Einhorn v. Kohn Motion to Vacate CACE 10048282

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 10-048282 (18)

GRANT EINHORN and SANDRA EINHORN, as husband and wife Plaintiffs, vs. STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN Defendants _______________________________________/

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF AUGUST 8, 2011 AND DISMIS S LAWSUIT USING

AUTHORITY ARISING FROM THE UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE

COME NOW the Defendants in this cause, STEVEN AND RENEE KOHN, by and

through their undersigned counsel, and move the Court to vacate the Order of August 8, 2011 in

accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), and dismiss this lawsuit using its

authority arising from the Unclean Hands Doctrine as a result of the infectious actions of

Plaintiff’s and their cohorts and further allege as follows:

1. That the Plaintiffs asked State Senator Eleanor Sobel to violate the Separation of Powers

Article of the Florida Constitution, which Senator Sobel acceded to on at least two occasions,

thereby causing serious injury to the Defendants, and causing a direct interference with the

nuisance injunction hearing of August 3-4 2011.

2. That the Plaintiffs knowingly made a false report to Hollywood Police Department, with

the intent and outcome of causing serious injury to the Defendants that directly interfered with

the nuisance injunction hearing of August 3-4 2011.

3. That Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath about the false report to Hollywood Police

Department.

4. That Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath about having been called by the Health

Department in July 2011, so that it would appear she was not attempting to stage an inspection to

interfere with the hearing in early August, 2011.

5. Either one of these events is cause for an order to vacate under Rule 1.540(b)(3) which

states that an order might relieve the Defendants from the judgment due to “fraud (whether

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an

adverse party.” The misconduct that will be reviewed below also serves as a basis for a complete

dismissal of the lawsuit based on the unclean hands doctrine.

6. The United States and Florida Constitutions each establish a tripartite system of

government, in which the branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—are separate and

distinct. The Florida Constitution explicitly provides, in Article II Section 3:

“Branches of government.—The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.” [Emphasis added]

7. This principle of separation of powers is animated chiefly by the concern “that the fusion

of the powers of any two branches into the same department would ultimately result in the

destruction of liberty.” Chiles v. Children, 589 So. 2d 260, 263 (Fla. 1991) (citing Ponder v.

Graham, 4 Fla. 23, 42-43 (Fla. 1851); THE FEDERALIST NOS. 47, 51 (James Madison)).

8. The Florida Legislature is vested with the plenary authority to enact laws, subject only to

limitation by the state constitution. See generally United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607

(2000) (“Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated

in the Constitution.”); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 405 (1819); Marbury v. Madison, 5

U.S. 137, 176 (1803). Such laws are to apply prospectively and must be of general and uniform

application. [emphasis added] FLA.CONST.art. III, § 1; Bd. of Pub. Instruction v. Wright, 76

So. 2d 863, 864 (Fla. 1955) (en banc).

9. There are essentially two ways in which the principle of separation of powers can be

violated: (1) if one branch encroaches upon or nullifies the powers of another; or (2) if one

branch improperly delegates its own, or another branch’s, constitutionally-assigned authority to a

separate branch of government. Chiles v. Children, 589 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1991).

10. In Chiles, the Court wrote: “The separation of powers doctrine is expressly codified in

the Florida Constitution in article II, section 3: The powers of the state government shall be

divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch

shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided

herein”.

11. In Mistretta, the Supreme Court stated: “[O]ur Constitution mandates that "each of the

three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or

coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others," Humphrey's Executor v. United

States, 295 U. S. 602, 629 (1935) (emphasis added).

12. In Humprey’s, the Supreme Court stated “The fundamental necessity of maintaining each

of the three general departments of government entirely free from the control or coercive

influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others, has often been stressed and is hardly open to

serious question.”

13. A State Senator is a member of the Legislative branch of government. The Florida

Department of Health is a part of the Executive branch of government. Hollywood’s City

Attorney’s office is part of the local Executive branch of government.

14. Florida Statute 1003.428(2)(a)(4) requires "one half credit in United States government"

as a prerequisite for receiving a high school diploma. Plaintiffs Sandra and Grant Einhorn both

received high school diplomas from Florida public schools. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are surely

aware of our tripartite form of government and the separation of powers principle, and Plaintiffs

sought help from Senator Sobel, knowing the help they sought was illegal.

15. During the hearing on August 3-4, 2011, Sandra Einhorn admitted to having sought the

aid of Senator Sobel (pages 189 and 190 of the Transcript):

Q. Okay, let me rephrase. Can you think of any other entity whatsoever that you called as a result of the Kohns? A. I would specify that all of my calls, with the exception of the one with regards to Child Protective Services, were all with regard to either different harassment by the Kohns or the chickens being on the Kohns' property and that being a nuisance to me. With that said, yes I made phone calls to every elected official that I have wondering why the city and my elected officials couldn't do more to help me and why I was having to take this matter into my own hands, and hire an attorney and go through this process. Q. Okay, any other entity that you called other than the ones I've named? A. Umm -- MR. SILVERSTEIN: I think she answered the question. MR. LOW: I don't think she did. THE COURT: I'll overrule it. A. Okay, my city commissioner, my state senator, my state representative, and my federal house of representative congresswoman.

16. The only lawful powers that Senator Sobel have are legislative. (Fla Constitution Section

II Article 3). By asking Senator Sobel to cause pets to be removed from her neighbor’s property,

Einhorn asked Senator Sobel to use coercive influence or control over the normal operations of

an agency in the Executive branch of government. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs knowingly asked

Senator Sobel to violate the law on their behalf.

17. Plaintiff had access to Senator Sobel because the Senator is a personal friend of Steve

Einhorn, the father of Grant Einhorn. (See Exhibits, pp1-2 wherein Steve Einhorn, in a 5/17/11

email to Hollywood City Commissioner Linda Sherwood stated "I want to thank you for the time

you spend with me and my friend Eleanor Sobel today...").

18. Additionally, public records provided by the Florida Senate reveal that Senator Sobel’s

email account lists Sandra Einhorn as one of her personal contacts, listing her home address,

home phone, and mobile phone.

19. State Senator Eleanor Sobel (Legislative branch), acting on the requests of the Plaintiffs,

violated Article II Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, as well as the underlying principles of

the United States Constitution, by using her coercive influence to intervene with the operations

of the Florida Department of Health (Executive Branch) in such a way as to attempt to

circumvent, preempt, and/or influence the Judicial outcome in this case (Judicial Branch).

20. Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating the Health Department called her in July,

2011 and not vice versa, and Plaintiff’s witness, Lenora Chuchla, also appears to have played a

role in this misconduct.

21. On the afternoon of July 27, 2011, Department of Health investigators Anthony Vomero

and Luisa Oramas made a surprise visit to the Kohn residence saying that there was a report of

“unbearable smell causing a nuisance to the neighbors”, (See Exhibits p3), coming from an

accumulation of chicken manure. Mr. Kohn refused to allow them onto the property without a

search warrant and instead invited them to tour the perimeter of the property to determine if there

was a smell that could possibly cause a nuisance, since the nuisance was allegedly detectable

outside of the confines of the property. Neither Mr. Vomero nor Ms. Oramas could detect a

smell of any kind and stated so in his report (See Exhibits p3). Mr. Kohn allowed them to look

through the fence to see the chicken coop, but they were only interested in exploring the side of

the Kohn property that borders the Einhorns.

22. Earlier in the day on July 27, 2011, Carina Blackmore, (Chief, Bureau of Environmental

Public Health Medicine, State Public Health Veterinarian, State Environmental Epidemiologist)

had a telephone conversation with State Senator Eleanor Sobel, wherein Ms. Blackmore was

informed that Senator Sobel “is working with the Broward County Health Department

Environmental Health staff (Anthony Vomero) who is trying to get access to the property.” (See

email from Carina Blackmore dated July 27, 2011 8:36PM, Exhibits p4).

23. Ms. Blackmore’s email unambiguously indicates Senator Sobel’s personal involvement

in the administrative activities of the Department of Health and demonstrates that Senator Sobel

used her influence as a State Senator to gain action from the Department of Health; an activity

which is outside of her area of responsibility as a Senator, in direct violation of Article II Section

3 of the Florida Constitution.

24. At 6:39 PM on July 27, 2011 Richard Solze, Executive Office Director, Office of the

State Surgeon General, Florida Department of Health wrote an email to local Broward County

based Florida Department Of Health employees stating:

"Legal counsel has notified us that there are some people who live in the Hollywood, Florida city limits who have chickens and goats that have become a health nuisance to their neighbors. The neighbors have complained to our Broward County Health Department who have referred the matter to legal authorities for resolution. Depending on the legal ruling our CHD may be required to survey the area for any potential health threat to the public. If the situation further escalates there is also the chance that State Senator Sobel who represents the area might become involved in the issue." (emphasis added) (Exhibits p4).

25. In this email, the State Surgeon General’s office indicates that this specific administrative

investigation of the Health Department is something that falls under the authority and scrutiny of

Senator Sobel. The implication is clear: take care of this problem or the Senator will get

involved, showing both control and coercive influence on the part of Senator Sobel.

26. The email from Mr. Solze unambiguously states that “neighbors have complained”,

which is consistent with the report attached (as Exhibits p3) that indicates a complaint was made.

It is not Department of Health procedure to call neighbors to ask if they smell anything bad on

their street, yet Sandra Einhorn testified that is what the DOH did:

From pages 253-255 of the Transcript (Exhibits pp5-8): Q. And I'd just like to ask you another question. Regarding the call that you made to the Florida Department of Health; I remember you saying you made that call about a year ago. A. Uh huh. Q. Is that true? A. I believe so. Q. Okay, and have you placed any calls after that to that same department? A. No. Q. As a follow-up? A. No. Q. Have you spoken to the Department of Health in the last month? A. I was contacted by the Department of Health, yes. Q. Okay. A. I did not call them. I was contacted by them. Q. And when was it that you were contacted by them? A. Maybe it was a couple weeks ago. Q. And before a couple of weeks ago when you were contacted by them; when was the last time you spoke with them?

A. The initial time that I called. Q. So your testimony is you've only spoken with them twice. Once when you called last year and once when they called two weeks ago? A. I believe so, yes, regarding the Kohns, yes.

27. Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating that the DOH called her and not vice versa.

Sandra Einhorn lied when stating that the contact had been a “couple of weeks ago.” Contact

was very recent, having taken place the previous week when the ‘investigation’ was opened. [See

the Department of Health’s letter of July 29, 2011 (Exhibits p9) to the Defendant, which stated in

part:

“In the current situation and based upon an alleged repeated violation pertaining to, yet again, the accumulation of feces as a result of chickens, goats and sheep residing on the property…”]

28. This Court personally visited both of the subject properties on March 24, 2011. It is an

undisputed fact that there were no goats or sheep on the Kohns’ property at that time, nor were

there any afterwards. Sandra. Einhorn lied to the Department of Health about the types of

animals that were being kept in July, 2011, as well as the condition of the property.

29. At 12:16PM on July 28, 2011, Paul Eicher, Chief Legal Counsel for Broward Department

of Health sent an internal email to a colleague stating:

“Please see attached draft letter as per our conversation yesterday afternoon. I propose sending it both certified and regular mail. I inserted the date of August 9; however, I am not sure what date would be appropriate. Please call me later, at your convenience, so that I can share my thoughts. I also spoke with the Hollywood City Attorney today and can share information re: injunction . Please review the letter and let me know as I would like to have OGC approval on it before I contact Sen. Sobel.” [emphasis added] (See Exhibits p11)

30. This letter clearly indicates that Mr. Eicher is reporting to Senator Sobel, that he

coordinated Health department activities with Hollywood’s City Attorney, and that Hollywood’s

City Attorney shared information with him about the instant injunction lawsuit, to which

Hollywood City is not a party. Copied on the draft are Hollywood City Attorneys Joel Cantor

and Jeff Sheffel. (Exhibits p13).

31. The statement about information that needed to be shared regarding the instant

injunction lawsuit proves indisputably that there was a connection between the actions of

the Department of Health, the interests of Hollywood City government, and the instant

lawsuit; otherwise the injunction lawsuit would have been as irrelevant to DOH business as the

outcome of a ballgame.

32. The final version of the letter (Exhibits pp9-10) has the names of all three attorneys

removed and replaced by non-attorneys, suggesting that someone recommended the removal of

their names.

33. The final version of the letter, mailed on July 29, 2011, also falsely indicates that a

violation had previously been found in 2010, even though DOH records indicated that no

violation had been found (See report of September 2010 on complaint number 06-99-175282,

Exhibits p14).

34. After receiving the final copy of the letter, Mr. Kohn wrote a letter to Dr. Thaqi (the final

author) on July 31, 2011, explaining the reasons why the letter is inaccurate, and why a search is

not warranted. (Exhibits pp15-25)

35. At 6:31PM on July 31, 2011, Mr. Eicher wrote an email convening a meeting to discuss

obtaining a search warrant (Exhibits p26).

36. On August 2, 2011, the search warrant was applied for and granted. The warrant

affidavit (Exhibits pp27-33) contains a paragraph about the putative Code violation (Exhibits

p31) , which, being wholly irrelevant to whether said animals were being kept in a manner that

constitutes a health-endangering nuisance, demonstrates a connection between the interests of

Hollywood City and the search warrant being sought.

37. The search warrant affidavit indicates correctly that there were never any nuisance

conditions observed or detected, that previous complaints all resulted in an absence of a nuisance

being detected, and that there is no reason to believe a nuisance could exist.

38. Keeping in mind that the alleged purpose of visiting the Kohn property was to discover

the source of an “unbearable smell causing a nuisance to the neighbors”, it is noteworthy that the

stated purpose of obtaining a search warrant was because “The inspectors, due to the recurring

nature of this complaint have reason to believe that access to the property is necessary to

evaluate and determine the existence of a sanitary nuisance and related odors on the property.”

In other words, the Department of Health had already determined that there was no nuisance that

could be detected at all from the perimeter of the Kohn’s property, and were now limiting their

investigation to the inside of the Kohns property.

