This document contains notices for the deposition of Traian Bujduveanu in a civil case. It includes the initial notice scheduling the deposition for October 10, 2011, a re-notice rescheduling it for November 11, 2011 due to the plaintiff's failure to appear, and another re-notice rescheduling it for December 5, 2011. Certificates of non-appearance are also included, indicating the plaintiff again failed to appear for his depositions on November 11, 2011 and December 5, 2011.
Defendants dismas charties. inc.. ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiffs and defendants to attend and mediate the matters in dispute.
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiff and defendants to appear for court ordered mediation on that date to mediate the matters in this case.
This document is a notice of filing a proposed mediation order in a case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashanda. It notifies the court that the defendants have filed a proposed order setting mediation for this case on November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida. The proposed order is attached.
This document provides the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It includes 11 disputed facts from the Plaintiff's motion. For each fact, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's version and provide evidence from the affidavit of Ana Gispert supporting their denial. They assert that the Plaintiff violated the rules of his community corrections program by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons transferred the Plaintiff back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant organization's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion to compel since they have agreed to produce documents according to the requested conditions.
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant organization's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied since they agreed to produce documents according to the rules by making them available at their attorney's office.
Defendants dismas charties. inc.. ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiffs and defendants to attend and mediate the matters in dispute.
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiff and defendants to appear for court ordered mediation on that date to mediate the matters in this case.
This document is a notice of filing a proposed mediation order in a case between plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu and defendants Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Lashanda. It notifies the court that the defendants have filed a proposed order setting mediation for this case on November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida. The proposed order is attached.
This document provides the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It includes 11 disputed facts from the Plaintiff's motion. For each fact, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's version and provide evidence from the affidavit of Ana Gispert supporting their denial. They assert that the Plaintiff violated the rules of his community corrections program by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Bureau of Prisons transferred the Plaintiff back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant organization's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion to compel since they have agreed to produce documents according to the requested conditions.
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant organization's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied since they agreed to produce documents according to the rules by making them available at their attorney's office.
This motion requests that the California Department of Justice be designated as a qualified recipient of confidential portions of the deposition of Don Clark, which may be relevant to their investigation into the death of Anna Nicole Smith. The deposition suggests Clark has attempted to influence investigations against Stern despite admitting he has no legitimate evidence of wrongdoing. Designating the California DOJ would allow the relevant deposition testimony to be shared regarding Clark's lack of objectivity and evidence in his pursuit of prosecuting Stern.
The document is an order from a United States Bankruptcy Court case dismissing an adversary proceeding with prejudice. The order approves a stipulation between the plaintiff Virgie Arthur and defendant Bonnie Gayle Stern to dismiss the adversary proceeding, with each party bearing their own costs and fees. The court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the order.
This document is an initial brief filed by Traian Bujduveanu in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appealing a lower court decision. It provides background on the case, which involves claims by Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc. and several employees for violations of his civil rights during his residency at a halfway house operated by Dismas. It outlines the procedural history of the case in the lower court and provides statements of facts and the case intended to support Bujduveanu's appeal.
Young v Dubow Ambrose DHS Saafir Methodist Kinship 10Roxanne Grinage
1. The document appeals a Post-Adjudication Hearing and Order from August 3, 2009 that prolonged abuse of the appellant's children by their father.
2. The order is alleged to be the result of misadministration by the Department of Human Services and Family Court, which enabled the abuse despite extensive documented evidence.
3. The appellant claims the order violates her constitutional rights and denies her due process to defend herself and her children against false accusations. She seeks scrutiny of DHS's role in prolonging the abuse.
Edwards v. snowden add hbo and academy awardsPublicLeaks
1. Plaintiff Horace Edwards sues Edward Snowden and others involved in the film Citizenfour, alleging they unlawfully acquired and disclosed classified national security information stolen by Snowden, in violation of secrecy agreements.
