IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SHERIF RAFIK KODSY

Appellant/petitioner(s) SC14-1185

Vs. Lower tribunal case no. 4D13-1569

STANLEY SPIRA 502011CA012996

Appellee/respondent(s)

PETIONER'S BRIEF

SHERIF RAFIK KODSY

PRO'SE/ PETITIONER

605 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE

POMPANO BEACH FLORIDA, 33062

561-294-3046

mildewproofing@aol.com

Page 1 of 14

INDEX

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................3

First discretionary review I........................................................4

Petitioner, is seeking discretionary review, from an order dismissingappeal, alleged to be from a non-final, non-appealable order, where thetrial court order appealed from was an order declaring plaintiff/petitioner avexatious litigant, and had ordered a $35k security, to be paid within 30days.

Second discretionary review II.....................................................................5

Petitioner, is seeking discretionary review from an order denying tostrike the appeIIee's appendix A-0, for not previously filing them in theCircuit Court, where the appellees' attorney herein filed such exhibits inresponse to an appeal, where the appeal was from an order declaringpetitioner a vexatious litigant.

GENERAL ARGUMENT...........................................................6

CONCLUSION........................................................................8

CASE LAW..........................................................................12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................14

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner herein, is self represented herein, as pro'se, because petitioner

could not find an attorney to represent him, petitioner, was first injured in 2008 and

had developed physical and strenuous disabilities without recovery, hence

petitioner was further involved in other situations where other injuries were

accumulative, where most of the attorneys I contacted were not willing to represent

me, or help me, because the cases were already filed by a pro'se or because they

did not feel that they could reach an amicable settlement for the injuries, stress and

duress that the defendants' had caused, where a trial would most likely be needed..

Obviously those attorneys receive a lot of injury cases where they do not

need to go to trial, where those attorneys earn more with less work from a

settlement, unfortunately I did not have an easy enough case for them, where their

time and profit margin would have been compromised if continued to trial.

Hence, Herein in this case before this honorable court, it involves a reckless

driver act by the appellee, Stanley Spira, a comparative fault case, where the

appellee swerved recklessly into my lane and I was forced to react in a sudden and

abrupt manor, which aggravated my injuries and caused me to seek chiropractic

sessions for several months and time offwork as a result, causing me extreme

hardships where I was already on a very limited budget and income earning

capacity, with other lawsuits pending for an unwarned defective vehicle and for the

insurer's failure to pay for my pains, strains, stress and duress and economic and

non economic loses, where there was also pending herein a law suit for work

discrimination rights and a lawsuit for a false arrest with abuse of force and color.

Page 2 of 14

The appellee's legal representatives, PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE HARTFORD, herein, pursued a personal

attack against a pro'se plaintiff, and set up conflicting court dates with other

ongoing cases to confuse and impose duress and caused a case to be dismissed

upon SherifKodsy a pro'se litigant, where petitioner herein was declared a

vexatious litigant by the Circuit Court judge, without any evidence in that court

case file, which was without a determination as to whether plaintiff/petitioner was

able to produce a $35k security, where due to the appellees' non filing of those

exhibits in Circuit Court, it prevented the production of rebuttal clarified orders

and hampered the plaintiff's defense, where the trial court judge ruled against a

pro'se plaintiffbecause petitioner was representing himself.

Plaintiff/appellant/petitioner, is herein as pro'se and requests that this honorable

court recognize plaintiff/petitioner as a competent pro'se , representative in law

and to allow the courtesy it would allow a licensed practitioner of law.

Page 3 of 14

FIRST DISCRETIONARY REVIEW I

Petitioner, is seeking discretionary review, from an order dismissing appeal,

alleged to be from a non-final, non-appealable order, where the trial court order

appealed from was an order declaring plaintiff/petitioner a vexatious litigant, and

had ordered a $35k security, to be paid within 30 days.

ARGUMENT ONE

The trial court order was a fmal order declaring plaintiff/petitioner a vexatious

litigant, this case did not need to be dismissed first before pursuing an appeal,

because the court order already had made a fmding of a vexatious litigant and

requested an action to follow, to produce $35k as a security to continue

prosecution in this case.

The damage caused from such an order, had jeopardized and caused a five

year old pending pro'se case to be dismissed, such as the KODSY VS GENERAL

MOTORS CASE, case no.:2009-CA-011174, where that lawyer used the Spira

court order as evidence to support the ruling of a vexatious litigant and he filed a

similar vexatious litigant motion with that court, which dismissed the case for non

payment of a $35k security which is pending appeal before the Fourth District

Court ofappeals case no.:

Where herein the nature ofthat order declaring petitioner a vexatious litigant,

was like saying the attorney is no good and vexatious, where an injunction was

imposed to pay a $35k security, to proceed.

Where the order declaring petitioner a vexatious litigant prevented petitioner

from continuing prosecutions, in other matters, where petitioner had several other

Page 4 of 14

pending cases in Palm Beach Circuit Court, where those cases are now in limbo,

because of this discriminatory and unsupported vexatious litigant order.

