scope

98

of his pleadings or lack thereof without the Plaintiff being present during a hearing.

294. Campbell knowingly inserted additional movant litigants into his pleadings that he never

was granted permission from the court to do so.

295. Campbell violated numerous State Statutes, Canons of Professional Responsibility and his

sworn Bar Oath.

296. Campbell was fully aware that the court orders he prepared for Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan

contained knowingly false statements of fact and deprived the Plaintiff of his due process rights and equal

protection of the law as found and guaranteed under (14th) Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

297. Campbell did not have to comply with statutes pertaining to service of papers.

298. Campbell was allowed to violate the court order that granted his Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint by failing to file and serve the amended complaint within the 10 days given by the court.

299. Campbell knowingly disregarded and ignored compliance with Admin. Order 2012-03

regarding his statutory requirements necessary in order to submit a Certificate of Compliance to the court

before scheduling a hearing before Judge Polodna.

300. Campbell disregard procedural protocol and was heard first during hearings regardless of

who filed first and was given preferential treatment by both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan.

- AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION -

THE PLAINTIFFS CIVIL RIGHTS OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATED

301. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

302. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan discriminated against the Plaintiff as he was a

Pro-se litigant and they felt they had the right to deprive him of his constitutional rights to due process and

equal protection of the law as fully documented within.

99

- AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED (14TH) FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW

303. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

304. The Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated and documented that he is being denied equal protection

of the law as both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to protect the Plaintiff’s right to a court of

proper county court jurisdiction and they have refused to address the issues of the court lacking “Subject-

matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in the Florida matter.

305. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have held Plaintiff to a higher standard than Campbell.

306. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have refused to address any of the issues raised by

the Plaintiff, such as, the court lacking “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction.

- AS AND FOR A TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - RETALIATION OF

JUDICIARY FOR RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS

307. Plaintiff hereby realleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

308. That Campbell in his complaint, amended complaint and e-mails has clearly stated that the

Plaintiff is going to be held liable for recording phone calls that he made.

309. That Judge Jordan ordered that Plaintiff could no longer appear in the proceeding by

telephonic communication. He either had to appear in person, by counsel or submit a Memorandum of Law

in lieu of his personal appearance.

310. Upon information and belief Judge Jordan ordered this in retaliation against the Plaintiff,

because the Plaintiff recorded the phone conversations, made as a record of the illicit proceeding(s) held

before Judge Polodna. The Plaintiff was in New York State at the time of these legally recorded proceedings.

100

- AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - RETALIATION OF COUNSEL FOR RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS

311. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

312. That Campbell in his e-mails has stated that he is seeking monetary sanctions and possibly

criminal sanctions against the Plaintiff for allegedly recording phone conversations of the movant litigants

and their associates while in Florida. Campbell provides within his movant party’s complaint(s) absolutely

no credible documentation supporting the allegation. He is fully aware that the allegation is false. He then

contends that the Plaintiff’s recording of the proceedings is the supporting proof that such occurred citing

that was against Florida law and then asserts he does not care what New York law dictates.

313. Campbell’s threat certainly raises the issue of the Plaintiff’s recording the proceedings that

took place in Florida while the Plaintiff was in New York as being a means to an end and disregards the fact

that Judge Polodna had no jurisdiction to rule during any of the proceedings.

314. Campbell’s e-mails intimates that he intends to use the Plaintiffs legally obtain record of the

proceedings as a means to retaliate against the Plaintiff and cash in on this issue.

315. Campbell’s e-mails intimates that he intends to use the Plaintiffs legally obtain record of the

proceedings as a means to entertain a criminal conviction against the Plaintiff regardless of New York State

or Federal Law.

316. Upon information and belief, Campbell and Judge Polodna may have influenced Judge

Jordan to assert a decision in retaliation against the Plaintiff by way of an order that stated that Plaintiff could

no longer appear by Telephonic Hearing and justifying the action as it was due in part to the Plaintiff making

a record of the previous proceeding(s) that they knew full well were illicit proceeding(s).

- AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION -

EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS

317. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

101

paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

318. That Judge Polodna held a Telephonic Hearing on June 11th, 2013 in which the Plaintiff was

not present. Campbell without notice to the court or to the Plaintiff personally appeared and was then

allowed to provide unknown unspecified documentation to the court without any notice to the Plaintiff and

was not apprised by the court what was presented. The Plaintiff never allowed a response to or given the

ability of redress to said documentation.

319. Judge Jordan held (3) three hearings, March 7th, 2014, April 8th, 2014 and June 16th, 2014 where Campbell personally appeared and the Plaintiff appeared by way of Memorandum(s) of Law as he

was not allowed to appear telephonically. Campbell submitted no written responses to the Plaintiff’s

pleadings submitted to the court nor did the court or Campbell apprise the Plaintiff of what were to be

Campbell’s arguments and if any what submission of material evidence would be provided to the court in

support of Campbell’s arguments. According to the letter(s) submitted to the court regarding the court’s

decision(s) and order(s) rendered, Campbell made unspecified arguments and supplied the court with

unspecified material evidence that Judge Jordan used to rule in Campbell’s favor.

320. Both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan knew that they were holding Ex Parte communications

and Hearings in the Florida matter.

- AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - RIGHT TO AN ACCURATE RECORD

321. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

322. That Judge Polodna by refusing to state what the documentation was that was given to him

by Campbell deprives the Plaintiff of an accurate record.

323. That Judge Jordan holding Ex Parte hearings with Campbell and refusing to state or apprise

the Plaintiff of what Campbell’s arguments were and what documentation was submitted to the court by

Campbell deprives the Plaintiff of an accurate record.

102

- AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FLORIDA COURT REFUSES TO HEAR APPEAL AND ALLOWS ILLEGAL

COURT PROCEEDING TO PROCEED

324. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges all of the general and specific allegations stated above in

paragraphs 1 through 262 as though fully stated herein.

325. The Plaintiff filed an extraordinary “Writ of Prohibition” dated August 28th, 2013 with the

Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals raising the issues of court’s lack of “Subject-matter” jurisdiction, lack of

“Personal” jurisdiction, Improper county court venue and the indemnification clause within contract in dispute.

A copy of the Writ of Prohibition is annexed as Exhibit 57 and herein is made part of.

326. On August 29th, 2013 the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled the following:

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Prohibition, filed August 28, 2013, is denied.

A copy of the 08-29-2013 DCA Order is annexed as Exhibit 58 and herein is made part of.

327. Plaintiff then filed a Petitioner's Motion for Clarification Rehearing/Request for Opinion

dated September 5th, 2013 again raising the same issues.

A copy of the Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification is annexed as Exhibit 59 and herein is made part of.

328. The Plaintiff’s constitutional rights are being deliberately violated by the Florida Courts

and he is unable to get a fair and impartial judge in Florida.

329. That on September 10, 2013 the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal stated:

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Clarification Rehearing/Request for Opinion, filed September 6, 2013, is denied.

A copy of the 09-06-2013 DCA Order is annexed as Exhibit 60 and herein is made part of.

103

330. This Court should take notice it took the Fifth District Court of Appeals (1) one day to rule on

the Plaintiff's motion and (5) five days to rule on his clarification motion for an opinion. Again, none of the

issues of Subject-matter jurisdiction, Personal jurisdiction, Improper County court venue, the Indemnity clause

or any other issue raised by the Plaintiff were addressed within the Decision and Order(s) rendered.

331. Upon information and belief the Plaintiff's petitions to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal were summarily dismissed without even being looked at.

332. That upon information and belief the Florida Courts are prejudice against out of state Pro

se litigants and the Florida Courts refuse to protect the out of state litigants rights to due process and

equal protection of the law.

333. That throughout the proceeding(s), Judge Polodna and Jordan have deliberately ignored

Florida statute and case law in order to continue to perpetuate the fraud against Plaintiff knowing they

had no legal authority or jurisdiction to do so as they have acted in complete absence of all jurisdiction.