2. The complaint alleges Snowden intentionally stole classified information from the NSA and CIA while working for those agencies. He then provided that information to filmmaker Laura Poitras, who worked with others to make the film Citizenfour, revealing the stolen classified information.
3. Plaintiff claims the disclosure of stolen classified information in the film poses a substantial risk of serious injury to himself and others. He alleges insurance fraud related to the film and asserts claims including violations of the Antiterrorism Act. The plaintiff seeks
1) Roxanne Grinage has filed a motion to cancel the March 2nd listing in the case of Lorraine Grinage v. Erick L. Brown, citing Pennsylvania code regarding the formation of a special tribunal due to an interlocutory appeal of Judge Robert J. Matthews, who has been indicted by a grand jury.
2) The motion argues the clerk has falsely listed Roxanne Grinage as the plaintiff, when the real plaintiffs are Lorraine Grinage and her children, and this could result in a second fraudulent bench warrant against Roxanne Grinage.
3) The motion requests the clerk correct the case caption and warns that any delay or denial
This document is a court docket listing entries related to a civil case. It shows that the plaintiff filed a motion for return of property and an amended complaint against multiple defendants. The judge ordered the parties to file a joint scheduling report and referred the case to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters. The plaintiff filed several motions, including motions to appoint counsel and for an extension to file the joint report. Summonses were issued to the defendants.
This document is a court docket listing entries related to a civil case. It shows that the plaintiff filed a motion for return of property and for appointment of counsel. The case was assigned to Judge Seitz and referred to Magistrate Judge Simonton. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and summons were issued to the defendants. The docket also notes orders requiring a joint scheduling report and instructions to the pro se plaintiff.
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. The plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As required, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
Us man imprisoned for selling military parts to iran kodoom.comCocoselul Inaripat
A US man of Romanian descent was sentenced to 35 months in prison for illegally exporting military aircraft parts to Iran. Traian Bujduveanu pled guilty to conspiring to export goods in violation of the US trade embargo on Iran. He admitted to selling aircraft parts to a US man of Iranian descent, Hassan Keshari, who was also sentenced to prison for his role in the plot. Several news articles reported on the sentencing and details of the case.
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal history and sentence, as well as the rules and regulations of the halfway house program where he was residing. The affidavit alleges that the plaintiff violated program rules by driving without authorization and possessing a cell phone, and that he acknowledged being informed of and agreeing to abide by the rules. It also states that the plaintiff was removed from the program and had his remaining sentence served in prison as a result of the violations.
This document contains notices for the deposition of Traian Bujduveanu in a civil case. It includes the initial notice scheduling the deposition for October 10, 2011, a re-notice rescheduling it for November 11, 2011 due to the plaintiff's failure to appear, and another re-notice rescheduling it for December 5, 2011. Certificates of non-appearance are also included, indicating the plaintiff again failed to appear for his depositions on November 11, 2011 and December 5, 2011.
Defendants dismas charties. inc.. ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiff and defendants to appear for court ordered mediation on that date to mediate the matters in this case.
Defendants dismas charties. inc.. ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiff and defendants to appear for court ordered mediation on that date to mediate the matters in this case.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied since they agreed to produce documents according to the rules by making them available at their attorney's office.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant organization's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion to compel since they have agreed to produce documents according to the requested conditions.
Defendants dismas charities,inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Lashanda Adams) requesting a hearing and status conference. The defendants had previously filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. Briefs were filed by both parties regarding the motion to dismiss. However, the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The defendants believe resolving the motion to dismiss would end the lawsuit and the need for further discovery. Therefore, the defendants are requesting a hearing on their motion to dismiss and a status conference to discuss other pending motions.
Defendants dismas charities,inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Lashanda Adams) requesting a hearing and status conference. The defendants had previously filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. Briefs were filed by both parties regarding the motion to dismiss. The defendants believe resolving the motion to dismiss would end the lawsuit and avoid further discovery. Therefore, the defendants are requesting a hearing on their motion to dismiss and a status conference to discuss other pending motions in the case.
