1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 10-12931(02)

FREDA SHERMAN STEVENS, HONORABLE JOHN BOWMAN

Plaintiff/Petitioner

v.

CARYL CASEY-HATTAN, et al,

Defendants/Respondents.

_______________________________/

MEMBORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Freda Sherman Stevens, appearing Pro Se before the Court, files this

memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Caryl Casey-

Hattan, and the Town of Davie. Defendants through their counsel of record filed a Motion to

Dismiss with Incorporated Memorandum of Law alleging the Plaintiff failed to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. To the contrary, for the reasons set forth below, each and every

cause of action set forth in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is properly plead and

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied. Alternatively, if the Court finds that one or

more causes of action are not properly plead, Plaintiff seeks leave of court to amend the SAC to

cure any defects.

INTRODUCTION

This case is about a contest to an election held on March 9, 2010 for Davie Town Council

District 2. The complaint alleges violations of Florida Statutes 102.168, specifically: Fraud or

misconduct on the part of election officials, disqualification of the alleged successful candidate,

and rejection of eligible votes. Furthermore, the complaint alleges violations of voting rights act

including voter intimidation and suppression and violation of Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional

rights. History shows there is nothing insubstantial or frivolous about voting rights violations and

2

election fraud. Our democracy wades on the rights of the people and the authority of the

government to uphold individual, civil, and constitutional rights.

Plaintiff is a registered voter and resides in Davie District 2. Plaintiff was a candidate for

the Davie Town Council District 2 Election; and is eligible to contest the election. The

Complaint was timely filed in accordance with Florida Statutes. All parties were served with the

Complaint which notified them of the reasons for the contest to the election. Each defendant

presented an answer and affirmative defenses to the original and amended complaint. However,

only one defendant has filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint as required by law,

the Broward County Canvassing Board.

Florida Statues 102.168 is clear and specific: an election may be contested under the

following circumstances:

(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his

or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum.

The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of

the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to

change or place in doubt the result of the election.

(d) Proof that any elector, election official, or canvassing board member was given or

offered a bribe or reward in money, property, or any other thing of value for the purpose of

procuring the successful candidate's nomination or election or determining the result on any

question submitted by referendum.

The Second Amended Complaint cites clear and precise allegations under Florida statutes

102.168(5) which clearly state Plaintiff’s valid cause of action for this Complaint. Furthermore,

the applicable statute is specific: “A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor

the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided

in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or

cause for which the nomination or election is contested”. The SAC clearly does.

The defendants, through their counsels have done nothing short of try to have this case

dismissed or delayed, and violate every Florida Rule of Civil Procedures known to man,

(especially as it pertains to filing motions) by repeatedly failing to notice the Plaintiff. Ultimately

the defendants want to ram this case through the State Court to prevent it from ever being heard.

The bottom line is simple: 1) this case cannot be dismissed pursuant to Florida Statutes

102.168(d), 2) there are no grounds for dismissal, and 3) it must be heard as the complainant is

3

entitled by state statute to an “immediate hearing”. Plaintiff respectfully requests her “immediate

hearing” which she has been asking for since the case was originally filed. Plaintiff is a Pro Se

litigant and does not have the same rights of an attorney. Pro Se litigants cannot schedule their

own Motion Hearings. In fact, the Local Rules require even attorneys to contact the judicial staff

to schedule Special Set Hearings. Plaintiff has contacted judicial staff to schedule a hearing

multiple times. The Court has yet to schedule a hearing for any of Plaintiff’s motions or to hear

her case. The only hearings held in this case were requested by counsel for the defendants.

Plaintiff was never properly noticed to appear or given a reasonable opportunity to be heard at

any of the above referenced hearings scheduled by the Court on behalf of the defendants.

