You call yourself a friend, REALLY? I took some time today

Quote:

1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
SEAFARER EXPLORATION CORP., Plaintiff,
Vs. CASE NO.: 14-CA-8902
DIV. L
DARRELLVOLENTINE,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MOT ION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, SEAFARER EXPLORATION, (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or by Corporate Name), by and through the undersigned counsel, moves this Court to enter an Order to Show Cause against the Defendant for the matters of for contempt of Court and imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to all allowable Contempt of Court powers before the Court against Defendant, DARREL VOLENTINE (hereinafter “Defendant”), including criminal contempt, for Defendant’s repeated and continuing non-compliance with this Court's prior Order, and his own stipulation to aver from such conduct to the Court. The Plaintiff hereby prays that this Court therefore moves for such matter to be set before the Court for such reset as grounds therefore, states:
I. Introduction and Reason For New Order to Show Cause Hearing
1. This matter had previously been heard on a motion for contempt before the previous Judge assigned to this matter on September 3, 2015. At such time a hearing for an Order to Show Cause was set by the Court for October 5, 2015, however the Defendant filed a motion to recuse the previous Judge after faced with such ruling but before such Order was entered. This motion is based upon the same grounds and necessity for such hearing to occur
2
after the Defendant’s recusal of the former Judge in this matter.
2. Such former Court found sufficient grounds for a hearing for the Defendant to be Ordered to Show Cause why he should not be held in Contempt for violation of the Court Ordered Permanent Injunction, and Ordered that Plaintiff’s Counsel prepare an Order to Show Cause for such hearing on such matter which was set for hearing before the previous Court for October 5, 2015.
3. Such Order to show cause was submitted to the Court on or about September 9, 2015.
4. In the interim, the Defendant filed a motion for disqualification and recusal of the former Judge in this matter, which was granted on or about September 18, 2015, and this matter was reassigned before this Division.
5. The Plaintiff is seeking a reset of the Motion for Contempt Hearing and for the entry of the Order to Show Cause against the Defendant, Darrell Volentine, to appear for such hearing for Contempt of Court before this Court.
6. This matter concerns Defendant’s continued defamation of the Plaintiff Corporation, officers, directors and others related to the Corporation, notwithstanding prior permanent injunctive order issued by the Court on October 7, 2014, and the Defendants acknowledgement before the Court to cease all postings on the internet in regard to Seafarer Exploration, its officers, directors, shareholders and associated persons.
7. If this Motion is granted on the basis of Defendant’s willful violation of the prior existing Order and his own stipulation, it will show that the Defendant’s conduct is willful, has resulted in continued substantial negative impact on Plaintiff’s 4,000 plus shareholders, market value, and business opportunities and ability to continue its business in the area of undersea exploration and recovery of archaeological and otherwise valuable items. Defendant has continued in a course of on line postings that are occurring on the internet under his same posting name of “Buccaneer 1961” wherein he makes similar attacks that are references to attempts to allege that there is insider trading of the Companies shares, attacking family
3
members of the management of the Corporation, alleging misconduct including securities fraud by the Corporation, its management, shareholders, investors and even counsel for the Company, along with allegations of numerous other matters.
8. See attached Composite Exhibit “A” of such postings made by the Defendant after
entry of the Permanent Injunction .
9. Defendant’s actions will not cease and will continue to result in irreparable injury to Plaintiffs unless Defendant’s conduct is deterred. It is clear, by Defendant’s continued and willful disregard of this Court’s Order, and his own stipulation of such to refrain from such conduct that his conduct requires sanctions are required as a deterrent both to himself, as punitive measure to the Defendant, and as a deterrent to others. This Honorable Court should therefore grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt of Court, at a hearing with evidence of such contempt.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
10. On September 3, 2014 the Company filed the present lawsuit against the Defendant, to include the entry of a permanent injunction against him for any and all internet postings concerning the Company, its management and associated persons.