This motion requests that the California Department of Justice be designated as a qualified recipient of confidential portions of the deposition of Don Clark, which may be relevant to their investigation into the death of Anna Nicole Smith. The deposition suggests Clark has attempted to influence investigations against Stern despite admitting he has no legitimate evidence of wrongdoing. Designating the California DOJ would allow the relevant deposition testimony to be shared regarding Clark's lack of objectivity and evidence in his pursuit of prosecuting Stern.
The document is an order from a United States Bankruptcy Court case dismissing an adversary proceeding with prejudice. The order approves a stipulation between the plaintiff Virgie Arthur and defendant Bonnie Gayle Stern to dismiss the adversary proceeding, with each party bearing their own costs and fees. The court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the order.
This document is an initial brief filed by Traian Bujduveanu in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit appealing a lower court decision. It provides background on the case, which involves claims by Bujduveanu against Dismas Charities Inc. and several employees for violations of his civil rights during his residency at a halfway house operated by Dismas. It outlines the procedural history of the case in the lower court and provides statements of facts and the case intended to support Bujduveanu's appeal.
Young v Dubow Ambrose DHS Saafir Methodist Kinship 10Roxanne Grinage
1. The document appeals a Post-Adjudication Hearing and Order from August 3, 2009 that prolonged abuse of the appellant's children by their father.
2. The order is alleged to be the result of misadministration by the Department of Human Services and Family Court, which enabled the abuse despite extensive documented evidence.
3. The appellant claims the order violates her constitutional rights and denies her due process to defend herself and her children against false accusations. She seeks scrutiny of DHS's role in prolonging the abuse.
Edwards v. snowden add hbo and academy awardsPublicLeaks
1. Plaintiff Horace Edwards sues Edward Snowden and others involved in the film Citizenfour, alleging they unlawfully acquired and disclosed classified national security information stolen by Snowden, in violation of secrecy agreements.
2. The complaint alleges Snowden intentionally stole classified information from the NSA and CIA while working for those agencies. He then provided that information to filmmaker Laura Poitras, who worked with others to make the film Citizenfour, revealing the stolen classified information.
3. Plaintiff claims the disclosure of stolen classified information in the film poses a substantial risk of serious injury to himself and others. He alleges insurance fraud related to the film and asserts claims including violations of the Antiterrorism Act. The plaintiff seeks
1) Roxanne Grinage has filed a motion to cancel the March 2nd listing in the case of Lorraine Grinage v. Erick L. Brown, citing Pennsylvania code regarding the formation of a special tribunal due to an interlocutory appeal of Judge Robert J. Matthews, who has been indicted by a grand jury.
2) The motion argues the clerk has falsely listed Roxanne Grinage as the plaintiff, when the real plaintiffs are Lorraine Grinage and her children, and this could result in a second fraudulent bench warrant against Roxanne Grinage.
3) The motion requests the clerk correct the case caption and warns that any delay or denial
This document is a court docket listing entries related to a civil case. It shows that the plaintiff filed a motion for return of property and an amended complaint against multiple defendants. The judge ordered the parties to file a joint scheduling report and referred the case to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters. The plaintiff filed several motions, including motions to appoint counsel and for an extension to file the joint report. Summonses were issued to the defendants.
This document is a court docket listing entries related to a civil case. It shows that the plaintiff filed a motion for return of property and for appointment of counsel. The case was assigned to Judge Seitz and referred to Magistrate Judge Simonton. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and summons were issued to the defendants. The docket also notes orders requiring a joint scheduling report and instructions to the pro se plaintiff.
Defendants’ reply brief in response to plaintiff’s response brief and in supp...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in response to the plaintiff's response brief and in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It summarizes that the plaintiff was transferred to a community corrections facility operated by Dismas Charities as part of his transition from federal prison back into the community. The plaintiff violated rules of his placement by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As required, Dismas reported the violations to the Bureau of Prisons, which returned the plaintiff to prison to serve the remaining 68 days of his sentence. The defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's tort claims of false arrest, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution.