Wouldn’t it be easier, if not fair and just to hear the case, decide on the merits, so we all

can move on? Rather the defendants are intensely avoiding the matter which only leads to further

litigation and wastes judicial resources. Furthermore, their actions are subject to discipline by the

Florida Bar for disregarding rules of civil procedures and harassing the Plaintiff. The request for

the court to retain jurisdiction over deciding sanctions is an unveiled attempt to harass or

intimidate the plaintiff. The Town Council decided unanimously to reimburse defendant Hattan

for the costs and attorneys fees associated with representing her by a private attorney Mike

Moskowitz, at a town council meeting in July. Therefore, defendant Hattan does not have any

outstanding costs or attorney’s fees to coincide with the proposed sanctions. The insurance

company reimbursed the Town of Davie for its costs and attorney’s fees for its representation by

their former counsel-John Rayson, Esq., and there are no costs and attorneys fees to the Town.

The defendants recite some of the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint in their

Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”); however, they never filed an answer or affirmative defenses to the

Second Amended Complaint. In this case, the defendants must file an answer or affirmative

defenses to the Second Amended Complaint. Failure to file an answer or affirmative defenses

will result in an adverse decision against the defendants. Counsel for defendants Hattan and the

Town, are attorneys that have “allegedly” passed the Florida bar. As attorneys they should know

the rules of civil procedure and requirements for responding to a complaint.

Therefore, counsel for defendants Hattan and the Town should have filed an answer in

the form outlined in the rules of civil procedures. The answer and affirmative defenses should

have specifically stated: No Knowledge, Denied, or Admitted to each allegation in the complaint.

Instead, they filed a MTD with incorporated Memorandum Of Law (MOL). The MTD cannot

4

substitute for an Answer with Affirmative Defenses. The MTD should be attached to the Answer

and Affirmative Defenses. Defendants have waived the right to file an answer at a later time.

In filing a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted, the former “demurrer” defense, defendants admit the allegations in the complaint

are true and give up the right to refute the allegations should their motion for dismissal fail. As

defendants are admitting the allegations are true and the Complaint alleges 1) fraud or

misconduct on the part of election officials, 2) rejection of eligible votes sufficient to place in

doubt the outcome of the election, and 3) ineligibility of the alleged successful candidate; it

stands to reason the defendants agree with the Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief including a

“new” election. The defendants’ motion to dismiss must therefore be rejected.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument the issue is not whether the plaintiff’s complaint

proves a violation of the statutes occurred. That issue must wait for the trial. The only issue on

this motion to dismiss is whether the Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It clearly does.

The Complaint alleges each defendant collectively contributed to the matter before the

Court. As to the sufficiency of the complaint and whether it states a claim upon which relief can

be granted, the law agrees the Court has the authority to grant relief in the matter requested and

further relief as the Court deems fair and just. The Court is not limited to the applicable statute

outlined in the pleading.

This motion to dismiss is a waste of the Court’s time and borderline obstruction of

justice. The allegations of voting rights violations and election fraud carry both civil and criminal

penalties. Plaintiff has filed civil litigation in both state and federal court. Other agencies such as

the Davie Police Department, Broward State Attorney’s Office, Broward Sheriff’s Department,

and the United States Department of Justice are handling the criminal complaints related to this

election. Therefore, the defendants attempts to squash the testimony of racial harassment and

intimidation outlined in the SAC are a per se obstruction of justice. The bulk of the race related

testimony has been reserved for the criminal complaints.

Every allegation is relevant and true. The defendants do not attempt to dispute the

allegations. Therefore, the Judge must view the allegations as true. The allegations must be

included: the outrage should be that the Plaintiff endured racial discrimination and remarks, a per

se violation of Civil Rights Title 18 and was forced to file a restraining order to receive

5

protection from Hattan’s co-conspirators and supporters who have continued to harass the

Plaintiff for months (beginning in January 2010 until July 2010). See Exhibit A. The fact is we

are dealing with Davie residents with close ties to hate groups that have gone unabated for years

in the Town of Davie and who do not believe in playing by the rules. All of these incidents arise

from the Plaintiff’s candidacy for Davie Town Hall and the Election. The defendants’ motion to

dismiss must therefore be denied.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Election, which took place on March 9, 2010, was, beset by numerous

irregularities, improprieties, a multitude of violations of Chapter 102, Florida Statutes, and

violations of the 42 U.S. C. 1983 Civil Rights Act of 1871 all resulting in reasonable doubt over

the accuracy and legitimacy of the results obtained at The Election.