39. When the fact that the Department of Health could not possibly have been seeking a

public health nuisance (as per the warrant affidavit), is combined with the timing of the search on

the first day of a 2 day hearing on this matter, the obvious conclusion is that the incentive in

continuing the investigation were the unclean interests of Hollywood’s City attorneys and

Senator Eleanor Sobel, who was overseeing the ‘investigation.’

40. In addition, the search warrant was granted illegally. Florida statutes explicitly state the

only conditions under which a private residence can be searched, all of which are completely

absent from the warrant affidavit:

“933.18 When warrant may be issued for search of private dwelling.—No search warrant

shall issue under this chapter or under any other law of this state to search any private dwelling

occupied as such unless: (1) It is being used for the unlawful sale, possession, or manufacture of intoxicating liquor;

(2) Stolen or embezzled property is contained therein; (3) It is being used to carry on gambling; (4) It is being used to perpetrate frauds and swindles; (5) The law relating to narcotics or drug abuse is being violated therein; (6) A weapon, instrumentality, or means by which a felony has been committed, or evidence

relevant to proving said felony has been committed, is contained therein; (7) One or more of the following child abuse offenses is being committed there:

(a) Interference with custody, in violation of s. 787.03.

(b) Commission of an unnatural and lascivious act with a child, in violation of s. 800.02.

(c) Exposure of sexual organs to a child, in violation of s. 800.03. (8) It is in part used for some business purpose such as a store, shop, saloon, restaurant, hotel,

boardinghouse, or lodginghouse; (9) It is being used for the unlawful sale, possession, or purchase of wildlife, saltwater

products, or freshwater fish being unlawfully kept therein; or (10) The laws in relation to cruelty to animals, as provided in chapter 828, have been or are

being violated therein.”

41. The fact that the warrant was granted does not make it legal or justified. In MALLEY v.

BRIGGS, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when

“no officer of reasonable competence would have requested the warrant,” a “magistrate [who] issues the warrant [makes] not just a reasonable mistake, but an unacceptable error indicating gross incompetence or neglect of duty.” Id., at 346, n. 9. In such cases, “[t]he officer . . . cannot excuse his own default by pointing to the greater incompetence of the magistrate.” Ibid.

42. The Department of Health does not have jurisdiction to inspect a private residence for

potential health hazards. While self-evident, the Broward DOH explicitly stated it when refusing

to inspect a home in March, 2012, after a decomposing human corpse had been found in it. Sun

Sentinel article of March 23, 2012 reported (Exhibits pp34-35) :

“A man who lived alone lay dead on the couch for about a month, until neighbors alarmed by the odor called police. County officials say they can't declare the house a health hazard, said Candy Sims, a spokeswoman for the Broward County Health Department. "We have no jurisdiction," she said. "It's a city issue."”

Senator Sobel’s coercive influence was enough to cause the DOH to knowingly exceed their

jurisdiction in seeking a search warrant of a private residence.

43. When the Department of Health arrived to execute the search warrant on August 3, 2011,

during the first day of the two day evidentiary hearing in the instant case, Local10 News

Reporter Jeff Weinsier, a personal friend of Grant and Sandra Einhorn, was present with a

professional TV videographer to film the search. (See stills from the video taken from Kohn’s

security system, Exhibits pp36-37). It was subsequently broadcast on the evening news on

August 3, 2011 on Local10 News.

44. The only way Mr. Weinsier could have known to be there would be if he was specifically

tipped off about the occurrence and exact time of the inspection. All other members of the press

that had an interest in this case were at the Courthouse at that time, covering the first day of the

hearing live. Only the Department of Health, Senator Sobel, and presumably her friends [the

Einhorns] could have known in advance when the search was to take place, thus giving Mr.

Weinsier enough time to call his videographer and get to the house for the 10 minute search.

45. Although the search warrant only covered the outside of the property, the Department of

Health inspectors unconstitutionally broadened the search by demanding access to the inside of

the house as well. Their entry and exit of the house was captured on the Kohns’ automated

security system and stills are included as Exhibits pp38-42. Video of the entire encounter is

included on CD.

46. After Mr. Vomero left with Luisa Oramos, she wrote a report stating in part (Exhibits p3)

“The inspector did not notice any bad odor or conditions that will create any Sanitary Nuisance. Also, there were no conditions conducive to the propagation of insects at the time of inspection. During the inspection we observed 20 ducks and 16 chickens running around, however the backyard was well kept and clean.”

Just as this Court observed on March 24, 2011, the property was well kept and clean. The report

of an ‘unbearable’ odor was yet another false call (in addition to the previous false calls the DOH

knew of from the Einhorns, in 2010).

47. The August 3-4, 2011 hearing in the instant case was a high profile event at the

Courthouse and on the news. Vast numbers of people were discussing the case.

48. This Court would have been expected to consider the existence of a search warrant

granted by the 17th Circuit Court as a factual declaration that probable cause that a public

nuisance existed at the Defendant’s property and this Court could have—and some might say

should have—been influenced by its existence.

49. The combination of the well-timed false report of Sandra Einhorn, unconstitutional

coercive influence of Senator Sobel [requested by the Plaintiffs], and collusion of Hollywood’s

City attorneys [customers of Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn], caused a search to be executed and

broadcast on the news, caused a needless invasion of the Kohn’s home, and was deliberately

timed to interfere with the outcome of the hearing of August 3-4, 2011.

50. On July 26, 2011 at 3:12PM, Hollywood Police Department Crime Prevention Specialist

Kathy Skinner informed Major Joseph Healey (head of code enforcement) via email that "Lenora

Chucla wanted info on the raid recently done there, and to let you know the trial is next week

8/3." (Exhibits pp44-46). Ms. Chuchla was one of the Plaintiff’s witnesses who testified at trial

and knew when the hearing was taking place.

51. The aforementioned Department of Health report states that the initial complaint was

received on 7/26/2011, the same day Lenora Chuchla contacted Hollywood Police Department.

52. It would be an astounding coincidence that Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn, two of her friends,

(Senator Sobel and Lenora Chuchla), and Hollywood’s City Attorney, within the span of 24

hours, could have independently (without coordination of some sort) all made contacts with

authorities who ultimately participated in the unconstitutional search of August 3, 2011.

53. In response to Ms. Chuchla's request for information, Major Healey asked Danzell

Brooks to call Ms. Chuchla to give her information about a search warrant executed against the

Kohns on June 8, 2011. At the time, Mr. Kohn himself could obtain no information about the

search or investigation because it was an 'open investigation,' yet HPD appeared to have had no

problem sharing information with a disinterested 3rd party.

54. The combined efforts of Hollywood Police Department, Code Enforcement, the City

Manager, City Commissioner, and Sandra Einhorn is the subject of a Federal investigation under

HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8, Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6, Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-

1099-9, alleging violations of Sections 818 and 810(g)(2)(C) or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. (Exhibits pp47-53)

55. The preceding arguments, along with Ms. Chuchla’s call and HPD’s handling of it,

demonstrates an environment of coordination and cooperation between Senator Sobel, Ms.

Chuchla, a Hollywood Police Department felony investigation (to be reviewed later in this

Motion), Code Enforcement, Hollywood City Attorney, and the Department of Health, with the

focal point of this cooperation being the date of the August 3-4, 2011 hearing.

56. State Senator Eleanor Sobel (Legislative branch), acting on a request from the Plaintiffs,

intervened with the Executive branch activities of Hollywood’s City government, causing a

frivolous lawsuit to be filed by Hollywood City against the Defendant, which was part of an

overall plan to influence these proceedings and handicap the Defendant.

57. The 5/17/2011 10:54PM email message from Hollywood City Commissioner Linda

Sherwood to Hollywood City Attorney Jeff Sheffel and Steve Einhorn (father of Grant Einhorn),

which includes in its body an email message from Steve Einhorn, is shown as Exhibits pp1-2.

The emails paint a very disturbing picture, wherein Steve Einhorn thanks Commissioner

Sherwood for meeting with his friend Senator Eleanor Sobel at a funeral, and the result of this

meeting was for Senator Sobel and Commissioner Sherwood to visit City Attorney Jeff Sheffel

on May 17, 2011 to find out what could be done on behalf of the Einhorns, against the Kohns.

The email message clearly states that Senator Sobel is acting on behalf of Sandra and Grant

Einhorn, which is consistent with Sandra Einhorn’s testimony that she had personally asked

Senator Sobel for help.

58. The very next day, on May 18, 2011 City Attorney Jeff Sheffel authorized a lawsuit (see

Hollywood v. Kohn, CACE 11016210(18), 4D12-12 FL 4th DCA, 4D-1548 FL 4th DCA) to

collect from the Defendants more than $161,000 for a code violation fine that by law cannot

exceed $100. This Court has already ruled (on December 6, 2011) that the statutory maximum

fine was $100, and the case has been subsequently dismissed (Exhibits pp54-61). Exhibits p62

shows James Jeffers indicating when the lawsuit was approved.

59. FSS 162.09(3) states in relevant part:

“After 3 months from the filing of any such lien which remains unpaid, the enforcement board may authorize the local governing body attorney to foreclose on the lien or to sue to recover a money judgment..."

Having never received the required authorization, City Attorney Sheffel lacked the authority to

approve the lawsuit, as a matter of law.

60. The lawsuit was filed at such a time as to almost guarantee maximum interference with

the Defendant’s ability to concentrate fully on his defense in the instant lawsuit. It was filed on

July 13, 2011. Had the Defendant been served in a timely manner, his Response would have

been required by August 3, 2011; the day the two day hearing in the instant case began.

61. This Court twice openly wondered during hearings on the aforementioned lien lawsuit

why Hollywood City waited as long as they did to file their lawsuit, and why they were pursuing

the lawsuit even after the Defendant no longer had any pets and after the Defendant

demonstrated that there were no funds to be gained. The circumstances show that Hollywood

City filed their lawsuit when they did as a result of the influence and suggestion of Senator

Eleanor Sobel, who orchestrated a perfect storm of onerous lawsuits, illegal health department

inspections, and bad press coverage hoping to cause sufficient harassment to the Defendant to

cause him to voluntarily give up his pets; influence the Court’s decision; and/or disable the

Defendant from mounting a fully competent defense due to the harassing distractions and

excessive legal expenses.

62. Hollywood City government, acting in collusion with Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn, conspired

to interfere with the outcome of this lawsuit by handicapping the Defendant’s ability to mount a

proper defense.

63. This was accomplished on June 8, 2011 via an unconstitutional search and seizure of the

Defendant’s business, legal strategies, and all evidence that was to be used in his Defense in the

instant lawsuit.

64. The search warrant was based upon a false report made by Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn,

which Einhorn lied about under oath in these proceedings.

65. After Hollywood City was indisputably made aware of the illegal seizure, they held onto

the evidence and money-earning capability of the Defendant until the very same day that the

hearing concluded on August 4, 2011. Hollywood City filed the aforementioned lawsuit CACE

11016210(18) three weeks after the time that Hollywood City was indisputably made aware of

the illegal seizure, at a time when they knew they were unlawfully holding the entirety of the

Defendant’s records and income earning capability.

66. On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn petitioned (DVCE 11-134) to obtain an

injunction for a protective order against Defendant Steven Kohn. A hearing date was set without

a temporary injunction being granted. (Exhibits p63). On January 18, 2011, the hearing was

continued until April 15, 2011. Hon. Judge Michael Kaplan explained to both parties that the

order merely maintained the status quo, and that since no temporary restraining order had been

granted, there was no temporary order to extend. (Exhibits pp64-66)

67. Plaintiff Einhorn understood Hon. Judge Kaplan’s explanation as indicated on a January

25, 2011 Police Report authored by HPD Officer Ferguson, which reported Plaintiff Sandra

Einhorn stating "that she will go to court to obtain an injunction order from the judge." (Exhibits

p67). Officer Ferguson is available to testify to this fact.

68. On January 27, 2011, following up on a complaint from Defendant Kohn who expressed

concern that Plaintiff Einhorn could use the January 18 order for nefarious purposes, Hon. Judge

Kaplan vacated the order (Exhibits p68) and then used a different form to reschedule the hearing

for April 15, 2011, at which time the Petition was dismissed (Exhibits p69).

69. Sometime before February 23, 2011, Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn provided Hollywood

Police Department with a copy of the January 18, 2011 order: On January 5, 2012, Defendant

Steven Kohn made a public records request of Hollywood Police Department, specifically asking

for “the complaint from Sandra Einhorn stating she had a restraining order that was being

violated.” (Exhibits p70, last paragraph under item 3). On January 11, 2012, Hollywood Police

sent an email stating “Attached please find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part

of your public records request.” (Exhibits p71-74). Comparing Kohn’s copy (Exhibits p66) to

the copy that Hollywood Police provided (Exhibits p74), it is unmistakable that the court stamp

is in a different location on HPD’s copy, and there is no time stamp showing it was a copy of the

one entered into the file. Therefore, the only possible source of the HPD copy is Sandra Einhorn.

70. Sandra Einhorn committed perjury on August 3, 2011 when she stated on the record that

she never told Hollywood Police that there was a restraining order. They could not have obtained

Sandra’s copy without her having provided it.

71. Additionally, on April 24, 2011, Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn told Hollywood Police Officer

Plummer that she had a valid restraining order under case 11-2439 (Exhibits p75). This is false,

as the cover sheet (Exhibits p76) shows.

72. On February 23, 2011, this Court held a hearing on the instant case, and elected to not

grant a temporary injunction at that time. Immediately after the hearing, at 1:46PM, Hollywood

Police Department ran an NCIC report and found the aforementioned erroneously entered

temporary restraining order. (Exhibits p77).

73. The NCIC report explicitly states

"Do not search, detain, or arrest based solely on this record. Contact entering agency to confirm status and terms of protection order."

74. Had the officers verified the ‘status’ of the order, they would have seen that even if there

had been a valid restraining order, it was vacated on January 27, 2011—almost four weeks

earlier.

75. Nevertheless, Hollywood Police Detective Robert Knapp’s report of December 15, 2011,

submitted as testimony to Hon. Judge Martin J. Bidwill on December 16, 2011, stated that he had

ignored the admonition and relied exclusively on the NCIC printout in order obtain a search

warrant (Exhibits p78):

“After reading the teletype indicating the effective date of the restraining order issued by Judge Michael G. Kaplan, I authored a search warrant of the Kohn’s residence seeking any and all electronic equipment or storage devices capable of accessing the internet and/or the sending and receiving of electronic mail."