11. This matter is one where the Defendant has continued to post messages on the internet concerning the Company, its management, family of its management, directors, officers, investors, shareholders, and associated parties even after the entry of a permanent injunction against him
12. From a hearing on September 30th, 2014, the Defendant entered into a
stipulation of liability for such actions, and agreed to a permanent injunction which was encompassed in an Order by the Court on October 7, 2014, which included a stipulation by Defendant, that he was Ordered and agreed that he would not post any materials in regard to the Corporation, its management or related persons in any way. (See Stipulation). The Court,
4
in an Order by Judge Martha Cook on October 7, 2014, and affirmations to the Court after such Order during hearings held the Defendant agreed to refrain from such internet postings, messages or any other matters relating to the Company, its officer, directors, or related parties either directly or indirectly.
13. Judge Cook rejected the damages agreed to by the Defendant, finding that a trial for damages would be necessary to support such amount, even if agreed to the by the Defendant in the stipulation. Thus, this case is in a status of a trial for damages before the Court for a non-jury trial, which was set before the former Court on December 1, 2015 and is now subject for trial in March 2016.
14. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and Defendant has continued on a path to attempt to damage the Plaintiff and continue to violate the terms of the Agreement and Court Order for permanent injunction entered against him.
15. In direct violation of the Court’s Order, Defendant has continued to publish defamatory material about Plaintiff Corporation, its management and related persons. Such continued postings include the matters which were set forth in the attached Exhibit A to the original motion for contempt. Such Exhibit contains the postings which were violations of the Defendants restrictions under the temporary injunction.
16 . The postings by Volentine, include those during the time period from April 4, 2015 through July 2015, show that he continues to post matters which are either directly about the company, its CEO, insiders, family members related to the Company, or others, or he does so by way of reference to a “KK” being Kyle Kennedy, or the use of “Koward” as to a CEO reference.
17. In his postings, Volentine is making the allegations that the Company and its officers, directors and related parties, including family are making predatory loans to the company, which he infers damage the normal shareholders, while giving these
5
persons somehow the right to “foreclose” on the treasure that the company may find, using these overdue loans. He has no basis in any of the disclosed materials that are publicly filed to make such allegations as the loan terms are disclosed and grant no such foreclosure rights.
18. Volentine made such postings and messages in furtherance of his attempt to continue to damage the company. His postings cannot in any way be related to any rights he has to defend the damages claim made by the Company on behalf of its shareholders.
19. Further, (1) with almost 100% certainty, Defendant’s actions will continue and will continue to result in irreparable injury to Plaintiff Corporation, its officers, directors and shareholders, and the reputation of the Company unless Defendant’s conduct is restrained by sanctions to be imposed; (2) It will be impossible to determine the Plaintiff’s exact amount of damages caused by such acts and Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law.
20. An award of attorney’s fees is appropriate under the facts alleged herein and under the Court’s inherent power to assess attorney’s fees against Defendant for his continued actions of bad faith. See, e.g., Jackson v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S169 (Fla. 2001).
21. The actions of the Defendant in this matter must be examined as a matter of indirect criminal contempt of the Court’s Order.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
a. Entry of an Order to Show Cause by the Defendant as to why he should not be held in civil contempt by the Court and such matter set for hearing and personal appearance by the Defendant before the Court for an evidentiary hearing on such matter;
b. Enter a judgement for damages related to such motion in an amount determined by the Court for such contempt of Court after such hearing on the Order to Show Cause;
6
c. Enter an Order finding Defendant in contempt of Court after such hearing and imposing additional sanctions against Defendant as allowed by Florida law to include a period of incarceration of up to 179 days;
d. Award attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs for the preparation of this motion and representation at the hearing on this motion if such contempt is found at such hearing on the Order to Show Cause;
e. Such other matters allowed for and ruled by the Court to be just in this cause against the Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this Renewed Motion for Contempt and Order to Show Cause was
served via email to Darrel Volentine at the email service to svpestman@verizon.net on
December 6, 2015,
/s/ Craig A. Huffman
Craig A. Huffman, Esquire
Securus Law Group, P.A.