The events preceding, the day of, and following the Election notwithstanding all court

proceedings, have resulted in damage to the Plaintiff by denying her individual rights and

rightful place on the Davie Town Council. Each Defendant named in the Second Amended

Complaint independently, separately, and collectively attributed to the factual evidence that give

rise to this second amended complaint/petition in some manner.

Plaintiff’s cause of action for the civil rights violations has standing pursuant to state and

federal law and as grounds believes: All Election officials working at the T009 Polling place on

Election Day and Defendant Caryl Casey-Hattan were aware of the obvious relationship between

the Plaintiff and the voters denied their right to vote in so much as Election Officials and Hattan

mocked the voters by saying “Who paid you to vote?”. Most of the voters denied the right to

vote were wearing “Making Sure Our Voices Are Heard, Freda Stevens” t-shirts and transported

by van displaying the Plaintiff’s campaign yard signs to the T009 polling place. Election officials

and Defendant Hattan willfully participated in intimidation tactics to interfere in the Plaintiff’s

voters’ voting rights, to intimidate the Plaintiff as a candidate for public office, and disrupt the

voting process.

Plaintiff demonstrates a valid cause of action for Civil Rights claims and violations of her

individual rights by the Defendants and Election officials, and as grounds states:

a. Injury: The Plaintiff has suffered damages whereas her constitutional right to life

liberty and property were abridged, by the civil rights violations, including the Voting Rights Act

of 1965, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871) of the U.S. Constitution. Violations of

State Law including the Voter Protection Act, misconduct, fraud, and/or corruption on the part of

Election officials acting on behalf of Dr. Brenda Snipes as Broward Supervisor of Elections, the

Town of Davie, Hattan, and The Broward County Canvassing Board, collectively resulted in

damage to Plaintiff by loss of her rightful place on the Town Council, and places in reasonable

doubt the outcome of the results obtained through The Election.

b. Causation: Plaintiff has a clear relationship with the voters. The majority of the voters

turned away without a provisional ballot and unlawfully denied the right to vote were low

income African American, Hispanic American, disabled, and/or elderly whom lack the

wherewithal to bring a claim independently. Many voters in question volunteered for or

otherwise supported Plaintiff’s campaign for Davie Town Council. Other voters that were turned

6

away supported Plaintiff’s campaign by wearing her campaign t-shirts, were transported to and

from the polling place together with other supporters of the Plaintiff, and were African American

voters eligible to vote in the Davie Town Council District 2.

c. Redressability: A favorable decision by the Court will redress the injury.

2. In no way exhaustive, some of the events which transpired on that day, in the

months preceding and the days following The Election, include the following:

Preceding the Election

9. Broward Supervisor Of Elections actions preceding the Election included:

a. BSOE questionably moved precinct T010 without proper notice to the Plaintiff, just

two months prior to the Election.

b. Plaintiff ordered the Davie District 2 voter history database from the BSOE. The

BSOE issued Plaintiff the voter history through electronic mail. A review of the

database showed missing and incorrect voter information. BSOE neglected to notify

the Plaintiff of mistakes, errors, and/or missing voter information. Plaintiff learned of

the errors when walking door to door, only to find out approximately sixty to seventy

percent of the voters listed on the database in precinct T009 moved, died, never lived

at the reported address and/or the reported telephone numbers were disconnected or

completely wrong.

c. Initially, BSOE provided Plaintiff with a voter database that included precinct T010.