This document is a reply brief filed by defendants in response to a lawsuit brought by a former inmate, Traian Bujduveanu, against his residential reentry center Dismas Charities and three employees. The defendants argue that Bujduveanu violated terms of his release from federal prison by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, transferred Bujduveanu back to prison to complete his sentence. The defendants provide 27 undisputed facts with supporting documentation showing Bujduveanu signed forms acknowledging he would abide by rules prohibiting unauthorized driving and cell phone possession. The defendants argue they were not legally responsible for Bu
Us man imprisoned for selling military parts to iran kodoom.comCocoselul Inaripat
A US man of Romanian descent was sentenced to 35 months in prison for illegally exporting military aircraft parts to Iran. Traian Bujduveanu pled guilty to conspiring to export goods in violation of the US trade embargo on Iran. He admitted to selling aircraft parts to a US man of Iranian descent, Hassan Keshari, who was also sentenced to prison for his role in the plot. Several news articles reported on the sentencing and details of the case.
This document is a reply brief in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint. It argues that the plaintiff's complaint and responses fail to allege specific facts needed to support any causes of action. It asserts the plaintiff's filings simply restate the complaint without addressing the legal and factual issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The defendants request that the court grant their motion to dismiss the complaint.
This affidavit provides information in support of a motion for summary judgment. It describes the plaintiff's criminal history and sentence, as well as the rules and regulations of the halfway house program where he was residing. The affidavit alleges that the plaintiff violated program rules by driving without authorization and possessing a cell phone, and that he acknowledged being informed of and agreeing to abide by the rules. It also states that the plaintiff was removed from the program and had his remaining sentence served in prison as a result of the violations.
This document contains notices for the deposition of Traian Bujduveanu in a civil case. It includes the initial notice scheduling the deposition for October 10, 2011, a re-notice rescheduling it for November 11, 2011 due to the plaintiff's failure to appear, and another re-notice rescheduling it for December 5, 2011. Certificates of non-appearance are also included, indicating the plaintiff again failed to appear for his depositions on November 11, 2011 and December 5, 2011.
Defendants dismas charties. inc.. ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiff and defendants to appear for court ordered mediation on that date to mediate the matters in this case.
Defendants dismas charties. inc.. ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a notice of proposed mediation order with the court to schedule mediation for the case of Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc. et al.
2) The proposed mediation order schedules mediation for November 1, 2011 at 10:30am at the offices of Lance Wogalter, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida.
3) The order requires all plaintiff and defendants to appear for court ordered mediation on that date to mediate the matters in this case.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the plaintiff's motion be denied since they agreed to produce documents according to the rules by making them available at their attorney's office.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a brief in response to the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents.
2) The defendants agreed to produce documents but want inspection to occur at their attorney's office rather than at the defendant organization's office, due to the plaintiff's legal restrictions being near felons.
3) The defendants request that the court deny the plaintiff's motion to compel since they have agreed to produce documents according to the requested conditions.
Defendants dismas charities,inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Lashanda Adams) requesting a hearing and status conference. The defendants had previously filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. Briefs were filed by both parties regarding the motion to dismiss. However, the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The defendants believe resolving the motion to dismiss would end the lawsuit and the need for further discovery. Therefore, the defendants are requesting a hearing on their motion to dismiss and a status conference to discuss other pending motions.
Defendants dismas charities,inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Lashanda Adams) requesting a hearing and status conference. The defendants had previously filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. Briefs were filed by both parties regarding the motion to dismiss. The defendants believe resolving the motion to dismiss would end the lawsuit and avoid further discovery. Therefore, the defendants are requesting a hearing on their motion to dismiss and a status conference to discuss other pending motions in the case.