76. Detective Knapp was fully aware that a business was being seized, stating on page 6 of

the search warrant affidavit (Exhibits p79):

"In light of concerns that might arise that the listed home business may be hindered without the use of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that every effort will be made to expedite the forensic examination and return any system(s) expeditiously if after the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).”

77. On the morning of June 8, 2011, Defendant Steven Kohn’s birthday and the Jewish

Holiday of Shavuot, while the Kohn family was preparing their holiday meal, 12 armed

Hollywood Police officers executed the search warrant based on the alleged violation of a non-

existent restraining order that Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn had presented to HPD as a valid

restraining order. (Search warrant and affidavit are shown as Exhibits pp80-91) Plaintiff Einhorn

had claimed that the “order” had been violated via the sending of emails to her—emails that were

sent via an open unsecured wireless network housed in Kohn’s home, which Einhorn had access

to due to the close proximity of the houses. During the June 8, 2011 execution of this warrant,

all records that Kohn had which could have been used in his Defense in the instant case were

taken, including all backups. Also seized were Kohn’s entire business, all telephones, all

handheld cameras, home movies (including Kohn’s wedding video), and all of the Kohn

children’s school work as well as all of the personal computers, cameras, telephones, and records

(financial records, medical records, etc.) of everyone living in the house, both adults and minors.

(see Exhibits pp92-96 for inventory list).

78. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn was on the sidewalk during the execution of the search warrant,

jumping and clapping her hands joyfully.

79. The search warrant was quashed as unconstitutional due to the absolute nonexistence of

probable cause, by the order of Hon. Judge Martin Bidwill, on December 16, 2011, without any

objection from Hollywood Police department. The Motion to Quash and the Order are both

shown in full in Exhibits pp97-104. Included in the Motion is an excerpt from Sandra Einhorn’s

testimony from the August 3-4, 2011 hearing in the instant case, wherein she lied under oath to

this Court stating:

“Q. And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if you have a restraining order against Steve Kohn? A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining order against Steve Kohn. Q. So they knew that you were unsuccessful? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did they -- did they -- A. Or that's what I told them. Q. And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A. No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very easily figure out for themselves one way or another. Q. So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A. That is correct.

80. The aforementioned December 15, 2011 report authored by Detective Knapp and

presented in Court the following day, stated (Exhibits p78)

“On August 04, 2011, I confirmed that the listed restraining order against Mr. Kohn had erroneously been issued by the Courts and also that the entered teletype confirmation had remained in the system even after an order to vacate the restraining order had been issued. This was confirmed by Broward Clerk of Courts Domestic Violence Manager Tonya Green. She advised that the listed restraining order teletype information was issued in error and to prove that it was issued in error, she showed me a copy of the listed order vacated on 01/27/2011.

Based upon this information and the fact that the listed search warrant relied on the active restraining order, I prepared for the release of all of the listed seized items to Mr. Kohn on 08/20/2011.”

Detective Knapp, as well as City Attorney Jeff Sheffel and City Attorney Joel Cantor, had

already repeatedly received the very same information (the copy of the 1/27/2011 vacating order)

from Defendant Kohn on 6/27, 6/28, 6/29, 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, and 7/20/2011 (Exhibits pp106-124).

On 7/5/2011 City Attorney Jeff Sheffel asked City Attorney Joel Cantor and Police Chief Chad

Wagner to show him the alleged restraining order. (Exhibits p119). The meeting took place on

7/7/2011 (Exhibits p123).

81. These are the unpleasant and indisputable facts:

a) After Hollywood officials already had the proof they would later rely upon to return the

property of the Kohn family, they waited 6 additional weeks until the day the hearing

concluded on August 4, 2011 to make the decision to return the property.

b) This Court issued the Order granting injunction on August 8, 2011.

c) Hollywood officials elected to keep the property until exactly after the 10 day time period

had expired during which the Defendants could have filed a Motion for Rehearing under

Rule 1.530. Hollywood’s City Attorney, after knowing for certain that they were

illegally holding Kohn’s property, business, and records, filed a lawsuit for $161,437.02

against Kohn on July 13, 2011 (the same one that was approved on 5/18/11, right after

Senator Sobel intervened at Einhorn’s request) and then moved for Summary Judgment

on the $161,437.02 on August 16, 2011, while knowingly still illegally holding all of

Kohn’s records.

82. After City Attorney Sheffel asked the Chief of Police and City Attorney Joel Cantor (on

7/5/11) to show him “whether there was a restraining order in place at the time the actions

alleged in the warrant took place”, after he was confronted by a political activist by phone about

the illegal search and seizure, Mr. Sheffel again asked Police Chief Wagner and Attorney Cantor

on 7/28/11 “When I met with your guys to confirm the validity of the warrant, I did not take a

copy of the Temporary Restraining Order. (Exhibits p117) Could you please have it scanned and

e-mailed to me.” By 7/5/11 all three people had already seen the Vacate order of 1/27/11 at least

4 times.

83. It is simply inconceivable that two experienced attorneys, a police chief, and an

experienced detective, individually and collectively could not have understood that a vacated

injunction was not valid, and that it took them almost two months, [conveniently until the very

day these proceedings ended], to realize this fact. Their actions and the timing thereof must have

been intentional, and were obviously undertaken to influence the outcome of these proceedings.

84. Hollywood City is a customer of Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn, who is the sole salaried

employee of Rebuilding Together Broward County. RTBC works very closely with Code

Enforcement, which in turn is part of the Hollywood Police Department.

85. Plaintiff Einhorn, in her capacity as Director of RTBC, asked for help from the city

government, specifically Commissioner Blattner, in a matter that was clearly personal and that

did not involve city business.

86. Commissioner Blattner subsequently convened a meeting consisting of the Chief of

Police, City Attorney, City Manager, City Commissioner, and Code Enforcement Chief. A week

after the meeting was convened, the City of Hollywood entered a contract with Plaintiff Sandra

Einhorn, and the day the contract became effective was the very same day the instant lawsuit was

filed.

87. RTBC was ultimately paid more than $25,000 above and beyond the costs of services

provided to Hollywood City; an amount approximately equal to Plaintiff attorney costs in this

lawsuit. Plaintiff Einhorn appears to have lied when stating she was not being assured

reimbursement for her legal expenses.

88. Hollywood City officials, including Commissioner Blattner and City Attorney Sheffel

were annoyed that the Defendant refused to surrender his pets, and entered into an agreement

with Rebuilding Together Broward County, whose sole employee was Sandra Einhorn, to

provide services for which Sandra Einhorn was going to be overpaid by an amount

approximately equal to the cost of a lawsuit.

89. Einhorn was going to benefit because this would herald the beginning of a relationship

which was visibility business with the city which would surely have follow-on business. The

City was going to benefit because they could not sue for an injunction, due to the fact that they

would first have to establish that Hollywood Ordinance 92.02(a) actually forbids the keeping of

poultry.

90. This Court has already ruled in Hollywood v. Kohn CACE 1101-6210(18) that the City

disregarded the language of said ordinance when attempting to enforce it.

91. On November 27, 2010, Grant Einhorn was witnessed circulating a pamphlet called “Are

the Kohns Jewish?” These pamphlets were specifically distributed to the guests who had arrived

for the engagement part of one of the Kohns’ daughters. Defendant Kohn, attempting to find a

way to make peace with their neighbors, wrote a letter to Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn (Exhibits

pp125-126) and also left a gift for Einhorn as a peace offering.

92. Einhorn reported the gift as an act of harassment, documented in HPD report number 33-

1011-187374. (Exhibits pp127-128). This is the case number as that of the quashed

unconstitutional search warrant.

93. On December 1, 2010, Sandra Einhorn wrote a letter to Commissioner Blattner of

Hollywood City, showing him the Facebook message that Defendant Kohn sent. (Exhibits

pp129-130). The letter, signed by Sandra Einhorn in her professional capacity, both opens and

closes reminding Commissioner Blattner of their professional relationship, and then asks him for

several forms of intervention that are not legal for him to provide, after implying that a quid pro

quo is in place:

a) Language that implies that favors are being traded: "Grant and I have gone out of

our way to work with the City and Code Compliance in order to help the situation

from the City's end, with code violations and such. I would expect the same

support from the City for us." [emphasis added]

b) Language that directly requests Commissioner Blattner use coercive influence to

cause the police to target the Defendants: "As our City Commissioner I plead for you

to please help my neighbors and I in bringing these people to justice."

c) Implied request for financial help in securing an attorney: "We have been forced to

hire an attorney we really can't afford." "Please help us!"

94. The next morning, December 2, 2010, Commissioner Blattner arranged a meeting

consisting of the Chief of Police, City Attorney, Code Enforcement Chief, City Manager, and

himself, in order to find a way to help Sandra Einhorn. (Exhibits pp129, 131-135). The specific

subject of the meeting was apparently the Facebook message, the context of which is clearly not

official business of the city. City Attorney Jeff Sheffel stated in an email the morning of

12/2/2010 that “I am anxious to meet to discuss an appropriate strategy.” (Exhibits p135).

95. Since no reasonable person would consider the giving of a peace-offering gift to be an act

of harassment, it would seem that as a result of the aforementioned meeting, Hollywood Police

department opened a criminal investigation of the gift that Kohn gave, which ultimately resulted

in the illegal search and seizure described above.

96. Commissioner Blattner, City Manager Benson, and Code Chief Clay Milan have been

named as co-Respondents in HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8, Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6,

Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9 for their role in this matter. (Exhibits pp47-53).

97. On December 13, 2010, Sandra Einhorn entered into a contract with Jeff Sheffel, City

Attorney for Hollywood City, which had an effective date of December 22, 2010. (Exhibits

pp136-143). December 22, 2010 is the SAME DAY the instant lawsuit was filed.

98. The contract calls for $55,000 in funds to be disbursed, and Paragraph 3.3 states

"Said funds shall be used solely for the purpose specified in the Program Project, including but not limited to fees to contractors, building materials, project management, project furnishings, and costs associated with volunteer management."

99. Sandra Einhorn stated in deposition on 5/6/11 that she is paid a salary for her work, and

that her compensation does not come from grant/project money:

Q. How many people work at this nonprofit? A. I'm the only full-time salary. Q. How many paid employees are there to this nonprofit organization? A. One. Q. Who is that? A. Me. Q. What was the most recent grant given to your organization by the city, the nonprofit organization? A. There's only one.

Q. How much was it for? A. We don't know the amount yet. Q. Is it a six figure amount? A. No. It's a matching grant. Q. And part of that money is used to pay your salary? A. No. It's project money. Q. So how does your salary get paid? A. Through donations that come in.

100. Pursuant to Einhorn’s testimony about her salary, managing the volunteers is not

something the project money should have been used for.

101. Paragraph 3.3 is clear that costs and expenses are to be reimbursed, and there is

no indication that Rebuilding Together Broward County is to be paid a fee. A 9/15/2010 email

from Victoria Johnson of Hollywood City to Sandra Einhorn (Exhibits p144), spelled out

specifically what the money is to be used for:

"The contact must specifically state that all of the funds will benefit income eligible families, and if not, you will have to repay the funds." [emphasis added]

102. To gain a more complete understanding of the contract, Hollywood City wrote a

staff summary request (Exhibits p145) explaining in part

"The City commitment includes approximately $55,000 of expenses to help pay for building materials and debris disposal fees." It is expected that between six and twelve homes will be repaired. The total estimated value of the repairs, including the in-kind value of the volunteer labor will be $225,000."

103. Records presented to Hollywood City by Einhorn in June 2011 showed $15,457

in actual expenses, for work that Einhorn said had a “retail value” of $83,875. The City

“reimbursed” Einhorn $42,563 for these services, thus producing a profit for RTBC of $27,106.

(Exhibits pp146-154).

104. After Defendant Kohn reported the overpayment to Hollywood Officials, the city

officials elected NOT to enforce the contract and demand return of the money.

105. These facts give the appearance that Hollywood City intentionally provided

funding for Einhorn’s legal expenses by causing her to be grossly overpaid on the contract.

However, Einhorn testified at the deposition and at the trial that Hollywood City was not

covering her legal expenses. From Sandra Einhorn’s testimony August 3, 2011:

Q. Did you ever receive any legal advice from any Hollywood City Attorneys? A. No. Q. Did you ever attempt to raise money for your attorney's fees? A. No. Q. Did anyone ever promise you they would reimburse you for your attorney's fees? A. No.

106. Plaintiffs Grant and Sandra Einhorn both sought illegal intervention from State

Senator Eleanor Sobel.

107. As a result, State Senator Sobel unlawfully intervened in the operations of the

Florida Department of Health and directly caused a baseless search warrant to be obtained and

executed against Defendant Kohn, in the presence of the Press, intentionally timed to prejudice

the Court in the August 3-4, 2011 hearing.

108. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating she had not called the

Department of Health in 2011.

109. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied to the Department of Health when describing the

conditions on Kohns’ property.

110. State Senator Sobel unlawfully intervened in the operations of Hollywood City

government (after being asked to by the father of Grant Einhorn) by causing the City Attorney to

file a lawsuit he lacked legal authority to file, for an amount of money the City lacked the legal

authority to claim. The timing of the filing of the lawsuit was designed to directly interfere with

Defendant Kohn’s ability to fully and competently execute his defense.

111. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn lied under oath when stating that she did not lead

Hollywood Police Department to believe there was a valid restraining order against Defendant

Steven Kohn.

112. The direct result of Einhorn’s falsely reporting that a valid restraining order

existed was the execution of an unconstitutional search and seizure warrant against Defendant

Steven Kohn and his entire family, causing extreme emotional distress to all members of the

Kohn family, disrupting the family’s observance of a major religious holiday, causing the

complete confiscation of Mr. Kohn’s business, financial records, legal strategies, medical

records, the school work of his children, his adult children and minor children’s online job

materials, all of the defendant’s records and plans that were going to be used in his defense, and

all of the telephones, cameras, pictures, and diaries of every member of the household.

113. Hollywood City officials, working in collusion with the Plaintiffs, held the seized

materials for precisely the amount of time necessary to prevent the defendants from properly

defending themselves in the instant lawsuit.