When calling the BSOE to request information on requesting an absentee list,

Plaintiff spontaneously asked a question about precinct T010, only to learn that the

precinct was no longer in her district and the voters could not vote in the Election; as,

previously reported.

d. BSOE failed to provide written notice to eligible voters in precinct T009, of changes

in polling locations, for the 2008 presidential election and the Davie Town Council

Election held on March 9, 2010.

e. BSOE failed to notify eligible displaced African American voters they could vote by

absentee in the March 9, 2010 Election. Over four hundred eligible African American

voters that voted in the 2008 Presidential Election were temporarily displaced by

renovation of their affordable housing complex. The displaced voters were eligible to

vote in the March 9, 2010 election, by absentee or on Election Day, as they are still

residents of Davie District 2.

f. BSOE failed to display a sign in or around the El Jardin community, in precinct T009,

with the highest population of African American and Hispanic American voters,

notifying voters of the new polling location, date of election and/or any other election

information as done in the predominately white communities in Davie District 2.

10. The Town neglected to prevent civil rights violations, voter intimidation, intimidation of

the Plaintiff as a political candidate prior to the Election in as far as:

a. The Town neglected to prevent intimidation of a political candidate but rather

encouraged the behavior. At the March 3, 2010 Town Council meeting, candidates

7

and the public were permitted to speak during public comments. Just as Plaintiff

arrived at the Town Hall, a black truck pulled up behind her with a confederate flag

on the back of the truck. The truck was moving fast but Plaintiff believes she heard

the driver yell out, the word “nigger”. Some of Hattan’s other supporters were sitting

in black trucks parked outside the Town Hall, the same night candidates spoke during

public comments. Plaintiff believes there were approximately three or four trucks

parked at the Town Hall. Each truck had at least one confederate flag on the back of

the truck and was parked directly outside the Town hall. Three Hattan supporters

stood up to speak against the Plaintiff during the Council meeting. Plaintiff attempted

to leave the Town hall but feared for her safety. Eventually, the Plaintiff left the

Town hall but not without constantly checking to see if she was being followed home.

b. The Town Clerk certified all candidates and Plaintiff did not know the certification

was incorrect, having no knowledge of the requirements of the Town Clerk to verify

all documents were completely filled out prior to certifying or qualifying a candidate.

Plaintiff did not know she could challenge the Town Clerk’s certification or

qualifying of a candidate at any point, including prior to or after an election.

c. Town Council members Mayor Judy Paul and Councilmember Bryan Caletka

endorsed defendant Hattan and publicly supported Hattan in their official capacity.

d. Town Attorney John Rayson, Mayor Judy Paul, and Councilmember Bryan Caletka

made campaign contribution to the political campaign of Defendant Hattan.

e. After Plaintiff filed to run for the campaign, Mayor Judy Paul continued to openly

support defendant Hattan’s campaign and was quoted on end of the campaign mailers

as stating, “I need Caryl Hattan on the Council to help me fight for our needs

including smart development and keeping taxes low.”

f. The Town Clerk certified Defendant Hattan without regard to proper procedures or

ensuring Hattan accurately completed all qualifying paperwork.

g. Due to concealment Hattan’s original, first amended campaign reports, and qualifying

paperwork were not made available to the public online. By only showing the updated

reports online the public was unable to detect errors in Hattan’s qualifying paperwork

including disqualifying information that would have otherwise been revealed prior to

the Election.

h. Plaintiff is a volunteer business counselor with Broward SCORE. The town of Davie

was scheduled to participate in an Introduction to business workshop during Black

History Month in February 2010, sponsored by Broward SCORE exclusively for

members of the Broward Black Caucus. The workshop was to be held at the Davie

Chamber of Commerce. The workshop was FREE and for minority business owners

or minorities interested in opening small businesses in the Town of Davie. Peter

Tokar, Director of Business Development was invited to speak with the group and

share opportunities for minority business owners in the Town of Davie. Mayor Judy

Paul found out about the event and directed Peter Tokar to refrain from participating

in the event. Supporters of Hattan called Broward SCORE and the Davie Chamber of

Commerce to have the event cancelled at the last minute. The workshop was

scheduled to begin at 7:00 pm. It was cancelled at 5:00 pm. No attempts were made to

reschedule the event. No apologies were made by the Town of Davie for the

inconvenience to the Broward Black Caucus members.