This document is a motion filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Lashanda Adams) requesting a hearing and status conference. The defendants had previously filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. Briefs were filed by both parties regarding the motion to dismiss. However, the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The defendants believe resolving the motion to dismiss would end the lawsuit and the need for further discovery. Therefore, the defendants are requesting a hearing on their motion to dismiss and a status conference to discuss other pending motions.
Defendants dismas charities,inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a motion filed by the defendants (Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas, and Lashanda Adams) requesting a hearing and status conference. The defendants had previously filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. Briefs were filed by both parties regarding the motion to dismiss. However, the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The defendants believe resolving the motion to dismiss would end the lawsuit and the need for further discovery. Therefore, the defendants are requesting a hearing on their motion to dismiss and a status conference to discuss other pending motions.
The mediator filed a report stating that the parties engaged in court-ordered mediation on November 1, 2011, but the mediation resulted in an impasse with no resolution. The mediator certified that he served copies of the report by hand delivery to both the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants on November 1, 2011.
The mediator filed a report stating that the parties engaged in court-ordered mediation on November 1, 2011, but the mediation resulted in an impasse with no resolution. The mediator certified that he served copies of the report by hand delivery to both the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants on November 1, 2011.
The mediator filed a report stating that the parties engaged in court-ordered mediation on November 1, 2011, but the mediation resulted in an impasse with no resolution. The mediator certified that he served copies of the report by hand delivery to both the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants on November 1, 2011.
The mediator filed a report stating that the parties engaged in court-ordered mediation on November 1, 2011, but the mediation resulted in an impasse with no resolution. The mediator certified that he served copies of the report by hand delivery to both the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants on November 1, 2011.
United States District Court,Southern District of Florida,11-cv-20120-AMS,Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities,Inc.,Ana Gispert,Derek Thomas,lashanda Adams
This document is a court docket listing filings and orders in a civil case. It indicates that the plaintiff filed a motion for return of property and for appointment of counsel. The plaintiff later filed an amended complaint. The court issued orders referring the case to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters, requiring a joint scheduling report, and denying the plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel. The docket also records the issuance of summons to defendants, the plaintiff filing an affidavit of service, and an order requiring payment of filing fees.
This document is a court docket listing filings and orders in a civil case. It indicates that the plaintiff filed a motion for return of property and an amended complaint against multiple defendants. The plaintiff also filed several motions, including motions to appoint counsel and for an extension of time. The court issued orders referring the case to a magistrate judge for pretrial matters and requiring the parties to file a joint scheduling report.
This document provides a summary of a court docket. It details a civil case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida between Traian Bujduveanu and several defendants, including Dismas Charities Inc. and individual employees. The docket lists various motions and responses filed by both parties related to the defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's requests for appointment of counsel. The magistrate judge issued orders addressing these motions.
This document is a court docket listing events in the civil case "Bujduveanu v. Ginspert et al" from its filing in January 2011 through May 2011. It notes that the plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu filed a motion for return of property and motions to appoint counsel. The defendants include Dismas Charities Inc., Ana Ginspert, Derek Thomas, and Adams Leshota. The docket records the assignment of judges, issuance of summons, filing of an amended complaint, and an order requiring payment of filing fees.
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. He was then transferred back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was sent back to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants should be granted summary judgment.
Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary ju...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by a former federal inmate against a residential reentry center and its employees.
2) The plaintiff violated conditions of his release from federal prison by driving a car and possessing a cell phone. As a result, he was returned to federal prison to serve the remainder of his sentence.
3) The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot maintain any causes of action against them because the federal Bureau of Prisons, not the defendants, made the decision to return the plaintiff to prison for his violations of rules. Therefore, the defendants assert they are entitled to summary judgment.
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
The document discusses the results of a study on the effects of exercise on memory and thinking abilities in older adults. The study found that regular exercise can help reduce the decline in thinking abilities that often occurs with age. Older adults who exercised regularly performed better on cognitive tests and brain scans showed they had greater activity in important areas for memory and learning compared to less active peers.