114. Hollywood City, in following through with the request made by Senator Sobel,

filed their $161,487.02 lawsuit against Defendant Steven Kohn at a time when they knew they

were holding Mr. Kohn’s records illegally, and subsequently filed their Motion for Summary

Judgment at a time when they knew they were continuing to hold Mr. Kohn’s records illegally.

115. Plaintiff Sandra Einhorn appears to have lied under oath when stating that

Hollywood City was not covering her legal expenses.

116. All parties named in this Motion can provide testimony in person if this Court

determines there is insufficient information in this filing to Grant the Motion to Vacate.

WHEREFORE, as a result of the Plaintiffs’ numerous successful attempts to interfere with

the normal prosecution and defense of this lawsuit, Defendants pray this honorable Court grant

their Motion to Vacate the resulting Order of this Court dated and dismiss this lawsuit using the

Court’s authority arising from the Unclean Hands Doctrine, due to the gross misconduct of the

Plaintiffs.

Respectfully Submitted,

David Low, Esq.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed this ____ day of July,

2012 to Keith Silverstein 1177 Kane Concourse Suite 230, Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154.

DAVID LOW, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants 28 West Flagler Street, 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Phone: (305) 728-1931 Fax: (305) 675-2685 By: __________________________ DAVID LOW, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 67957

1

1

2

2

State'of Florida Department of Health

Broward County Health Department

COMPLAINT RECORD

FLORIDADPARIMBII OF

TIEALCOMPLAINT NUMBER

PERMIT NUMBER

06-99-187699 Office

Assigned to

Env Eng

Luisa Oramas

Log #

Name

Date Reported

Complaint taken by

Emerald Hills 68-26 B

07 t26t2011

Luisa Oramas

Lot 12 Address

Status

Complaint

3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood

New Complaint Type Other

65 Sanitary Nuisance/Dog Feces/Sewage

Description of condition Buildup of chiken manure and bad odors creating a nuisance.

Owner / AgentAddress

City

Occupant

Address

City

Reported by

Address

City

Steven Kohn3841 N 51 Avenue

Hollywood

Steven Kohn3841 N 51 AvenueHollywood

Telephone

Extension

Telephone

Extension

Telephone

Extension

Date first investigated 07 t27 t2011 Date corrected 08t03t2011 Legal notice No

CONDITIONS FOUND AND ACTION TAKEN

Date Remarks on Follow up visits lnitials

07 t27 t2011

08t03t2011

Visited location accompanied w/ officers Phil Archer and Derek Cormier. The officers knocked at the L.O.

door and explained to Mr. Kohn the reason of our visit. We explained to him that the HealthDepartment received a complaint about build up of chicken manure and unbearable smell causing anuisance to the neighbors, and that we needed to inspect his back yard, but he refused. Herequested a search wanant in order to let us in his back yard. We indicated to him that based on theFlorida Statutes that we had the right to access his property, but he still refused. He suggested thatwe peecked thru a hole in the fencE from the front of the house and also try to sniff at any smell'Unable to do a full acc€ssment at this time.

On August 3,2011, visited the location at 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida 33021. Health L.O.Department inspector was accompanied by three Hollywood Police Officers (Levy, walker, Fregin).Officer Darryl Levy knocked at the door and explained the reason of the Health Department visit, thensubmitted and read the search wanant (see attachments) to the owner. The owner allowed theHealth Department to perform an inspection of their backyard. The inspector did not notice any badodor or conditions that will create any Sanitary Nuisance. Also, there were no conditions conducive tothe propagation of insects at the time of inspection.During the inspection we observed 20 ducks and 16 chickens running around, however the backyardwas well kept and clean. Upon completion of the inspection persuing to the warrant, the home ownerinvited us to exit thp propefi tg,tle front door.

Siqnature of sanitarian

Comprehensive Environmental Health Tracking System (ODBC)

HRS-H FORM 4013, Aug 78 (Replaces San-4010) Modified forODBC 0412712009

paterinared YlSl ttAttach all supporting documentationLuisa Oramas

Supervisor review Date:

Page 1 of 13

3

4

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PDF COPY - NOT OFFICIAL COPY


162

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 10-048282 (18)

GRANT EINHORN AND SANDRA )

EINHORN, as husband and )

wife, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN, )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________/

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

VOLUME II of IV (Pages 162 - 262)

DATE: August 3-4, 2011

LOCATION: Broward County Courthouse

201 Southeast 6th Street

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

BEFORE: Honorable Michele Towbin Singer

This cause came on to be heard at the time and place

aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings were

reported by:

Carlos A. Rugel

Certified Electronic Court Reporter

Notary Public, State of Florida

Alternative Court Reporting

4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J

Hollywood, FL 33021

P: 954.832.3563

F: 954.556.6607

www.AlternativeCourtReporting.com

5

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



253

Honor.

Q. -- if you wanted to get relief?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Did anyone ever tell you that your only

option in this case is to file a lawsuit?

MR. SILVERSTEIN: Objection, hearsay Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LOW: I didn't ask who.

THE COURT: It doesn't matter. That

makes it even -- well no. I was going to say it

makes it worse, but it doesn't. Some things are

either kosher or not kosher.

Q. Did you ever receive any legal advice

from any Hollywood City Attorneys?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever attempt to raise money for

your attorney's fees?

A. No.

Q. Did anyone ever promise you they would

reimburse you for your attorney's fees?

A. No.

MR. LOW: I am sorry, excuse me.

Q. And I'd just like to ask you another

question. Regarding the call that you made to the

6

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



254

Florida Department of Health; I remember you

saying you made that call about a year ago.

A. Uh huh.

Q. Is that true?

A. I believe so.

Q. Okay, and have you placed any calls after

that to that same department?

A. No.

Q. As a follow-up?

A. No.

Q. Have you spoken to the Department of

Health in the last month?

A. I was contacted by the Department of

Health, yes.

Q. Okay.

A. I did not call them. I was contacted by

them.

Q. And when was it that you were contacted

by them?

A. Maybe it was a couple weeks ago.

Q. And before a couple of weeks ago when you

were contacted by them; when was the last time you

spoke with them?

A. The initial time that I called.

Q. So your testimony is you've only spoken

7

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



255

with them twice. Once when you called last year

and once when they called two weeks ago?

A. I believe so, yes, regarding the Kohns,

yes.

Q. Oh, so you've spoken to the Department of

Health on other occasions?

A. I sit on a board and there's a member

that works for the Department of Health that sits

on that board with me as well. But, that has

nothing to do with this case.

Q. And is that the person that sat on the

board with you that told you to call the

Department of Health?

A. No.

Q. And did you ask them for any advice in

regard to the problem at all?

A. No, I did not.

Q. And your testimony is also that every

time the police were called from your residence,

it was always you and never your husband?

A. Yes, it was always me and never my

husband. If I -- I mean, unless Grant made a

phone call that I wasn't aware of. But, yes it

was me and not my husband.

MR. LOW: I think we're nearly wrapped up

8

8

Rick ScottGovernor

H. Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., PhD, FACPState Surgeon General

July 29,2011Via U.S. regular mail and certified mail no.:70091680000174281585

Steven and Renee Kohn3841 North 51 AvenueHollywood, FL

Re: Public nuisance at property located at3841N. 51 Avenue, Hollywood, FL

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kohn:

The Environmental Unit of the State of Florida Department of Health, Broward County HealthDepartment, has received a complaint concerning an ongoing nuisance at your property locatedat 3841 North 51"t Avenue, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complaint pertains to thesmell and health hazard of accumulated feces on the above referenced property as a result ofthe harboring of both chickens, goats and sheep along with the feed distributed on the groundfor the animals that creates conditions conducive to rodents and other wildlife.

Efforts were made to inspect the property on July 26,2011, consistent with the authority of theDepartment of Health pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 381, and the Broward County Codeof Ordinances. Specifically, F.S. 381.0011(3) provides that it is the duty of the Department ofHealth to administer and enforce laws and rules relating to sanitation, control of communicablediseases, illnesses and hazards to health among humans and from animals to humans, and thegeneral health of the people of the state. The Broward County Code of Ordinances Section 15-234, more commonly known as the Health and Sanitary Control Board, also authorizes theBroward County Health Department to investigate such complaints. Section 15-235(d) of theBroward County Code of Ordinances states, "The inspecting officers of the Health Departmentshall have the power and authority to enter upon and inspect all vacant, fenced or enclosedland with our without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof in order to conduct aninspection."

On -July 26, 2011 the- Breward- esunty Health 'Department inspectors accompai'ried -byHollywood Police officers were denied access to inspect the property outside of the structure.Based upon the above cited authority, there is no laMul basis to deny entry. Unfortunately, thisis not the first instance of a health violation being reported at this location and the BrowardCounty Health Department was met with the same resistance when it was investigating thematter in August of last year. ln the current situation and based upon an alleged repeatedviolation pertaining to, yet again, the accumulation of feces as a result of chickens, goats andsheep residing on the property along with the attendant feed on the ground that potentiallycreates a haven for rodents and other wildlife, the Broward County Health Department willcomplete its investigation by going on the property to perform its inspection.

Broward County Health Department780 SW 24n Street o Ft. Lauderdale,FL33315-2643

Telephone: (954)467 -4700 Ext. 4001www.browardchd.org

9

9

Steven and Renee KohnJuly 29,2011Page2

This letter is being written to educate and inform you of the gravity of the alleged offense by

allegedly maintaining a nuisance on the property and the ramifications that will ensue if access

to the pioperty is again denied. Please immediately seek advice from legal counsel or from aperson whom you trust such that you €n reconsider your position and permit entry onto your

broperty for inipection and determination of whether or not a public health nuisance exists.

Should-you desire to comply with the state law and county ordinance, please contact Susan

Greenberg (964-46747(D ext. 410/) at the Broward County Health Department by August 9,

2011 and the Health Department wit! inspect your property within five (5) business days.

The State of Florida, Broward County Health Department, while willing to work with you to i

coolpleb its-inves-tigation* wiil-not be-hampered-by yo-ur-deliberate acts of ,b-Io-eIing-lawful --- I

access to your property for purposes of inspection as outlined above. I

Altematively, should we not hear from you by August 9,2011, the State of Florida Department

of Health, Broward County Health Department wi!! seek judicial review to obtain a search

warrant for your property that wil! be executed as a matter of course consistent with Florida law.

Should this occur, your propefi witl be entered upon by law enforcement officers along with

Heatth Department inspectors. Should you fail to cooperate or otherwise obstruct the execution

of the wanant you will have committed a criminal act which may result in your arrest and

possible incarceration.

GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDI NGLY.

Director, Broward County Health Department

c: Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, CEcD, AICPlnterim Hollywood City Manager

l

I

10

10

Subject: Nuisance issue in Hollywood, FL

From: "Eichner, Paul D" <[email protected]>

Date: 7/28/2011 12:16 PM

To: "McCrackin, Veronica" <[email protected]>

Veronica, Please see attached draft letter as per our conversation yesterday afternoon. I propose sending it bothcertified and regular mail. I inserted the date of August 9; however, I am not sure what date would beappropriate. Please call me later, at your convenience, so that I can share my thoughts. I also spoke withthe Hollywood City Attorney today and can share information re: injunction. Please review the letter and letme know as I would like to have OGC approval on it before I contact Sen. Sobel. Thanks. Paul

Paul D. Eichner, Chief Legal CounselBroward County Health Department780 SW 24th StreetFort Lauderdale, FL 33315(954)467-4700 ext. [email protected]

Please note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from state officials regarding state business are public recordsavailable to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.

Attachments:

Kohn.doc 86.5 KB

NuisanceissueinHollywood,FL

1of1 7/11/20121:42PM

11

11

Rick Scott Governor

H. Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Ph.D, FACP

State Surgeon General

Broward County Health Department Legal Office

780 SW 24th Street • Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315-2643 Telephone: (954)467-4700 Ext. 4104

Fax: (954)762-3645

July 28, 2011 Via U.S. regular mail and certified mail no.:

Steven and Renee Kohn 3841 North 51 Avenue Hollywood, FL Re: Public nuisance at property located at 3841 N. 51 Avenue, Hollywood, FL Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kohn: The Environmental Unit of the State of Florida Department of Health, Broward County Health Department, has received a complaint concerning an ongoing nuisance at your property located at 3841 North 51st Avenue, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complaint pertains to the smell and health hazard of accumulated feces on the above referenced property as a result of the harboring of both chickens, goats and sheep along with the feed distributed on the ground for the animals that creates conditions conducive to rodents and other wildlife. Efforts were made to inspect the property on July 26, 2011, consistent with the authority of the Department of Health pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 381, and the Broward County Code of Ordinances. Specifically, F.S. 381.0011(3) provides that it is the duty of the Department of Health to administer and enforce laws and rules relating to sanitation, control of communicable diseases, illnesses and hazards to health among humans and from animals to humans, and the general health of the people of the state. The Broward County Code of Ordinances Section 15-234, more commonly known as the Health and Sanitary Control Board, also authorizes the Broward County Health Department to investigate such complaints. Section 15-235(d) of the Broward County Code of Ordinances states, “The inspecting officers of the Health Department shall have the power and authority to enter upon and inspect all vacant, fenced or enclosed land with our without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof in order to conduct an inspection.” On July 26, 2011 the Broward County Health Department inspectors accompanied by Hollywood Police officers were denied access to inspect the property outside of the structure. Based upon the above cited authority, there is no lawful basis to deny entry. Unfortunately, this is not the first instance of a health violation being reported at this location and the Broward County Health Department was met with the same resistance when it was investigating the matter in August of last year. In the current situation and based upon an alleged repeated violation pertaining to, yet again, the accumulation of feces as a result of chickens, goats and sheep residing on the property along with the attendant feed on the ground that potentially creates a haven for rodents and other wildlife, the Broward County Health Department will complete its investigation by going on the property to perform its inspection.

