alex hageli's motion to dissolve lmt injunction

8/20/2019 Alex Hageli's motion to dissolve LMT injunction

1/31

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

REF NO.: 99-007430-CI-8

UCN: 521999CA007430XXCICI

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG

SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.,Petitioner,

vs.

LISA MCPHERSON TRUST INC., a

Florida for-profit corporation,

JESSE PRINCE, GRADY WARD,

ROBERT S. MINTON, JR., STACY BROOKS,JEFF JACOBSON, PATRICIA GREENWAY,

PETER ALEXANDER, MARK BUNKER, AND

TROY BEZAZIAN,

Respondents. _____________________________________________/

MOTION TO INTERVENE AND

MOTION TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Intervenor Alex Hageli (“Intervenor”), pursuant to Rule 1.230 of the Florida Rules of Civi

Procedure and § 86.011, Florida Statutes, files this Motion to Intervene and Motion to Dissolve

Permanent Injunction, and in support thereof respectfully shows the Court as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. Intervenor, an Illinois resident and Pinellas County property owner, visits the

Clearwater area approximately three to four times a year. While visiting Intervenor frequently

protests Petitioner Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. (“FSO”).

2. This Court entered a permanent injunction (“LMT Injunction”) in this matter on

July 27, 2001. (Exhibit A.)

3. On May 10, 2014, Petitioner FSO had Intervenor served with a copy of the LMT

Injunction.

Filing # 32487832 E-Filed 09/25/2015 10:54:24 AM


2/31

2

4. Subsequent to service, Petitioner FSO has asserted to various Clearwater Police

Department (“CPD”) officers on numerous occasions the a pplicability of the LMT Injunction to

Intervenor in an attempt to hinder his free movement and exercise of free speech. Intervenor, in

turn, has had to explain to CPD officers on numerous occasions that the LMT Inunction does not

apply to him.

5. On information and belief, Petitioner FSO maintains that Intervenor acts in concert

with, or as an agent thereof, of one of the named parties to the LMT Injunction, Mark Bunker, and

is thereby subject to the terms of the injunction. Intervenor denies acting in concert with, or as an

agent of, Mr. Bunker with regards to matters covered by the injunction.

6. On March 8, 2015, Petitioner FSO placed a service call to CPD regarding

Intervenor’s protest activities. Upon arrival, Petitioner FSO asserted to responding CPD Officer

Raniel Heredia that the LMT Injunction applied to Intervenor. Officer Heredia subsequently

arrested Intervenor for trespassing, relying on the map affixed to the injunction to determine

property lines. The arrest was later determined to be improper, and Officer Heredia was

reprimanded.

7. On May 15, 2015, at the request of Petitioner FSO, CPD filed an incident report

regarding an alleged violation of the LMT Injunction by Intervenor.

8. On August 14, 2015, at the request of Petitioner FSO, CPD filed an incident report

regarding an alleged violation of the LMT Injunction by Intervenor. In the report, the reporting

officer expresses uncertainty regarding its applicability to Intervenor, but states that if the

injunction does apply to him “his violation of the injunction could result in further criminal

sanctions.” (Exhibit B.)

9. On information and belief, Petitioner FSO intends to continue to assert the

applicability of the LMT Injunction to Intervenor to CPD officers and request the taking of incident

reports each time Intervenor allegedly violates the injunction.


3/31

3

10. On information and belief, CPD intends to continue to file incident reports

regarding Intervenor’s alleged violation of the injunction at the request of Petitioner FSO.

11. Intervenor is not a named party to the LMT Injunction, and has never acted in

concert with, or as an agent of, any of the named parties with regards to matters covered by the

injunction.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

12. Pursuant to Rule 1.230 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor moves

to intervene in this action as he is adversely affected by the LMT Injunction. Petitioner FSO’s

assertion that the LMT Injunction applies to Intervenor, as well as requests for incident reports

regarding his alleged violation of the injunction, adversely affect Intervenor’s constitutional right

of free speech. Each time Intervenor has to explain to CPD officers that the LMT Injunction does

not apply to him, or a report is taken for his alleged violation thereof and he has to provide an

officer with personal information, Intervenor is prevented from protesting.

13. Despite Petitioner FSO’s assertions that Intervenor is subject to the LMT

Injunction, Petitioner FSO has made no attempt to properly enforce the injunction against him by

filing a claim for damages. Indeed, more than one year after having Intervenor served with a copy

of the LMT Injunction, Petitioner FSO has yet to even file an affidavit of such service with this

Court.