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Just...Cocoselul Inaripat
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Criminals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World,Democracy Propaganda
Traian Bujduveani 1,Corruption inside US Government,Corruption of the US Justice System,Election of Crominals into the US Federal Government Offices,The Most Corrupted Country In the World
The United States government conducted a large raid involving over 30 agents from numerous agencies on Traian Bujduveanu's residence to seize assets. The lead prosecutors claimed in court that the assets were worth over $100,000, but they ended up being less than $10,000 in value, consisting of antique aircraft parts. The massive raid was unnecessary and terrorized Bujduveanu's 84-year-old blind mother, who was sent to the hospital. Witnesses state that Bujduveanu had been under surveillance for over a year before the raid. The government's actions seem aimed at justifying the expenses of the investigation rather than appropriately addressing the matter.
This document lists the names of various government agencies and individuals, including Jeb Bush, the Department of Justice, ICE agents, US Attorneys, Assistant Attorney Generals, FBI agents, and others. It also references concepts like government conspiracies, revolutions in Romania and Iran, corruption in government, and crimes against humanity.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
Walmart Business+ and Spark Good for Nonprofits.pdfTechSoup
"Learn about all the ways Walmart supports nonprofit organizations.
You will hear from Liz Willett, the Head of Nonprofits, and hear about what Walmart is doing to help nonprofits, including Walmart Business and Spark Good. Walmart Business+ is a new offer for nonprofits that offers discounts and also streamlines nonprofits order and expense tracking, saving time and money.
The webinar may also give some examples on how nonprofits can best leverage Walmart Business+.
The event will cover the following::
Walmart Business + (https://business.walmart.com/plus) is a new shopping experience for nonprofits, schools, and local business customers that connects an exclusive online shopping experience to stores. Benefits include free delivery and shipping, a 'Spend Analytics” feature, special discounts, deals and tax-exempt shopping.
Special TechSoup offer for a free 180 days membership, and up to $150 in discounts on eligible orders.
Spark Good (walmart.com/sparkgood) is a charitable platform that enables nonprofits to receive donations directly from customers and associates.
Answers about how you can do more with Walmart!"
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...
Notice of taking deposition
1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT,
DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF TAIONG DEPOSITION
-TO:—Trajan Bujduveanu
5601 W. Broward Blvd.
Plantation, FL 33317
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned counsel will take the following
deposition:
NAME; TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU
TTME AND DATE; OCTOBER 10,2011 @9:00 A.M.
LOCATION: NETWORK REPORTING
" ' TOWER 101
101 NORTHEAST 3rd AVENUE, SUITE 1500
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
305-358-8188
upon oral examination before Network Reporting, Notary Public, or any other Notary Public or
Officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination will
continue from day to day until completed and is being taken for the purposes of discovery, for
use at trial or for such other purposes as are permitted under the Rules.
2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 2 of 8
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via
First Class U.S. Mail to the above named addressee(s), this (N 1 day ofAugust, 2011.
EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL
& CHATET, P.A.
Presidential Circle - Suite 265 South
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, Floridi/ 33021
Telephone: ](95j
Facsimile:
CHATET, ESQUIRE
Bar No.: 963798
cc: Network Reporting
Via Facsimile: (305)358-8187
3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 3 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT,
DEREKTHOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA,
Defendants.
/
RE-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
***This Re-Notice of Taking Deposition Cancels the Deposition Previously Scheduled for
October 10,2011 at 9:00 a.m. andReschedules it for November 11, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.***
TO: Traian Bujduveanu
5601 W.Broward Blvd.
Plantation, FL 33317
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned counsel will take the following
deposition:
NAME: TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU
TIME AND DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2011 @ 9:00 A.M.