8

11. Defendant Hattan’s actions preceding the Election included:

i. Hattan paid for and approved a campaign mailer depicting the Plaintiff’s face on a

black and blue cover in an overt way of mocking her race.

j. Hattan paid for and approved a campaign mailer depicting the Plaintiff as a Wanted

Criminal.

k. Hattan paid for and approved campaign yard signs depicting an Iris symbol as a

statement that a vote for Caryl Casey-Hattan is a vote for a White Iris woman.

l. Hattan displayed reckless, erratic and threatening behavior when she and several of

her supporters were spotted in a red car outside the Plaintiff’s home between the

hours of 1:00 AM and 3:30 AM.

m. Hattan failed to comply with the reporting requirements, which are necessary to be

eligible for office as more fully alleged in Paragraph five. Hattan’s ineligibility for

nomination for the office which is the subject matter of this action, is sufficient

grounds to set aside the results of The Election, pursuant to F.S. § 102.168(3)(b).

Plaintiff learned of defendant Hattan’s reporting problems following The Election.

12. Defendant Broward County Canvassing Board actions included:

n. Unknown.

Election Day

13. Defendant Brenda Snipes as BSOE and Election officials acting on behalf of the Broward

Supervisor of Elections actions on Election Day included:

o. Election workers instructed Davie residents including Richard Knott, who presented

on Election Day to vote for the plaintiff, to sign over someone else name, after he

presented correct identification.

p. Violation of 102.168 3b, the Broward Supervisor of Elections and election workers

acting on behalf of the Broward Supervisor of elections questionably challenged the

voting rights of numerous low income African American and other minority voters

who presented proper identification and intended to vote for Plaintiff.

q. The Supervisor of Elections and/or the clerk violated F.S. § 102.031 by failing to

maintain order at the polls and by failing to take any corrective measures in response

to Hattan’s entering the polling place and engaging in other disruptive behavior such

as harassing voters at the polling places.

r. African American voters including Mr. Curtis Manuel were unlawfully denied the

right to vote in the March 9, 2010 Davie Election. Mr. Curtis Manuel reported to the

T009 voting precinct on March 9, 2010 to cast a ballot for the Plaintiff. Election

workers unlawfully denied Mr. Manuel the right to vote and refused to grant him a

provisional ballot despite his valid driver’s license, utility bill in his name, and

previously voting at this polling location for the 2008 Presidential Election for

President Barack Obama.

s. After asking another voter Connie Smith who was with him, why so many people

were here to vote for the Plaintiff and few people showed up to vote for her opponent

9

(Hattan) election workers acting on behalf of the Broward Supervisor of Elections

told Mr. Manuel he could not vote and no one on his side of the street could vote in

the Davie Election.

14. Defendant Hattan’s actions on Election Day included:

t. On more than five occasions, Dr. Deborah Brown, among others, observed Hattan,

entering one of the primary polling locations, the T009 precinct, to engage in

unlawful conversations with poll-workers, a clear violation of F.S. § 102.031. No

election official took any action whatsoever to prevent Hattan from engaging in such

unlawful conduct, but rather chose to engage in it with her.

Such misconduct, malfeasance, fraud or corruption on the part of the election officials

acting on behalf of the Broward Supervisor of Elections in allowing these unlawful

acts to take place at the polling stations is sufficient to change or place in doubt the

results of The Election.

u. Hattan was, observed, on numerous occasions, engaging Stevens’ constituency, in an

effort to harass them and/or deter them from successfully voting for Stevens. On

Election Day, Plaintiff campaign supporters drove two vans transporting numerous low

income African American and Hispanic American eligible voters to the T009 polling

location, the Old Davie School located at 6650 Griffin Road, Davie, Florida 33314. Dr.