334. That throughout the Florida proceeding(s) the United States Mail was used by the

Defendants in order to serve court pleadings and court orders upon Plaintiff in furtherance of the

conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of tens of thousands of dollars.

Copy of Court Envelopes are annexed as Exhibit 61 and herein is made part of.

335. That both Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan have used their position in order to force the

Plaintiff to settle the Florida lawsuit or in the alternative drop his Federal suit in New York by refusing to

protect the Plaintiff's constitutional rights and to follow Florida Law. Upon information and belief, there

intent is to force the Plaintiff into paying thousands of dollars to settle the Florida lawsuit. Further, they are

indirectly holding the recording of the court proceedings over the Plaintiff allowing Campbell to claim that

they were illegally recorded. Again, Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan both know full well they both lacked

Subject-matter jurisdiction and Personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff in the Florida matter.

104

336. That Campbell is a law professor at the Florida State University of Law School and does

seminars for judges and attorneys.

337. That both Judges Polodna and Judge Jordan were both students at Florida State University Law School and may have had Campbell as law professor.

338. That both Judges Polodna and Judge Jordan may have taken the seminar courses for

attorney and judges from Judge Polodna.

339. Upon Information and belief the actions of Judge Polodna, Judge Jordan and Campbell

are a contumacious willful and deliberate attempt to obstruct, hinder and interfere with the Plaintiff’s

Federal Complaint filed in New York State date March 25th, 2013 and subsequent Federal Amended

Complaint from moving forward.

340. That Campbell offered on April 30th, 2014 a General Release of the Florida action to the Plaintiff in return for his General Release of the Federal complaint filed in New York State as a

settlement of both matters. Campbell and the Florida Judges are well aware that the Florida action is

baseless, has no foundation or merit and is an illicit action. They figure that the only way out of this

predicament, in his and the Florida courts eyes, is to persuade the Plaintiff into dropping his Federal

lawsuit. Upon information and belief, Judge Polodna and Judge Jordan were using their positions to

intimidate, harass and threaten the Plaintiff into accepting Campbell’s General Release knowing full

well that they lacked “Subject-matter” jurisdiction and “Personal” jurisdiction in the matter before them.

Copy of the Proposed General Release by Campbell is annexed as Exhibit 18 and is herein made part of.

RELIEF REQUESTED

341. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

342. Plaintiff demands damages in an amount exceeding $100,000 from each defendant.

343. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

344. Plaintiff seeks treble damages.

345. Plaintiff seeks attorney fees and other costs for the prosecution of this action.

346. Plaintiff demands injunctive relief to prevent the defendants or anyone acting on their

behalf from taking any further actions against him in the Florida Courts, either directly or indirectly

concerning the issues of this matter and includingbut not limited to the recording of phone conversations.

347. That this Court declare that the use ofa PC. A (Per Curiam Affirmance), within a decision

and order in aneffort to avoid or evade ruling on the issues, isa denial of a litigants Constitutional rights to

due process and equal protection of the law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfully prays that said relief requested in this complaint be granted

hereinbefore set forth and for suchotherand further reliefas thisCourtmaydeemjust andproper

VERIFICATIONSTATE OF NEW YORK )COUNTY OF SARATOGA ) ss.:

SHAWN P. DUDLA, being duly sworn, says that he is the Plaintiff in the above entitled captioned

proceeding and under penalties of perjury, 1 declare that I have read the foregoing Verified Civil Rights

Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and that the facts stated herein are true, except as to matters therein

stated to be alleged on information and beliefand as to those/mat$fs Jjie belieyes to be truje.

Shawn P. Dudla - PlaintiffPro seP.O. Box 1227Clifton Park, New York 12065-0804(518)371-2400

STATE OF NEW YORK )COUNTY OF SARATOGA ) ss.:

This '& day ofJuly, 2014, before me, the subscriber, personally appeared Shawn P. Dudla tome known and known to me to be the same person described in and who executed the within instrument,

and he d^y acknowledged to me that he executedthe sameLYNDA A. BRYAN

NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORKNO. 01BR6229091

Qualified in Saratoga CountyJ05 My CommlMlon Expires October 04, 2014