14. Intervenor suffered substantial injury as a result of the continued existence of the

LMT Injunction when Officer Heredia relied on the map affixed to the injunction in order to

determine Petitioner FSO’s property lines for the purposes of arresting Intervenor for trespassing

15. Intervenor is adversely affected by the LMT Injunction through the hindrance of

his free speech that accompanies having to repeatedly explain to CPD officers that the injunction

does not apply to him and/or he has to provide personal information for incident reports, reports

which serve no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, given CPD officers’ confusion over its


4/31

4

applicability to him, Intervenor is at risk of suffering “further criminal sanctions” should an CPD

officer erroneously determine the LMT Injunction applies to him. Finally, the continued existence

of the LMT Injunction creates the potential for confusion regarding matters incidental to its terms

that may also further adversely affect Intervenor, as demonstrated by Officer Her edia’s reliance

on a map affixed to the injunction to determine Petitioner FSO’s property lines, which lead to the

improper arrest of Intervenor for trespassing.

MOTION TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION

16. Permanent injunctions are only permanent for as long as the circumstances

surrounding the issuance of the injunction remain the same or substantially similar.

17. A court may modify or dissolve a permanent injunction at any time where “the

circumstances, and circumstances of the parties, are shown to have so changed as to make it just

and equitable to do so, and especially where the decree itself reserves the right.” Jackson Grain

Co. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So.2d 143, 146 (1942).

18. This Court specifically reserved the right to modify the LMT Injunction by further

order. (Exhibit A, ¶ 16.)

19. The original circumstances surrounding the issuance of the LMT Injunction 14

years ago no longer exist. Of the named parties to the LMT Injunction, the Lisa McPherson Trust

Inc. no longer exists. Upon information and belief, named parties Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy

Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander and Troy [sic] Bezazian no longer live

in the Clearwater area. Only Mark Bunker currently resides in the Clearwater area. Robert S.

Minton, Jr., the founder and primary financier of the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., is deceased.

20. “A defendant may move to dissolve an injunction if it injuriously affects his

interests, although the order is not issued against him.” MHS v. Halifax Hospice, 689 So.2d 373

375 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1997).


5/31

5

21. Intervenor ’s interests are injuriously affected by the LMT Injunction through the

hindrance of his free speech that accompanies having to repeatedly explain to CPD officers that

the injunction does not apply to him and/or he has to provide personal information for incident

reports, reports which serve no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, given CPD officers’ confusion

over its applicability to him, Intervenor is at risk of suffering “further criminal sanctions” should

an officer erroneously determine the LMT Injunction applies to him. Finally, the continued

existence of the LMT Injunction creates the potential for confusion regarding matters incidental to

its terms that may also further injuriously affect Intervenor, as demonstrated by Of ficer Heredia’s

reliance on a map affixed to the injunction to determine Petitioner FSO’s property lines , which

lead to the improper arrest of Intervenor for trespassing.

22. The LMT Injunction no longer serves any valid purpose and should be dissolved

Its continued existence, long after all named parties but one have moved away from the area, serves

only to create confusion regarding its applicability to Intervenor and others who may wish to

protest Petitioner FSO but who may have had de minimus contact with one or more of the named

parties to the injunction, confusion which Petitioner FSO seeks to take advantage of to rid itself of

protesters. The interests of justice demand its dissolution at this late date.

WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Intervenor, Alex Hageli, respectfully requests that

this Court grant his Motion to Intervene and Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction, and

that this Court provide all other further relief to which he may be entitled.

DATED: September 25, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Alex HageliAlex Hageli

435 South Cleveland Avenue, Apt. 306

Arlington Heights, IL 60005(847) 630-5710

[email protected]


6/31

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, on this 25th day of September, 2015, I caused the foregoing Motion toIntervene and Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction, to be filed electronically, and served

same, by electronic service, upon the following counsel of record:

F. Wallace Pope, Jr.,Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns LLP

911 Chestnut Street

Clearwater, Florida 33756

[email protected]

Denis M. DeVlaming

deVlaming, Romine & Rivellini, LLP

1101 Turner StreetClearwater, Florida 33756

[email protected]

s/ Alex Hageli


7/31

EXHIBIT A


8/31


9/31


10/31


11/31


12/31


13/31


14/31


15/31


16/31


17/31


18/31


19/31


20/31


21/31


22/31


23/31


24/31


25/31


26/31

EXHIBIT B


27/31


28/31


29/31


30/31


31/31

alex hageli's motion to dissolve lmt injunction

Documents