Deborah Brown, Connie Smith, and others observed Hattan repeatedly approach

eligible African American and other minority voters as they arrived at the T009

precinct polling location or the Old Davie School to vote. Hattan repeatedly asked

African American voters, “Where did you come from and who paid you to vote.” Other

comments overheard made by and to Hattan and her co-conspirators included, “Were

those people paid money or food stamps to vote?” as African American and Hispanic

American voters entered the polling place. Hattan was accompanied by several Town

of Davie Police officers who were wearing Fraternal Order of Police t-shirts. Hattan

was also accompanied by several unknown supporters that were seen driving through

Plaintiffs neighborhood during odd hours of the night. Hattan’s actions constituted a

direct or indirect use of intimidation or tactic of intimidation to induce voters to

refrain from voting, a per se violation of Florida Statutes § 104.0615(2)(a).

v. Defendant Hattan instigated an argument with Plaintiff’s supporters as they waved

signs in front of the T009 Polling place. Defendant Hattan became belligerent and

began yelling obscenities at Deborah Brown a campaign worker as she stood outside

the polling place talking with the Plaintiff’s other supporters.

w. Defendant Hattan yelled expletives at Plaintiff’s campaign workers, voters, and

supporters as they exited the vans to enter the polling place and vote for the Plaintiff.

15. Defendant the Town of Davie actions on Election Day included:

x. Town Council members continued to openly support Hattan on Election Day.

16. Defendant Broward County Canvassing Board actions on Election Day included:

y. The Broward County Canvassing Board certified the results of the Election at

10

midnight despite knowledge of voting irregularities, ballots improperly maintained,

voting machine malfunctions, and missing/uncounted absentee ballots.

Following the Election

17. Election Officials acting on behalf of the BSOE, actions following the Election:

z. During a ballot inspection it was discovered the Broward Supervisor of Elections

failed to comply with F.S. § 102.24 by failing to securely seal the ballot box or ballot

transfer container, thereby jeopardizing the accuracy of the results obtained from The

Election.

aa. Mary Cooney confirmed voters were unlawfully denied the right to vote in the

precinct T009 polling place, based on her conversation with Election Officials and

workers that worked on Election Day. Mary Cooney followed-up on a

conversation with the Plaintiff as to questions of how and why a person can be denied

the right to vote. Mary Cooney stated, “Even if there were questions about the correct

or accurate home address of the voter, they should have been given a provisional

ballot. Election workers stated the voters were turned away because the address on

their voter’s registration card was for Pembroke Pines, Miramar, or Hollywood. There

were quite a few voters with addresses from Hollywood.”

bb. The BSOE sent two election officials to the home of Ann Brooks to harass her.

Instead, of addressing the pertinent issues of voter intimidation and voter

disenfranchisement, election officials blamed errors with the voter database on the

Plaintiff’s campaign staffers.

18. Hattan’s actions following the Election:

cc. Hattan was quoted in the Sun Sentinel saying: “I wanted it so badly.” Hattan publicly

admitted to others she was willing to anything to get elected to the Town Council.

19. The Town’s actions following the Election:

dd. The Town neglected to take action to prevent violations of the civil and constitutional

rights of all its residents including African Americans that attempted to vote or voted

in the Davie Town Council District 2 Election. The Town is bound by the United

States Constitution to protect it residents and establish laws in accordance with Civil

Rights Act. Therefore, the Town is responsible for the civil rights violations

committed by Election Officials, Hattan, and others as if it committed the violations,

pursuant to USC Title 42 §1986.

ee. With full knowledge of civil rights violations including Voter Intimidation and

Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Town of Davie ignored African American resident

complaints and installed Hattan, as though it had no responsibility to the rest of its

residents.

20. Broward County Canvassing Board actions following the Election:

11

ff. Unknown.

Since filing this complaint

Plaintiff filed for and the Court issued a Restraining Order against supporters of Caryl

Casey-Hattan, with close ties to hate groups for continual harassment and intimidation tactics

against the Plaintiff. The Davie Police Department is currently investigating police reports that

were made in and following March 2010 against Hattan and several of her supporters.