SECOND DISCRETIONARY REVIEW II

Petitioner, is seeking discretionary review from an order denying to strike the

appellee's appendix A-0, for not previously filing them in the Circuit Court,

where the appellees' attorney herein filed such exhibits in response to an appeal,

where the appeal was from an order declaring petitioner a vexatious litigant.

ARGUMENT TWO

The vexatious litigant order was without any filed documents to support the

purported allegations, about the outcome ofother cases, where plaintiffwas not

able to provide specific rebuttal documents on any specific document, because

there was no specific document filed, where the trial judge simply heard the

defendant's attorneys' arguments, which was one sided, which was a verbal match

between a trained and experienced attorney vs. a disabled pro'se plaintiff,

certainly the trial judge believed the defendants' attomey and ruled in favor of the

defendants' attorneys', without any filed evidence or orders from other courts,

where most of those cases were still pending, as they were dismissed without

prejudice.

Page 5 of 14

GENERAL ARGUMENT

1- The appellee's are making assumptions and conclusions, without

merit, because they are alleging , " the arguments raised by Kodsy were

never previously raised", where that sentence is malicious, because it is

discriminating against a pro'se plaintiff that is raising a defense to the unjust

and unsupported allegations of a vexatious litigant.

2- This whole issue here before the appeals court is quite simple if

viewed and decided without favoritism for an attorney or discrimination

against a pro'se, appellant, where the issues were previously raised.

3- The Lower court discriminated against a pro'se plaintiffwhen it ruled

In the vexatious litigant order, which was without any evidence in the

court's file to support the allegations ofwins or loses or other legal filings

by Appellant in other matters, hence rendering a prejudicial order

adindicating plaintiffherein as a vexatious litigant without any filed

evidence in the record and requiring a $35k security, to be provided within

30 days.

4- The defendants'/appellees' are the vexatious litigants here, where they

argued non relevant matters and pursued a personal attack against a pro'se

litigant in a malicious manor to avoid a liability to its plaintiff/victim, where

they flexed their colors to conceal facts and to elude the courts about the

actual facts, so by the non-filing of the alleged documents it would not

receive a correction or a different theory as a defense, hence an argument to

Page 6 of 14

any specific document or order not previously filed with the court, could not

be properly raised, because it was not in evidence.

5- The issues and defenses raised by appellant in the motion for

reconsideration, are timely and relevant to the current ruling ofthis court.

6- It should be further clear to this honorable court, that the appellees'

attorneys', in the lower court, are the ones wasting the legal systems

valuable time on issues outside ofthe box, where the merits ofthis filed law

suit rest upon a comparative fault ofthe defendant Stanley Spira when he

recldessly swerved into Kodsy's lane and not the issue that the victim Sherif

Kodsy herein as pro'se, is self represented, hence Kodsy was a victim to

unrelated attacks from unrelated matters, which required lots oftime and

effort from Kodsy and the defendants' attorneys, which is further evidence

ofa conspiracy and bad faith to deny reliefto a self represented

individual/victim.

7- Kodsy, herein as pro'se is not a licensed attorney and has no formal

training in law, however Kodsy did own a restoration company for over 20 years,

and possessed a license as a Certified Building Contractor and was recognized as

a Mold Control Expert, where surely Kodsy's IQ could and did grasp and comply

with the meaning and understanding ofthe law for over five years since March

31, 2014, which was the first CIRCUIT COURT filing against the General Motors

Corporation, which is still in BANKRUPTCY, where this court should

recognize the extensive hours and training it took to last five years against a

Page 7 of 14

giant corporation like General Motors, by an injured and disabled pro'se

plaintiff.

CONCLUSION

8- All the issues raised herein by appellant are in conjunction with the

issues previously raised and therefore should be considered as a continuous

argument for the unfiled documents relied upon by the appellees' in the lower

court, which were not placed in evidence, hence rendering that non-final

order discriminative, unfair and prejudicial against a self represented

individual.

9- The vexatious litigant order although facially was a non final

order, it was a final order declaring plaintiffa vexatious litigant and

requiring a security, hence it required an immediate action similarly to an

Injunction.

10- The defendants' allege a reply briefcould have been filed by

Kodsy, however the motion to strike the appellees' appendix was pending

before this court and a response was not yet due pending the court's decision

to allow or dismiss those documents, which were not in the lower court's

record or in the record on appeal herein.

11- The vexatious litigant order did bar Kodsy from pursuing

further filings in this case and it caused other courts to act upon and

discriminate against Kodsy, because ofthis unsupported order declaring

Kodsy a vexatious litigant, where the Stanley Spira order was used by the General

Page 8 of 14

Motors Corporation to obtain a dismissal order for its case, which is currently

pending appellate review, 4° DCA 13-35133 is an appeal from an order declaring

Kodsy a vexatious litigant.

12- Kodsy cannot loose this case herein because

accordingly to the Contributory fault, Florida Law, 768.81, (2) EFFECT

OF CONTRIBUTORY FAULT.-In a negligence action, contributory fault

chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded

as economic and noneconomic damages for an injury attributable to the

claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recovery.ifKodsy was more

than 50% at fault recovery is still possible, where the order declaring Kodsy

to be a vexatious litigant after being placed on that's trial court docket for

trial is prejudicial, because it is a later ruling on the merits and is a ruling on

the existence or nonexistence of insurance coverage, primarily because it did

not first allow for a mediation as it prevented recovery by its injunction

order simply because plaintiff/appellant was pro'se, where a cause of action

existed to continue to trial.