12

12

The letter is being written to educate and inform you of the gravity of the alleged offense by allegedly maintaining a nuisance on the property and the ramifications that will ensue if access to the property is again denied. Please immediately seek advice from legal counsel or from a person whom you trust such that you can reconsider your position and permit entry onto your property for inspection and determination of whether or not a public health nuisance exists. Should you desire to comply with the state law and county ordinance, please contact Susan Greenberg (964-467-4700 ext. 4104) at the Broward County Health Department by August 9, 2011 and the Health Department will inspect your property within five (5) business days. The State of Florida, Broward County Health Department, while willing to work with you to complete its investigation, will not be hampered by your deliberate acts of blocking lawful access to your property for purposes of inspection as outlined above. Alternatively, should we not hear from you by August 9, 2011, the State of Florida Department of Health, Broward County Health Department will seek judicial review and obtain a search warrant for your property that will be executed as a matter of course consistent with Florida law. Should this occur, your property will be entered upon by law enforcement officers along with Health Department inspectors. Should you fail to cooperate or otherwise obstruct the execution of the warrant you will have committed a criminal act which may result in your arrest and possible incarceration. GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY. Very truly yours, Paul D. Eichner, Esq. Chief Legal Counsel Broward County Health Department c: Jeff Sheffel, Hollywood City Attorney Joel Cantor, Hollywood Police Legal Advisor

13

13

*

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OFo x^^-\-x'-^>^x'-V^x'

HEALTState of Florida Department of Health

Broward County Health Department

COMPLAINT RECORD

COMPLAINT NUMBER 06-99-175282

PERMIT NUMBER

Office Env Eng Log#

Assigned to Joel Rodriguez

Name Emeral Hills 68-26 B Lot 12 BIk : Address 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood

Date Reported 08/24/2010 Status New Complaint

Complaint taken by Constant DeMadet Complaint 63 Solid Waste Disposal Services

Type Solid Waste

Description of condition Buildup of chickens manure.

Owner / AgentAddress

City

OccupantAddress

City

Reported by

AddressCity

3841 N 51 Avenue

Hollywood

Telephone

Extension

TelephoneExtension

Telephone

Extension

Date first investigated 08/25/2010 Date corrected 09/16/2010 Legal notice No

CONDITIONS FOUND AND ACTION TAKEN

Date Remarks on Follow up visits Initials

08/25/2010

08/31/2010

09/08/2010

09/16/2010

Visited location.- Spoke with homeowners whom after explaining the reason for my presence did notallow going into back yard; not able to verify complaint's allegations.

Following instructions, went into neighbor's back yard at 3840 N 50th Ave and did not see any flies orodor coming from 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood at this time.

Instructed to contact City Police Dept. of Hollywood and go to this property accompanied by a policeofficer. Memo sent from main office, legal department (attached).

Visited location. Standing on the South side of, next door neighbor's back yard, no odors, no fliescoming from 3841 N 51 Avenue, Hollywood at this time. No chicken manure accumulation. Picturetaken. Officer Phil Archer #2364 and EH supervisor Luisa Oramas present while investigation tookplace. Anonymous complaint closed.

J.R.

J.R.

J.R.

J.R.

Signature of sanitarian

Joel Rodriguez

Date finaled

Supervisor review Date:

Attach all supporting documentation

(/'Initials:

m

<®Comprehensive Environmental Health Tracking System (ODBC)

HRS-H FORM 4013, Aug 78 (Replaces San-4010) Modified for ODBC 04/27/2009Paae 1 of 1

14

14

Subject: your le�er regarding 3841 N 51 Ave, Hollywood

From: Kohn <[email protected]>

Date: 7/31/2011 8:21 AM

To: [email protected]

CC: [email protected]

Dear Dr. Thaqi,

I am in receipt of your le�er dated July 29, 2011, and am sorry to learn that you are so poorly

informed about what is actually going on here.

If you looked up last year's records as you said you did, you would have noted that observa<ons of

my property were made on 8/25/10, 8/31/10, 9/8/10, and 9/16/10, and that each observa<on

showed that the original complaint was completely unfounded.

Therefore:

1) Your asser<on that I am a repeat violator or that there has been an ongoing nuisance is

completely baseless.

2) Your le�er claims "based on an alleged repeated viola<on pertaining to, yet again, the

accumula<on of feces ....." while your own internal report (a�ached) declares that there was

NEVER a viola<on?

3) Does your agency assert that it is a crime to be REPORTED by a vindic<ve neighbor for a

nuisance, despite the outcome findings of the agency? That is not what I was told when I called

Tallahassee.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Cons<tu<on guarantees:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirma�on, and par�cularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including

its cur<lage, ie. my privacy fenced backyard) without a warrant.

When police or other public agency conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant

establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal ac<vity.

I am [blind] copying officials from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Jus<ce and the

State of Florida A�orney General's office on this correspondence because they have been involved

with my family's troubles with the city government and neighbors since literally the DAY we moved

in. Apparently a number of people in Hollywood believe that it is a crime to move into what they

yourletterregarding3841N51Ave,Hollywood

1of4 7/11/20121:44PM

15

15

perceive as a "nice" neighborhood if you are darker than a Sherwin Williams khaki color.

The neighbors will only be happy when I leave my en<re net worth behind and run away from my

piece of the American dream so that their neighborhood can revert back to the all white enclave

that they feel they bought into.

That is why FHA/HUD has also opened a case on behalf of our family and two other interna<onal

civil rights organiza<ons have go�en involved on behalf of our family.

I have copied the State Statute below which describes the circumstances under which a warrant to

search a property may be issued:

"933.18 When warrant may be issued for search of private dwelling.

No search warrant shall issue under this chapter or under any other law of this state to search any

private dwelling occupied as such unless:

(1) It is being used for the unlawful sale, possession, or manufacture of intoxica�ng liquor;

(2) Stolen or embezzled property is contained therein;

(3) It is being used to carry on gambling;

(4) It is being used to perpetrate frauds and swindles;

(5) The law rela�ng to narco�cs or drug abuse is being violated therein;

(6) A weapon, instrumentality, or means by which a felony has been commi2ed, or evidence relevant

to proving said felony has been commi2ed, is contained therein;

(7) One or more of the following misdemeanor child abuse offenses is being commi2ed there:...."

If you sincerely believe that one of the above circumstances exists with regard to my home, I

request that you no!fy me when you are scheduling the hearing to obtain the warrant so that I

may a"end with my a"orney.

Last year, when I contacted Tallahassee, I was told that your officer is obliged to show probable

cause for your request to search my property via a signed affidavit from the complainant ie. person

who is poten<ally damaged by a health nuisance emana<ng from my property.

Please scan and email it to me.

We know who the complainant is because we overheard her bragging on the telephone to a friend

at around 9:20AM 7/26 about "keeping them busy by drawing a�en<on to their property." Just a

few hours later your officers were at our door. The reason I am so certain about the <me is that

the moment was captured on our video surveillance system. Our daughter was at the side of the


2of4 7/11/20121:44PM

16

16

house taking care of the recycling when she heard Sandra Einhorn make the call.

We installed the surveillance system aPer more than one incidence of the neighbors standing

outside our children's bedroom yelling racial slurs (including "field niggers") and throwing rocks

and bo�les at our house.

Your officers both said (while being filmed) that they did not discern any odor or see any flies

coming from my property. A�ached as a PDF are some s<ll shots of your agents while standing at

the fence that borders my neighbor's property, looking through the fence for visual evidence of the

flies, feces, and other animals allegedly causing the nuisance, and also, you will please note that

they are virtually next to my garbage pails and compost pile.

Both officers violated what I was told by Tallahassee last year by not producing iden<fica<on or a

copy of the complaint (The number I called was 850-245-4141).

I DO NOT own any goats or sheep.

The officers did not men!on goats or sheep and I assure you that they did not detect the presence

of such animals. Your agents were brought right up to the fence which is along the property line

and could NOT detect any odor at the property line although they are specifically trained to do so.

THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY another one of my neighbor's false reports.

Sandra Einhorn, has reported my family to the police on more than 3 dozen occasions (unfounded)

(when she's not standing by the fence calling my wife a field nigger and throwing rocks at my

children), has also reported my trees to the USDA as being sick (unfounded), tried to have my

children taken away by CPS (unfounded), has filed a frivolous lawsuit for $1,500,000 because she

claims that my mixed race family brings down her property values, she has made FIVE false claims

of domes<c violence against me (all of which were ruled unfounded), and then took the dismissed

case and presented it to the local police sta<ng that she actually had a real restraining order.

In fact, a hearing about her behavior has been scheduled for Thursday 8/4. A copy of the mo<on

being heard is a�ached for your review.

The reason that she has made so many false reports is because of people like YOU who respond to

an obviously false report (ie. goats and sheep) by coming to the house and under color of official

right demanding to gain entrance to our home without a warrant and when denied send out an

obnoxious and threatening le�er.

Our bigoted neighbor is able to terrorize our children with her false repor<ng because YOUR

agency didn't prosecute her false repor<ng last year when you should have.

"837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities.—

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever knowingly gives false information to


3of4 7/11/20121:44PM

17

17

any law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of any crime, commits amisdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

Your agency gave this evil person, who has been hard at work trying to destroy my family, a free

opportunity to harass us repeatedly because YOUR AGENCY failed to follow the law last year when

she made a false report.

In your failure, last year to follow the law with regard to the false reporter, your agency became the

willing accomplice to her endless harassment of my family.

Please let me know if you have <me on Monday or Tuesday to meet with me. I would like to help

your agency prevent the further harassment of my family. I have a great deal of documenta<on and

my a�orney can also provide addi<onal informa<on.

Thank you for your prompt a�en<on and concern for my family.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn

3841 N 51 Ave

Hollywood FL 33021

954-404-7358

Spam

Not spam

Forget previous vote

Attachments:

Dept. of Health.pdf 2.4 MB

Kohn, Steven Mo<on for Contempt 2-1.pdf 54.9 KB

DOH S<lls 72611.pdf 1.8 MB


4of4 7/11/20121:44PM

18

18

19

19

20

20

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 10-048282 (18)

GRANT EINHORN and SANDRA EINHORN, as husband and wife

Plaintiffs, vs. STEVEN KOHN AND RENEE KOHN

Defendants. __________________________________________/

MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT/ENFORCEMENT

Defendants, STEVEN KOHN and RENEE KOHN (hereby “Defendants”) request that the Court

enter an order of civil contempt/enforcement against Plaintiffs, GRANT EINHORN and SANDRA EINHORN

(hereby “Plaintiffs”) and in support thereof allege:

1. A final judgment or order in this case was entered in May of 2011, by the Court enjoining all

parties to this action from causing any witness to have any fear or apprehension in connection with their

contemplated testimony in this case.

2. The order signed by this Court prohibiting witness tampering as codified in Florida Statute

914.22.

ii. Florida Statute 914.22 in relevant part states:

914.22 Tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant; penalties.—

(1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another

person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another

person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any

person to:

(a) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official

investigation or official proceeding;

(b) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability

of the object for use in an official investigation or official proceeding;

3. The other party in this case has willfully disobeyed this order of the Court:

21

21

a. Nearly simultaneous to the filing of this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s complaint to Child Protective

Services, Plaintiff also filed for an injunction against Steven Kohn for repeat domestic violence etc. on

January 7. DVCE 11-134

b. Request for temporary injunction was denied.

c. Hearing was scheduled for January 18. At that time, the Court informed Plaintiff that even if

all of her allegations were true, that the Court still would not grant an injunction. The Court asked if she

still wanted to proceed with a full hearing, and she said she did. One was scheduled for 4/15/11 and an

order was issued that left in place any prior temporary restraining order, of which there were none.

d. January 18, 2011 after the hearing, Plaintiff wrote to her friend Jen that she was taking these

actions to protect herself and other Jews.

e. January 27, a new cover page is mailed out for DVCE 11-134 stating that “This order vacates

order extending injunction dated 1/18/11.” Hearing is officially scheduled for 4/15/11 at 1:30PM.

f. On April 15, 2011, after hearing of the case was concluded, the case was dismissed.

g. On April 15, 2011 Plaintiff re-filed (DVCE 11-2439) and was again denied a temporary

injunction.

h. April 21, 2011 Plaintiff filed a supplement and was again denied a temporary injunction.

i. April 23, 2011 Plaintiff posts a Youtube video claiming a restraining order was granted, when

in fact, it had not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwQT9er5h3g

j. April 23, 2011 Plaintiff telephoned the police claiming she is afraid to leave her house because

of Defendants, yet left her house 2 minutes before placing the phone call.

k. On April 24 Plaintiff lied to the Hollywood Police Department when stating that she had a

current restraining order against Defendant Steve Kohn. (See Police Report attached as Exhibit B).

l. At Plaintiff’s request, police issued a no-trespass order. Had a restraining order already been in

place, there would not have been a need for a no-trespass order. Plaintiff and the Hollywood Police

Department were both aware of the lack of a restraining order. See Hollywood Police case number

L33110423061998.

m. April 27, 2011 Plaintiff filed a supplemental temporary injunction and was again denied a

temporary injunction.

n. On May 2, 2011 DVCE 11-2439 was dismissed.

o. June 8, 2011 based on Plaintiff’s false testimony to the police, and under the presumption

that a valid injunction was in place (which was required by the relevant criminal statute) a search

warrant was obtained resulting in the seizure of all computers and backups at the Defendant’s

residence.

22

22

p. These computers and backups contained all of Defendant’s legal strategy, attorney client

communications, and all photo, video, audio, and documentary evidence in defense of the nuisance

lawsuit.

q. On the Affidavit signed for the search warrant, attached hereto as exhibit A, the Affiant states

“The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on 02/23/2011”. Plaintiff left a hearing on the nuisance

case that very day (02/23/2011), took the vacated 1/18/11 order to the Hollywood Police Department

and presented it to them as if it was active.

r. Plaintiff was aware that there was no restraining order in existence and she persisted in

engaging in misleading conduct toward the HPD in order to cause them to

(i) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official

investigation or official proceeding;

(ii) Alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability

of the object for use in an official investigation or official proceeding;

s. The aforementioned actions ought to be viewed as witness tampering on an enormous level

because the goal and result was to remove from Defendants their ability to defend themselves against

this lawsuit.