ARGUMENT

I. Failure to File an Answer and Affirmative Defenses/Waiver of Defenses

A Motion to Dismiss is not the same as an answer to the Complaint. The defendants must

file an answer to the Complaint as provided by state law.

Florida Statutes 102.168(6) provides:

A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in

the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the

complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on

which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning

the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses,

in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the

defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by

this subsection to be stated in an answer.

Defendants Hattan and the Town of Davie failed to file an answer admitting or denying

the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or

information concerning the allegations. Pursuant to the statute aforementioned, the defendants

may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection to the Complaint.

Therefore, the defendants Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Plaintiff requests judgment against

defendants Hattan and the Town of Davie because they failed to file an answer in the matter

prescribed.

II. Plaintiff has properly alleged cause of action for which relief can be granted

The law is clear as previously stated each allegation in the Complaint is grounds to

contest an election. Plaintiff alleges: 1) Misconduct or fraud on the part of election officials, 2)

ineligibility of the alleged successful candidate, and 3) rejection of eligible votes. Plaintiff

alleges the election officials unlawfully turned voters away, with full knowledge they were

supporters of the Plaintiff, which is clear misconduct. Plaintiff alleges election officials

12

fraudulently asked voters to sign over someone else name when presenting valid ID to vote, this

is fraud. Plaintiff alleges defendant Hattan is ineligible to hold her office. All these facts are

grounds for a candidate or elector to contest an election.

The Motion to Dismiss is a waste of time and a stall tactic. Defendants realized they are

running out of time so they deliberately wasted judicial time with a bogus motion to dismiss;

rather than file an answer to the Complaint.

III. Default Judgment: Outstanding Motions/Immediate Hearing

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Default Judgment against the defendants for failing to

timely file an answer to the Complaint. F.S. 102.168 provides the defendants have ten days to

file an answer with the Court. The answer must state they have no knowledge, admit, or deny the

allegations in the Complaint. Defendants Hattan and the Town of Davie failed to comply with

the law by refusing to file an answer to the Complaint.

Plaintiff granted the defendants twenty days to file an answer to the SAC. Instead of

filing an answer to the SAC, the defendants chose to waste the Courts time with this frivolous

Motion to Dismiss.

Therefore, Plaintiff requests default judgment against defendants Hattan and the Town of

Davie. Subsequently, the defendants Motion to Dismiss with prejudice must be denied.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court enter an Order: 1) denying defendant

Hattan’s Motion to Dismiss, 2) denying defendant the Town of Davie Motion to Dismiss, 3)

granting Plaintiff default judgment against both defendants Hattan and the Town for failing to

file an answer and affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Complaint, 4) setting this case

for trial against remaining defendants, and 5) granting any and all such other and further relief as

the Court deems fair and just.

Dated this _____day of August, 2010.

13

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

Freda Sherman Stevens, Pro Se

4611 S. University Drive Suite 406

Davie, Florida 33328

Phone: 954.594.9567

Email: freda@fredastevens.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was provided, via U.S. Mail and

facsimile to: Oneri Llopiz, Esq. and Stephen Hall Johnson, Esq., Counsels for defendants Hattan

and the Town of Davie, 1201 Brickell Avenue, 5th

Floor Miami, Florida 33131, Burnadette

Norris-Weeks, Esq. Law Office of Burnadette Norris-Weeks, Counsel for Dr. Brenda Snipes:

401 N. Avenue of the Arts NW 7th

Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311, and James D.

Rowlee, Esq. Broward County Attorney’s Office, Counsel for Broward County Canvassing

Board, 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 423, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

/s/Freda Sherman Stevens_____

Freda Sherman Stevens, Pro Se

4611 S. University Drive Suite 406

Davie, Florida 33328

Phone: 954.594.9567

Email: freda@fredastevens.com

14

EXHIBIT A