13- It should not be ruled upon Kodsy's legal strategy in

representations in the GENERAL MOTORS case, because it does not

concern STANLEY SPIRA or PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE HARTFORD, where that vexatious litigant

order in that case was as a result of the UNSUPPORTED vexatious litigant

order generated in the Spira case, where the General Motors case was dismissed

Page 9 of 14

but remains a claim in custody ofthe Bankruptcy court, where there is a Federal

Court and a Federal Judge in NEW YORK, which has a final say in that matter of

providing a security to continue to a second trial after the Bankruptcy stay was

lifted to be able to go to trial.

14- Further the Malicious defendants' attorneys' in the circuit

court, were also the cause for having another Circuit Court case to be dismissed,

because of a special hearing set date that conflicted with a previously set date in

that case, where Kodsy's appearance was needed in two different courtrooms,

where the intentional confusion caused Kodsy to miss the hearing in the case of

Kodsy vs, the Florida Construction Board.

15- It should be documented by this appeals court that the

appellees' did harass and conspire against Kodsy's legal status in other cases

including this one here and did waste a lot ofthe court's time to pursue non

relevant and unsupported issues and orders from other cases pursued by Kodsy,

that were not relevant to this Stanley Spira swerving incident, which was by an

out of state reckless driver that caused a negligent action and reaction to the

other where injuries were sustained as a result thereof.

16- The appellees' should not be allowed to re-file any

other Motions related to a vexatious litigant herein, because Kodsy was

fully compliant to their demands and requests ofproduction and in bad faith

they pursued a malicious strategic attack against a pro'se plaintiff, without filing

their documents, to avoid a rebuttal document, where it could not be filed into

Page 10 of 14

that respect, as it was the appellees' strategy to have an advantage a strategy

that backfired because the pro'se litigant knew the law ofevidence and moved to

strike the documents not in the record.

Florida rules of evidence 90.902(4) A copy ofan official public record,

report, or entry, or ofa document authorized by law to be recorded or filed

and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations

in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized

to make the certification by certificate complying with subsection (1),

subsection (2), or subsection (3) or complying with any act of the

Legislature or rule adopted by the Supreme Court.

Wherefore appellant requests an order ofrelief from the vexatious

litigant injunction imposed in the vexatious litigant order, which was without

any evidence supporting its validity as described through its paragraphs.

Kodsy, respectfully requests recognition as a pro'se litigant that is in

compliance with the law and not some vexatious litigant, to be able to

proceed to trial and have a jury decide the outcome of this case.

Appellant further requests any reliefthis court may offer, where

Kodsy, is also a professional and his time and space is also valuable, where he has

been struggling to bring worth an injury claim, where Kodsy is financially limited

due to his disabilities, injuries, strains and economic stance.

Page 11 of 14

CASE LAW

Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905

"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one ofthe most important rights under theconstitution and laws."

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520 (1971)Plaintiff-inmate filed pro se complaint against prison seeking compensation fordamages sustained while placed in solitary confinement. In finding plaintiffscomplaint legally sufficient, Supreme Court found that pro se pleadings shouldbe held to "less stringent standards" than those drafted by attorneys.

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R.Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233

Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro selitigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards ofperfection as

lawyers.

Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)

"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means ofarriving at fair and just

settlements ofcontroversies between litigants. They should not raise barrierswhich prevent the achievement ofthat end. Proper pleading is important, but itsimportance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a

just judgment."

Nichols v. Keller, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 601 (1993)

Plaintiffwho consulted defendants' law finns regarding workers' compensationclaim was not advised ofpotential for additional third party claim before statueof limitations expired. Defendants argued that plaintiffs representation waslimited only to filing workers' compensation claim and no duty existed to adviseplaintiff in any other matter. Court found that representation was not limited

Page 12 of 14

solely to workers compensation claim, and defendants should have advisedplaintiff regarding third party claim.

Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court ofAppeals

The plaintiffs civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federaljudge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiffpleads pro se in asuit for protection ofcivil rights, the Court should endeavor to construePlaintiffs Pleadings without regard to technicalities."Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA)

It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than onedrafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson.

Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982)

"Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers havelong engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace ofmuch litigation breedsfrustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."

Schware v. Board ofExaminers, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238,239.

"The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because ofhis exerciseofConstitutional Rights."

Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)

"The practice of law is an occupation ofcommon right."

Page 13 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE FOREGOING

INSTRUMENT WAS E-MAILED AND MAILED BY U.S. MAIL TO THE

APPELLEE'S COUNSEL OF RECORD, ON JUNE 218T , 2014.

SHERIF R. KODSY

APPELLANT/ PRO'SE

605 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE

POMPANO BEACH , FLORIDA, 33062

561-294-3046

cc; Jason M. Chodos | Associates Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass

101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Page 14 of 14