4. Plaintiffs have shown a demonstrable pattern of intending to disable Defendants from

defending themselves in this case as follows:

a. Calls to the Department of Health resulting in 3-4 inspections, all of which were determined

to be unfounded

b. Numerous calls to the Hollywood Police Department complaining of nuisance.

c. A groundless call to Child Protective Services claiming that Defendant’s children are in danger

on December 22, 2010, less than 24 hours after this nuisance was filed.

d. Distribution of a hateful pamphlet entitled “Are the Kohns Jewish” in the cars of the guests at

the engagement party of the Defendants’ daughter.

e. Filing two baseless applications for restraining orders and two supplemental applications, all

of which were subsequently dismissed by the Court.

f. Urgent phone calls to the Hollywood police Department claiming to be afraid to leave her

house.

g. On April 23, 2011 Plaintiff posted a video of Defendants on Youtube entitled “After being

served with Restraining Order”.

h. On June 29, 2011 Plaintiff overheard two daughters of Defendant commenting how much

their mother loves her lemon trees. Plaintiff then called the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tell them

23

23

Defendants had a grove of sick citrus trees. Phillip Purcell of the USDA inspected the trees and declared

they were all healthy.

i. Defendants submit that Plaintiffs are continually and repeatedly knowingly making false calls

to local, state and federal government agencies in hopes of harming their family and causing them to

move.

5. Plaintiffs have shown a demonstrable pattern of intending to disrupt and punish Defendants

specifically on Jewish holidays by the following:

a. Rosh Hashannah September 2010, calls are made to the press. Plaintiff had ABC interrupt

Defendants Rosh Hashanah dinner seeking an interview.

b. Sukkoth September 2010, Plaintiff calls Hollywood Police Department reporting a distressed

animal in the Defendant’s yard. The police entered the yard without a warrant and disrupted the

holiday.

c. Sukkoth September 2010, Plaintiff calls the Hollywood Police Department making a noise

complaint while Defendants and their family are in the pool.

d. Channukah December 2010, the Hollywood police visit the Defendants residence 4 times as a

result of Plaintiffs calls.

e. Passover 2011, Plaintiff has Defendant served with another restraining order and police are

dispatched to the Defendants residence on 5 of the 8 days of Passover.

f. Shavuot 2011, Police raid the Defendants home while they are preparing for the first nights

meal. Armed police officers rounded up the family, ransacked the home, and took possessions pursuant

to a search warrant based on Plaintiffs claim to have an injunction (necessary for the statute alleged to

have been violated), all while Plaintiffs stand on the sidewalk clapping.

g. Defendants submit that such a calendar cannot be a coincidence, and that Plaintiffs are on a

campaign to destroy their family and/or cause them to move out of the neighborhood.

6. Defendants are living in constant fear and Plaintiffs have taken away their ability to support

their family by having their business confiscated.

7. Defendants respectfully request that the Court issue an order holding the Defendants in civil

contempt, and/or provide the following relief:

a. Enforce or compel compliance with the prior order or judgment;

b. Require the other party to pay costs and fees in connection with this motion;

c. Order a compensatory fine;

d. Order a coercive fine;

24

24

e. Defendants seek dismissal of the nuisance law suit based upon the disregard of the

court order by Plaintiffs in violation of Florida Statute 914.22

Respectfully Submitted,

By: __________________________

DAVID LOW, ESQ.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was sent to KEITH D. SILVERSTEIN,

P.A. 1177 Kane Concourse, Suite 230 Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154 and faxed to (305) 868-1045

DAVID LOW, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendants

28 West Flagler Street, 10th Floor

Miami, Florida 33130

Phone: (305) 728-1931

Fax: (305) 675-2685

By: __________________________

DAVID LOW, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 67957

25

25

26

26

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THESEVENTEENTH JUDIC]AL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF BROWARD

SEARCH WARRANT

IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO ALL AND SINGULAR:

The Director of the Broward County Health Department, an agency of the State of Florida

Department of Health, and its employees, specifically Anthony Vomero.

Affidavit having been made before me by Anthony Vomero, of the Broward County Health

Department, Broward County, Florida that they have probable cause to know and they do know

that on or about the premises described as:

The curtilage of a residential house located at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City ofHollywood, County of Broward, and the State of Florida. The nesidence is a eoncrete blockconstruqtiqn single family residenee. The exteriorwalls are painted tan with a tena eotta haneltile roof. The hlue front exterior door fases west . The residenqe has a eircular driveway with ahrvo car garage. The address number.3841" is affixed to the exteriorwallfacing west abovethe garage doors.

The location in question can be reaehed from l-95, to west on $tirling Road, to south onSaraaen Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841North 51 Avenue.

The following grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant, as required by chapter 933,exists, to wit: an anonymous complaint relating to the possession of ducks and chickens on theabove described property and the corresponding denial of entry by Broward County HealthDepartment inspectors to enter upon the property pursuant to Broward County Ordinance 15-243@):

)

)SS)

27

27

PAGE TWQSHARCH WARRANT

Your affiant seeks to gain aecess to the curtilage only of the above described property togetherwith the related detached structures housing ducks andlor chickens solely for the purpdse ofinspection and photographing of the subject property as it pertains to the alleged sanitarynuisance and to detennine if a sanitaqy nuisance exists. Your affiant is not seeking to selze anyproperty located on or upon the above described propertlf.

NOW THEREFORE, the facts upon which the belief of said affiant is based as set out in saidAffidavit are hereby deemed sufficient to show probable cause for the issuance of a SearchWarrant in accordance with said application of said Affiant.

And as I am satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the laws of the State ofFlorida are being violated as aforesaid and that the above actions constitute a public nuisancebeing allowed to exist in and upon the curtilage of the above described property, I expressly findprobable cause for the issuance of this Search Warrant.

THIS lS, THEREFORE to command me, Anthony Vomero, Acting Director of the EnvironmentalSection of the Broward County Health Department and Luisa Oramas, Environmental Managerof the Broward County Health Department, Broward County, Florida, with proper and necessiryassistance, to include but not limited to The City of Hollyrood Police Department, to serve thiiwarrant, search, inspect and photograph the curtilage only of the above described location andrelated detached structures housing ducks and/or chickens, in the daytime or the nighttime, oron Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demand or require, with the proper andnecessary assistance

DONE AND ORDERED at ft{ *r,'$nr,/,- io:-*

-.- - =-\\

, Flodda. on thisI

Z-day or zJru4 r , 2011.\

,//'

,t2')

CIRCU

28

28

PAGE 1GENERAIJ AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICAT'ION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AN_D APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

S ATE OF FLORIDA ))ss

couNTY oF BROWARD )

BEFORE THE LINDERSIGNED, THE HONORABLE Judge Michael J. Orlando,Judge of the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Stateof Florida, personally came Anthony Vomero, of the State of Florida Broward County HealthDepartment, who after being first duly swom, deposes and says:

DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES TO BE SAARCHED:

The curtilage of the residential house and any detached structure housing ducks andlorchickens located at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, andthe State of Florida. The residence is a concrete block construction single family residence. Theexterior walls are painted tan with a terra cotta barrel tile roofl, The blue front exterior door faceswest. The residence has a circular driveway with a two aar garage. The address number..384l"is affixed to the exterior wall facing west above the garage doors.

The location in question can be reached from I-95, to west on Stirling Road, to south onSarazen Driven to east on North 4l Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841 North5l Avenue.

To gain entry only to the curlilage of the residential property and related detachedstructure(s) housing ducks and/or chickens located at 3841 North 5l Avenue, in the City ofHollywood, County of Broward, State of Florida.

Page I of5

29

29

PAGE 2GENERAL AFFfDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

STATUTE(S) BErNG VTOLATED:

Nuisance Injurious to Health F.S. $ 386.041 (l) (e)

COUNTY ORDINANCE(S) BEING VIOLATED:

Sanitary Nuisance County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14, sectionl4.67

PROPERTY SOUGI{T:

None. Entry to the cartilage only of the property to search, inspect the curtilage andrelated detached structures housing ducks and/or chickens solely for the purpose ofinspection and photographing of the subject property as it pertains to the above referencedstatute(s) and county code of ordinances by Broward County Heatth Departmentinspectors.

GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE:

Broward county code of ordinances, Article Xlv, sectio ns 242 and 243 (d)

Section 15-242:o "An inspector who finds a violation of the Code, relating to environmental

health or the health laws or regulations of the State of Florida, shalldocument the violation and serve a notice of violation thereof to theappropriate individual or business entity as provided for in the subsectionbelow."

Section 15-243(d)o "The inspecting officers of the Health Department shall have the power

and autliority to enter upon and inspect all vacant, fences or enclosed landwith or without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof in order toconduct an inspection."

Page 2 of5

30

30

PAGE 3GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

PROBABI,E CAUSE,:

Affiant's reason for his belief that the laws of the State of Florida and or the County Code of

Ordinances are being violated as stated above and the facts establishing the grounds for this Affidavit and

the probable cause for believing that such facts exist are as follows:

A cornplaint was in August of 2010 pertaining to the same property for the same alleged

violations. Access to the property was denied by the owner(s) after the owner(s) were provided with a

copy of the county ordinance permitting access to property. The inspectors subsequently determined that

no violation existed after obtaining the permission of neighboring property owners and having observed

the subject property from those vantage points.

A new anonlmous complairrt was received by the Environmental Health South Office of the

Broward County Health Department, an agency of the State of Florida Department of Health on July 27,

2011 alleging duck and chickens on the subject property and the attendant feces were creating a nuisance

and bad odor.

The City of Hollywood, FL prohibits the keeping of animals and fowl pursuant to s. 92.02 of the

City of I{ollywood Code of Ordinances. Mr. Kohn, the owner of the subject property was cited by

Hollyu,ood Code Enforcement and a violation was found to exist by the Special Magistrate on May 19,

2009. The owner filed a Writ of Certiorari that was denied by the Hon. John Bowman, Circuit Court

Judge of the 17th Jueiicial Circuit and by the Fourth DCA.

Inspectors from the Environmental l{ealth South Office of the Broward County Health

Department, an agency of the State of Florida Department of Health, specifically Anthony Vomero and

Luisa Oramas went to the above described property on July 27,2011 at approximately 4 p.m. accompanied

by police officers from the City of Hollywood seeking access to the property. A copy of the above

referenced county ordinance authorizing entry onto the subject property was shown to the owner, Mr.

Steven K.ohn, who declined to permit entry notwithstanding the explanation given by Mr. Vomero and the

hard copy that was given to and in the possession of Mr. Kohn.

Page 3 of5

31

31

PAGE 4GENERAIJ AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

The owner, Mr. Kohn, accompanied the inspectors to the side yard of his property and offered to

perrnit the inspecturs to look through the slats of the wooden fence. The view afforded was that of the side

yard and not the backyard of the property. Two chickens were observed loose and wandering in the side

yard at the time of observation. It was not possible to do an assessment to determine the presence of a

nuisance and related odors given the very limited and controlled access to the property from looking into

the area through a fence slat and the inspectors were unable to determine if a sanitary nuisance existed.

The inspectors, due to the recurring nature of this complaint have reason to believe that access to

the property is necessary to evaluate and determine the existence of a sanitary nuisance and related odors

on the property.

Page 4 of5

32

32

PAGE 5GENERAL AFFIDAVTT AND APPIIICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

FOR SEARCH 1VARRANT

EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING OF AFFIANTS

Your affiant is a nine (9) year employee of the Broward County Health Department, an agency of

the State of Florida Department of Health currently in the position of Acting Director of Environmental

Health. Your affiant is a certified environmental health professional and has been so certified for the past

eight (8) years. Your affiant has been a environmental health inspector and has investigated numerous

complaints. Your affiant's responsibilities included routine inspections of public pools, group care

facilities, kitchens, rnovie theaters and foster homes and other health oriented complaints.

\ /HEREFORE, your Affiant hereby makes application for a Search Warrant authorizing theAffiants, Health Department Inspectors with the State of Florida Broward County HealthDepartment to enter upon the cartilage only of the property identified above with proper andnecessary assistance, to include but not limited to The City of Hollywood Police Department, tosearch only the curtilage of the above described premise and related detached structure(s)housing ducks and/or chickens located in the daytime/nighttime or on Sunday, and to takephotographs, as necessary, as it pertains to the presence of a nulsance.

AFFI

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED beforeme at Fort Lauderdale, BrowardCourlff, Florida, this 7 rlayof / *.tth_, A.D. 2011..__T f

Page 5 of5

33

33

34

34

35

35

I have time stamped security camera video of this. These are just some stills.

Cameraman is in front of the tree. Reporter’s legs (Jeff Weinsier) are visible under the roof tile. Video

footage is full clear and very clear. Weinsier came with the police and with his cameraman.

36

36

Second shot also showing cameraman and reporter in similar positions as the prior one.

37

37

I have full video of this in color and high resolution.

This shows Vomero and Oramas in the side yard before entering the house.

38

38

This shows Vomero entering the house from the side door. (note that the fence is only a few feet ahead

of him. Exiting via the house offers them no convenience at all. They wanted to look at our house both

outside and inside.

39

39

This shows Oramas entering the house a second later.

40

40

This shows Vomero as he’s leaving the house.

41

41

This shows Oramas leaving the house right behind Vomero.

42

42

Blank page due to a paging error in the Motion. There is no page 43

43

43

44

44

45

45

46

46

U.S. Department Of Housing and Urban Development Georgia State Office Five Points Plaza 40 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303-2806

August 12, 2011

Mr. & Mrs. Steven Kohn 3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kohn: Subject: Housing Discrimination Complaint

Kohn, Steven & Renee v. City Commission of Hollywood, FL, et al HUD File No.: 04-11-1099-8

Title VI Case No.: 04-11-1099-6 Section 109 Case No.: 04-11-1099-9

Your complaint, alleging one or more discriminatory housing practices, was officially filed on 08/08/2011 as a complaint under the Federal Fair Housing Law, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601-3619. For your records, we are enclosing a copy of your complaint, and, as required by law, a copy has been sent to the respondent(s).

Additionally, the complaint was filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in the programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department. The HUD regulation implementing Title VI at 24 CFR Part 1 requires that no person shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity. Further, Title VI at 24 CFR Part 1 provides for an investigation whenever a complaint or other information indicates a possible failure by a HUD-funded recipient to comply with the Acts. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will investigate this complaint under this authority.