LOCATION: NETWORK REPORTING
TOWER 101
101 NORTHEAST 3rd AVENUE, SUITE 1500
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
305-358-8188
upon oral examination before Network Reporting, Notary Public, or any other Notary Public or
Officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination will
4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 4 of 8
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
continue from day to day until completed and is being taken for the purposes of discovery, for
use at trial or for such other purposes as are permittedunderthe Rules.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via
First Class U.S. Mail to the above named addressee(s), this |vdav ofAugust, 2011.
EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL
& CHATET, P.A.
Presidential Circle - Suite 265 South
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, Florida 33021
Telephone: (954^ 894-8000
Facsimile: (954^894-8015
By:
WDiaiATET,
DAVID ESQUIRE
idaB&ANo.: 963798
Florida
cc: Network Reporting
Via Facsimile: (305)358-8187
yvv
5. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 5 of 8
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
3
CASE NO. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
4
5 TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
7
6
vs.
Plaintiff,
tofGOHH
8 DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT,
DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA,
9
10 Defendants.
11
12
13
CERTIFICATE of NON-APPEARANCE
14
15 I, Rick White, RPR, being a Notary Public in and for
the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that pursuant
16 to a Notice of Deposition in the above case, I, as well as
David Chaiet, Esq., appeared at 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue, Ft.
17 Lauderdale, Florida, on Friday, November 11, 2011, at 9:00
a.m. for the purpose of reporting the scheduled deposition of
18 Traian Bujduveanu, and after waiting until 9:30 a.m., the
deponent did not appear.
19
20 DATED at Ft. Lauderdale, this 14th day of November, 2011.
21
22
23 Rick White, C.S.R., Notary Public in and for the
24 State of Florida at Large
25 Commission #EE86209 Expires: July 1, 2015.
6. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 6 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFFLORIDA
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT
DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA,
Defendants.
/
RE-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
TO: Traian Bujduveanu
5601 W. Broward Blvd.
Plantation, FL 33317
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned counsel will take the following
deposition:
MME: TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU
TIME AND DATE: DECEMBER 5,2011 @2:00 P.M.
LOCATION: NETWORK REPORTING
TOWER 101
101 NORTHEAST 3rd AVENUE, SUITE 1500
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA
305-358-8188
upon oral examination before Network Reporting, Notary Public, or any other Notary Public or
Officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State ofFlorida. The oral examination will
continue from day to day until completed and is being taken for the purposes of discovery, for
use attrial orfor such other purposes as are permitted under the Rules.
7. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 7 of 8
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CTV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
CERTIFICATE OF SF.wvinr.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing was furnished via
First Class U.S. Mail to the above named addressee(s), this jKvVday ofNovember, 2011.
EISTNGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL
& CHATET, P.A.
Presidential Circle - Suite 265 South
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Hollywood, Florida 33021
Telephone: (954) 894^000
Facsimile: (954)
By:
DAVID CHATEt, ESQUIRE
Florida BarNo.: 1963798
cc: Network Reporting
Via Facsimile: (305)358-8187
8. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 78-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2011 Page 8 of 8
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2
CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
3
4
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,
5
Plaintiff,
6
vs .
7
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT,
8 DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA,
9 Defendants.
10
11
12 CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPEARANCE FOR DEPOSITION
13 I, NATALIE CRYSTAL CARROLL, being a Notary Public in
and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify
14 that I appeared on Monday, December 5th, 2011 from 2:00
p.m. to 2:30 p.m. for the purpose of reporting the
15 deposition of TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, which was scheduled to
begin at 2:00 p.m. at 101 Northeast 3rd Avenue, Suite
16 1500, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 pursuant to Notice
of Taking Deposition and that the witness, TRAIAN
17 BUJDUVEANU, did not appear nor did anyone appear on the
witness's behalf.
18
19
DATED at Miami-Dade County, Florida, this 5th day of
20 December, 2011.
21
/^kUCfuuu.it
22 Natalie Crystal Carroll
Notary Public - State of Florida
23 My Commission #EE056298
Expires April 20, 2012
24
25
-NETWORK REPORTING CORPORATION 305-358-8188