The complaint also was filed under Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Section 109). Section 109 requires that no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex or religion be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with community development funds.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of: 1) the rights you have during the processing of this complaint, 2) the rights each respondent has in responding to this complaint, and 3) the

47

47

steps the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (the Department) will take to determine whether the complaint has merit.

In order to ensure that the Department informs you properly of the law's requirements, this notification letter contains language required by the law. A similar letter is used to notify all parties whenever a formal complaint has been filed with the Department under the Federal Fair Housing Law. We are governed by federal law, which sets out what steps we must take when a formal complaint is filed. The law also includes steps that each respondent can take to answer or refute the allegations of this complaint. Under federal law, a respondent can file an answer to this complaint or any amendment made to this complaint within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Department's notification letter to him or her. Each respondent's answer must be signed and affirmed that the response is truthful by including the statement "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." A respondent can, with the agreement of the Department, amend his or her answer at any time during the investigation. Our responsibility under the law is to undertake an impartial investigation and, at the same time, encourage all sides to reach an agreement, where appropriate, through conciliation. The law requires us to complete our investigation within 100 days of the date of the official filing of the complaint. If we are unable to meet the 100-day requirement for issuing a determination, the law requires that we notify you and the respondent(s) and explain the reasons why the investigation of the complaint is not completed. In handling this complaint, we will conduct an impartial investigation of all claims that the Fair Housing Act has been violated. If the investigation indicates that there is not evidence establishing jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. At any point, you can request that our staff assist you in conciliating (or settling) this complaint with the respondent(s). If the case is not resolved, we will complete our investigation and decide whether or not the evidence indicates that there has been a fair housing violation. If the parties involved have not reached an agreement to settle the complaint, the Department will issue a determination as to whether there is reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice has occurred. If our investigation indicates that there is reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice has occurred, the Department must issue a charge. If the investigation indicates there is no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, the complaint will be dismissed. In either event, you will be notified in writing. If the determination is one of reasonable cause, the notification will advise you and the respondent(s) of your rights to choose, within 20 days, whether you wish to have the case heard by an Administrative Law Judge, or to have the matter referred for trial in the appropriate U.S. District Court. Under federal law, even if the Department dismisses the complaint, you still have the right to bring an individual suit under the Federal Fair Housing Law. You may file your lawsuit

48

48

in an appropriate federal, state or local court within two years of the date of the alleged discriminatory practice or of the date when a conciliation agreement has been violated. The law does not count, as part of the two-year period, any of the time when a proceeding is pending with the Department. You also have the legal right to file a lawsuit in court, even if your complaint formed the basis for a charge, as long as an Administrative Law Judge has not started a hearing on the record with respect to the charge. There may be other applicable federal, state or local statutes under which you and/or the respondent(s) may initiate court action. You may consult a private attorney in this regard. The law also requires us to notify you that section 818 of the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful for a respondent or anyone else to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with you in your exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected under the Federal Fair Housing Law. The law also makes it illegal for anyone to coerce, threaten or interfere with you for your having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right or protection granted to them under the Federal Fair Housing Law. Some explanatory material on the law is enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions regarding this case, please contact Candace Tapscott at (305) 536-4479, ext. 2218. Please refer to the case number at the top of this letter in those contacts, and keep this office advised of any change of your address or telephone number. We hope this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Carlos Osegueda FHEO Region IV Director

Enclosures

49

49

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT

CASE NUMBER: 04-11-1099-8/6/9

1. Complainants

Steven Kohn 3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021

Renee Kohn 3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021

2. Other Aggrieved Persons

Rebecca L. Kohn

Hannah E. Kohn

Sara R. Kohn

Minor #1 Kohn

Minor #2 Kohn

Minor #3 Kohn

Minor #4 Kohn

Minor #5 Kohn

Minor #6 Kohn

Minor #7 Kohn

3. The following is alleged to have occurred or is about to occur:

Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.). Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning and land use.

4. The alleged violation occurred because of:

National origin and religion.

50

50

5. Address and location of the property in question (or if no property is involved,

the city and state where the discrimination occurred):

3841 N 51st Ave Hollywood, FL 33021

6. Respondent(s)

City Commission of Hollywood, FL P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Cameron D. Benson, City Manager City of Hollywood, FL P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Richard Blattner, Dist 4 Commissioner City of Hollywood, Florida P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Mgr City of Hollywood, FL P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Clay Milan, Director, Code Enforcement City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

Irish Gardner, Code Enforcement Officer City of Hollywood, FL - Office of Code Enforcement P. O. Box 220945 Hollywood, FL 33022-9045

7. The following is a brief and concise statement of the facts regarding the

alleged violation:

Complainants Steven and Renee Kohn own a single family home located at 3841 N 51st Ave., in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. The complainants identified their religion as Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. The complainants note that their readily observable religious practices, speech, dress, and customs are influenced by Arabic culture. The complainants belong to a class of persons whom the Fair

51

51

Housing Act (the Act) as amended, protects from unlawful discrimination because of religion and national origin. The complainants' property is subject to the ordinances and restrictions of the City of Hollywood, Florida, administered by and through the Respondent City Commission, Respondent Cameron D. Benson, the City Manager, Respondent Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark, Interim City Manager, Respondent Richard Blattner, District 4 City Commissioner, Respondent Clay Milan, Director of Code Enforcement, and Respondent Irish Gardner, Code Enforcement Officer. To the complainants' belief, none of the respondents practice Sephardic Orthodox Judaism.

According to the complainants, shortly after they moved into their home in 2008, some of their neighbors objected to their Judeo-Arabic cultural practices, describing the complainants as "Palestinians," "Muslims," and "terrorists." The neighbors undertook a campaign to harass the complainants by repeatedly reporting them to the City of Hollywood Police and Code Enforcement in regard to their pets: eight hens and two 17" Dwarf Nigerian goats. In November of 2010, the same neighbors went so far as to circulate a pamphlet entitled, "Are the Kohns Jewish," pointing out Muslim influences that, in their opinion, negate their status as Jewish.

On November 24, 2010, the City of Hollywood dispatched 5 police cars, 10 armed police officers and 2 code enforcement officers to the complainants' home to deliver citation warnings about their pets, which Respondent Milan contends are livestock. The complainants felt intimidated, upset, and humiliated by the City's show of force. The complainants observed that the warnings were written and ordered to be delivered before an inspection of their property had even occurred. They assert that they are in compliance with the City's ordinances, dispute the characterization of their pets as "livestock," and believe the City is selectively enforcing these ordinances against them, based on cultural biases. In deposition testimony on July 27, 2011, Respondent Gardner, a code enforcement officer, admitted that other city residents with poultry have been treated differently by the City. To the complainants' belief, these other residents are not practitioners of Sephardic Orthodox Judaism. During their dealings with the respondents and their neighbors, the complainants assert they have never demonstrated threatening behavior to justify the City's show of force.

Within a few days of circulating the "Are the Kohns Jewish" pamphlet, on December 1, 2010, the neighbor e-mailed Respondent Blattner asking for his support in dealing with the Kohns via code compliance enforcement. Respondent Blattner forwarded her e-mail to other City officials and convened an internal meeting to discuss the complainants. The complainants assert that because of the cultural bias of City officials, and as a result of the neighbor's discriminatory influence on Respondent Blattner, the City of Hollywood has persisted in harassing the complainants. Continually since August 23, 2010, the City of Hollywood has fined the complainants $250/day for their pets, applying the lien retroactively to August 18, 2009. On July 13, 2011, the City of Hollywood filed a lawsuit against the complainants to collect over $160,000 in Code Enforcement fines.

52

52

The complainants believe the respondents are using code enforcement violations as a pretext to discriminate against them based upon their religion and perceived national origin. They allege that the respondents collectively have harassed and intimidated them in violation of Section 818 of the Act. They further allege the respondents collectively have used zoning and land use ordinances to discriminate against them in violation of Section 810(g)(2)(C) of the Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.

8. The most recent date on which the alleged discrimination occurred:

July 13, 2011, and is continuing.

9. Types of Federal Funds identified:

Community Development Block Grant.

10. The acts alleged in this complaint, if proven, may constitute a violation of the

following:

Sections 818 and 810(g)(2)(C) or f of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended by the Fair Housing Act of 1988.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.

Please sign and date this form:

I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this complaint (including any

attachments) and that it is true and correct.

_____________________________________________ _______________ Steven Kohn (Date)

_____________________________________________ _______________ Renee Kohn (Date)

N O T E : HUD WILL FURNISH A COPY OF THIS COMPLAINT TO THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION AGAINST WHOM IT IS FILED.

53

53

54

54

55

55

56

56

q:; ..lr::'ifi*.': :-'. :ii

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARDCOUNTY, FLORIDA

.ASENo.:CrqCF ll- lLozrc fu-)i.

t..'i.:.

ORDER

"il

ii::4

iI1

o\ =+ $r\*qPlaintiff;,

'\fr.,. (^r[.^Defendant.

urhconsidered by the on the following Motion

a ro

HEARING was held on

THE COURT having considered the grounds for the Motion, taken testimony, heard argument and considered the

applicable law, it is FOUND,

r cl,\nanL.t-

t 00.s

[], r.l 0A^e{-!,

h\ ,&foe L.*),L I

V4 A{> fi9-Ie,- tl TfcrwS kr,r"d

DONE AND ORDERED

Copies furnished:

BC 118 (Rev 2/07)

E tn Open Court

frvrrllair

c r Rc u rr co u nrTlHBEtopv

57

57

I

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDAa Municipal CorporationOrganized & Existing under theLaws of the State of Florida

Plaintiff,

vs.

Steven Kohn

Defendant.I

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEITTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

BROWARD COI.'NTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: Lt-0t6210 (18)

HON. MICHELE TOWBTN STNGER

ORDER ON DEFENDAI\T'S MOTION TO DISMISS AI\ID FOR COSTS AI\ID FEES

THIS CAUSE came before the cotrt on Defendant Steven Kohn's Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to Rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and for Costs and Fees pursuant to

section 162.10, Florida Statutes. The court having considered same, being duly advised in

premises and law, dispenses with oral argument and finds and decides as follows:

The City of Hollyvood (*Plaintiff') filed its Complaint against Steve,n Kohn seeking to

collect the Order of Imposition of Fine and Claim of Lien cntered by a Special Master of the City

of Hollynvood, finding Steven Kohn in violation of section 92.02(A) of the City of Hollyrood

Code of Ondinances. On Nove,mber 14, 2011, this Court e,ntered an order granting without

prejudice, Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Amend Complaint to an amount not

exceeding the marimum fine allowable by the ordinance. The Order allowed Plaintiff twenty

(20) days to show this Court authority under which Defendant can be fined more than $100 total.

Plaintiff failed to file any authority with the court within twenty days, but filed a Motion for

Rehearing on the Nove,lnber l4,20ll Order. On Decemb ff 6,2011, this Court entered its Order

58

58

I

h["I

CASE NO.: tl4t62l0 (18)

("the Transfer Ordef') limiting Plaintiffs damages to $100.00. Since the claim for relief was no

longer within the jurisdictional limits of this Court, the case was transfemed county court.

Defendant now brings its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to rule 1.060(c), Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure' for PlaintifPs failure to pay transfer fees.

In support of his Motion, Defendant argues that more than thirty (30) days have elapsed

since the Transfer Order was entered and Plaintiff failed to stay the order pending appeal to the

Fourth District Cotrt of Appeal of Florida. The court agrees. Accordingly, this action must be

.lisnrissod-

Next, Defendant argues entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to section 162.10, Florida

Statutes2 as a "prevailing party''. Generally, the prevailing party is the party that won on the

significant issues in litigation. M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., v. Khosrow Maleki, P.A., 975 So. 2d

1288, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., lnc.,604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)).

However, a defendant is entitled to fees pursuant to the the prevailing party standard when a

plaintiff fails to firther pursue its claims when the case was dismissed. Frazier v. Dreyftus, 14

So. 2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

ln Frazier, the appellants appealed an order granting attorney's fees in favor of appellee.

Id. at 1183. The appellants, purchasers of thirteen vacatign bungalows in Costa Ricq entered

into a ontract with appellesrf,ler. Id. The appellants later discovered that the property they

purchased was public land allegedly owned by the Costa Rican government. Id. at I 184. The

' 1c; Method. The service charge of the clerk of the court to which an action is transferred under this rule shall bepaid by the party who commenced the action within 30 days from the date the order of transfer is entered, subject totaxation as provided by law when the action is determined. If the seryice charge is not paid wittrin the 30 days, theaction shall be dismissed without oreiudice by the court that entered the order of transfer.' roz.rT5ffin or nen - No tien proviaed under the Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act shallcontinue for a period longer than 20 years after the certified copy of an order imposing a fine has been recorded,unless within that time an action is commenced pursuant to s. 162.09(3) in a court of competent jtrisdiction. In anaction to foreclose on a lien or for a money judgment, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs, includingreasonable attorney's fee, that it inctrs in an action...

Page 2 of 4

59

59

II

CASE No.: l1-016210 (18)

buyers then brought suit against appellee. Id. at 1183. [n response, appellee filed a motion to

dismiss based on a provision in the contract mandating the arbitration of disputes before the

Costa Rican-American Chamber of Comm€rce in Costa Rica. Id. at 1184. The trial court

entered an order compelling the arbitration and abated the action. Id. The appellants elected not

to arbitrate their claims because of the expense associated with the retention of counsel in Costa

Rica. Id. The appellee moved to dismiss the suit for failtre to comply with the court orders

requiring arbitration and moved for prevailing party attorney's fees. Id. The trial court

fismisscd fre action d aurrded ftes, hotding fttr fiEndless of ufrether or not the buyers etter

instituted arbitration proceedings in Costa Rica or othenvise decided not to pursue their claims,

the seller prevailed in the action when the case was dismissed. Id. at I 184-5 (applyrng reasoning

of Alhambra Homeowners Ass'n v. Asad,943 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). Since this Cotrt

found the amount in controversy must be limited to $ 100, jurisdiction was no longer within this

Court. For whatever reason, Plaintiff has failed to pursue its claim in county court. Regardless

of whether Plaintiff prevails in county court, Defendant prevailed on this action upon dismissal.

Accordingly, costs and fees are appropriate for Defendant as a prevailing pafiy.

This Court acknowledges that the authority provided within Plaintiffs Motion for

Rehearing was heard before the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, which dismissed the

issus on its merits.3 Aeordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing is moot. Neverttreless, this

Court finds that a Motion for Rehearing is an improper motion on a non-final order. See Wagner

v. Bieley, Wagner & Assocs., fnc.,263 So. 2d l, 3 (Fla. lgTZ).

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED

WITIIOUT PREJUDICE.

3 Case No.: 4Dl2-12. The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida issued its order on February 16,21l1stating:

ORDERED that the petition for writ of certiorari filed January 5, 2012, is hereby denied oo thr merits withoutprejudice to raising on final appeal.

Page 3 of 4

60

60

CASE NO.: I l-016210 (18)

It is funher ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Costs and Fees Pursuant to section

162.10, Florida Statutes is GRANTED. This Court res€rves jurisdiction to det€rrnine the

amount of Defendant's Fees and Costs.

2012.DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida this day of April

IIIICHTI.E TOII/BIN SII{GER

HON. MICHELE TOWBCIRCUIT COURT

Copiesfuuighod to:Steve Kohn, 3841 N. 5l$ Avenue, Hollpvood, Florida330}lStacey S. Fisher, Esq., 277 5 Sunny Isles Blvd., Suite 100, Miami, Florida 33 160-4007

a>'.+-: }*ii;:a-t:

Page 4 of 4

-G

61

61

62

62

63

63

TN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORTDA

caseNo.: ll- l3VDivision: 5q

ORDER EXTENDING IN{UCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAII\ST: ' H( ) DOMESTTC VTOLENCE (p"l nrprAT VIOLENCE ( ) DATING VIOLENCE -n*( ) SEXUALVTOLET\CE Fi" :)i,<

THIS CAUSE camebefore the Cour t on {date} f- ( 8 I q, upon Petitioner's

motion for an extension of injunction for protection and it appearing to the Court as follows:

"/E Ex parte. The claims in the motion for extension of injunction for protection make it appear

to the Court that there is an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, orsexual violence, as required under section 74I.30 or section 784.046, Florida Statutes. The

previously entered injunction is extended until {date} t{-tS' ! f . A full hearing

on the petition is scheduled for {darc} Va S-{ / at t :3O u.*.@ i,Room frZO , Broward County Courihouse,2}l S.E. 6th Street, Fort Laudildale,Florida 33301.

NOTICE: Because this is a civil case, there is no requirement that these proceedings be

transcribed at public expense.

YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IN THIS COURT:

a. A court reporter is provided by the court.

f{ b. Electronic audio tape recording only is provided by the court. A parly may

arrange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a writtentranscript of the proceedings at thatparty's expense.

c. If this is a repeat violence, dating violence, or sexual violence action, no.1."t oni. ,rdio tape recording or Lourt reporting ,.*i.., are provided by the court. A parfymay afiange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a writtentranscript of the proceedings at the party's expense.

A RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES A TRANSCRIPT, MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ANAPPEAL. THE PARTY SEEKING THE APPEAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING THE

Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, RepeatViolence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)

64

64

TRANSCRIPT PREPARED BYA COURT REPORTER. THE TRANSCRIPT MUST BE FILEDWITH THE REVIEWTNG COURT OR THE APPEAL MAY BE DENIED.

If you are aperson with disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate inthis proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance.

Please contact{name } A.D.A Information

{address} Broward Countv Courthouse ,{telephone} (.954) 83I-6364 ,

within 2 working days of your receipt of this order. If you are hearing or voice impaired, callTdd 1-800-9ss-877t.

After notice and hearing. Respondent was served with a copy of the temporary injunction,if applicable, and a notice of this hearing within the time required by Florida law and wasafforded an opportunity to be heard. The notice and opportunity to be heard were sufficientto protect Respondent's right to due process. The following persons attended the hearing:( ) Petitioner ( ) Respondent.

After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consentof Respondent, the Court finds that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat violence,dating violence, or sexual violence or reasonably fears that helshe will become a victim ofdating violence from Respondent. The previously entered injunction is extended until{date} , or until fuither order of the Court.

ORDERED on l*{ g*f t

COPIES TO: JUDGE I\NICHAELG. KAPIjH

by U.S. Mailby hand delivery in open court (Petitioner mustacknowledge receipt in writing on face of theoriginal order

- see below)

forwarded to sheriff for service

Sheriff of CountyPetitioner (or his or her attorney):

-rF

Respondent (or his or her attorney):

--6by hand delivery in open court (Respondent mustacknowledge receipt in writing on face of the

original order

- see below)

by certified mail (may only be used whenRespondent is present at the hearing and

respondent fails or refuses to acknowledge thereceipt of certified copy of this injunction)

State Attorney's Office

Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, RepeatViolence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)

CIRCUTT JUDGE

65

65

Other:

I CERTIFY the foregoing is a true copy of the original as it appears on file in the office ofthe Clerk of the Circuit Couft of Broward County, Florida, and that I have fuinished

is order as indicated above.

iEAL)r "'if,(

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I, {Name of Respondent}of a certifled copy of this Injunction

.*,:'oa 11,,1, * , acknowledge receipt

'. ":. r' i,/.,'i: _ I t"

n ,.;'"1--'-

Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Fom 12.980(m), Order Extending Injuction for Protection Against Domestic, RepeatViolence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence (03/04)

66

66

Ho I lywo od P o lice Dep artment

CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: oznlt2olt t3:32

oce: 331101010821

Case Status: INACTIT/E

Offense: INFOfuMATION

Case Mng Status: i,/l Occured: l1/29/2010

lnvestigator: VALENTIN, D. (3240)

Supervisor: FERGUSON, W. (1841)

Contact: Reference: Follow Up

ON THE ABOVE DATE AND TIME THE COMPLAINANT RETURNED TO HOLLYWOOD POLICEDEPARTMENT PID TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF T}IE ABOVE INCIDENT. TTM VICTIMSTATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN GETTING E-MAIL FROM HER NEIGIIBORS, COPMS THAT I OBSERVED,PROVIDING INFORMATION OF THE COMPLAINANTS DAILY ACTTVITIES. THE COMPLAINANTSSTATED THAT SHE BELMVES THAT HER NEIGI{BORS HAS BEEN CONDUCTING BACKGROUNDINVESTIGATION OF HER. TIIE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT SHE WILL GO TO COURT TO OBTAIN ANINJTINCTION ORDER FROM THE JUDGE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION

Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22: I4:16, Tuesday

Supervisor Review Date / Time: 01/25/2011 22:45:42, Tuesday

r supp3 Page 567

67

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TT{E SEVENTEE}.ITH JUDICTAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR BBOVABD-_ COLINTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: DVCE 11-t34Division: 59 Michael Kaplan

SANDRA EINEIORNPetitioner,

and

STEVE KOTIN. ,

Respondent.

Ei..-i -_-

*-a

Ttrr is ord er vacates order extend in gEFi u nctiont

dated 1/[8/11. ;'r:.r:-,: :.*-l'..1 r--:,i-.: E

t\J<J

.-rJ",.',1,

4!

I

a \ ,'!ar_--4.r i . I

t$-

.b;*,i*J f)(f| i-rtGR.DER SETTING EIEARING ON PETITTON FOR, ENJUNCTHOT'{

FOR PROTECTTGN,A.GAINST( ) DOMESTTC VTOLENCE ( X ) REPEAT VIOLENCE ( ) DATING VIOLENCE

( ) sExuAL VHOLENCEWITI{OUT HSSUANCE GF AN TNTERtrM TEiUPORARY IN.TUNCTTON

The Fetition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence filed under section 741.30,

Florida Statutes, or Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence under section 784.046, FloridaStatutes, has been reviewed. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject rnatter. ATernporary Injunctiol for Protection Against Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence, pending the hearing

scheduled below, is NOT being entered at this time but an injunction may be entered after the hearing,

depending on the frndings made by the Court atthattime.

FINDTNGS

The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the rnatter, do

not demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence or that Petitioner has

reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic or dating

violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporaryt

Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence prior to a hearing. A hearing

is scheduled on the Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual

Violence in section II of this Order. Petitioner lnay amend or supplement the Petition rt any time to state

further reasons why a Temporary lnjunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing

scheduled below.

NOTICE OF EIEARING

Petitioner and Respondent are ordered to appear and testiff at a hearing on the Petition for Injunction

for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence an {date} 84/ld,l1l, ?t l:30a.m./p.m.at{loca.tiorl.JudEeMichaelKaplan_,W,201'sE6thSkeet,FortL,auderdale, Florida, at which time the Court will consider whether a Final Judgment of Injunction fcrr

Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence should be entered. lf entered, the injunctionwillremainirreffectuntilafixeddatesetbytheCourtoruntilrnodifiedordissolvedbytheCourt.Atthphearing, the Court will determine whether other ttrings should be ordered, including, for example, such,tnatters

:'t

Florida Supreme Court Approved Farnily Larv Form 12.980(bXl), Order Setting Hearing on Petition for Injunetion for Protection Against Dotnestic

Viotence, Repeat Violence. Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence rvithout Issuance of an Interim Ternporary In-iunction (03104) :i

i.,:r:

f -.)

68

68

c____)

tr<t__-J

r___l

IT.T TIIE CIR-CUIT CCURT OF TI-,;E

iTT- J_I'DICA]L CIRCUIT, TIT1 AND

FCR BROWAJR-D CCLI}ITY, FLCP,']DA

case ru" / /* /3{

CLERK,SCERTIFICAT,EoFCOIUPLIA]{CE

seciion 741.30 Florida statutes (Domesiic Violence)

Section 7 84.046 Florida Statutes (Repeat Violence)

section 784.0+6Floric'a Statutes @r,ing violence)

seciicn 784.O46F1orid-a StatL:-tes (Sexual Violence)

I IIEREBY CERTIFY thal on

L--J TernPorarY iajunction

(----l Final Judgment

t--j E:lensionA{otice of Heariag

t--_) Vacated

t___j

rvas foiwarded or mailed within 24 hours from the time of its entry to the sheriffreceiving the original

noti-fication of the iajunction, to wit:

AgencyName:

l\) :._-r-: E ,:a,,:- i-li J; '.-..,(J1"- *r'.Ei*=* -.n-e.-ii= F? i.::E=:i-." T, .,')ac'# fr

=ft *n.*-

:: :;'ilj (Jl ii'-'-:r' '

:'li ':iq

:': ,,. .. -Ur.-i - q; f*l""it ' ...j *h .:*_*:

f"" (' I -:J.:j t

sEh $ *l:;ii di:[--r c4 c]tE, fn

(Check one):a copy of 'rhe

Dismissal

Other:

Pe-r-itioner

R-espondent

Address:

d C. Forman, CLERK

Deputy Clerk

DOh'ES T VIOL i 2 3 - 5 2 CEFJIFICATE OF CO]"PLIAN CE

69

69

Subject: Public Records help request


Date: 1/5/2012 7:21 PM

To: [email protected]

CC: David Low <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Pat

Gleason <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]

Lt. Weatherford,

Copied on this note is Pat Gleason of the Florida Attorney General's office in hopesthat Ms. Gleason can help you understand that you are required to provide the requestedrecords.

I received a phone call this afternoon from Alicia in records telling me the recordsrequested below were ready. I came and picked them up, and the complete packet ofrecords is attached as a PDF, with the sole exception of a DVD recording of the searchwarrant being served, which was provided with the records.

When I stated "I would like to request complete copies of ALL records that relate tothis investigation, including any meeting notes, NCIC printouts, internal summaries,photographs, inventory lists, and so forth. Every record of every kind.", I did notthink there was ambiguity.

Based on the packet you have provided, I conclude that there were no meetings, no NCICprintouts, no investigation, no testing of materials seized, and so forth. I alsoconclude that whereas your search warrant affidavit states that a subpoena existed, thatthere was never a subpoena. I also conclude that the alleged victim never reported thatthere was a restraining order which was violated. I also conclude that there were noemails from the alleged victim as the affidavit states.

Please clarify if this packet is the totality of1) what Hollywood Police used to obtain a search warrant2) all of the investigation reports and results3) all of the 'evidence' collected4) all of the internal communications about this matter

If this is truly everything, I'm looking forward to a day in Federal Court where you canexplain how based on absolutely nothing other than these slim reports you obtained asearch a warrant and lied on the affidavit by saying that things existed which did not.

Assuming this is not truly everything, I once again respectfully request to be providedwith the records.

I have requested and want copies of the following:1) ALL data of every kind that relates to this case in any way2) that data will include all internal communications between Hollywood City employeesor contractors, and all external communications between any Hollywood City employee andoutside agencies, such as the United States Secret Service, or any third parties whichmight have been consulted with regarding any aspect of this case3) ALL information referred to in the search warrant affidavit, including but notlimited to the NCIC printout, the 88 emails, the complaint from Sandra Einhorn statingshe had a restraining order that was being violated, copies of ALL of the photos thatwere allegedly only in existence on Einhorn's computer, and a timeline showing whichcomputers were inspected on what dates/times that will show how you complied with thelast paragraph of page 6 on the Affidavit, wherein HPD acknowledges a business is on thecomputers and that every effort was indeed taken to expedite the investigations andreturn the computers expeditiously one by one.

PublicRecordshelprequest imap://imap.googlemail.com:993/fetch>UID>/Lawsuit>670?heade...

1of4 7/11/20122:07PM

70

70

Subject: Copy of restraining order requested

From: Alicia Fernandez-Davis <[email protected]>

Date: 1/11/2012 10:59 AM

To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>

Good morning Mr. Kohn,

Attached please find a copy of the restraining order you requested as part of your

public records request.

Thank you.

Alicia

Attachments:

[email protected]_20120111_104854.pdf 92.4 KB

Copyofrestrainingorderrequested

1of1 7/11/20122:08PM

71

71

72

72

73

73

74

74

Ho llywoo d Police D epartm ent

CASE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Printed: 07 /l8l20ll 13:32

oce: 337104061998

,, TT INFoRMATION BEIpw IS CoNFIDENTLAL FoR USE BT A\IffioRtzED pERsoNNEL oNLy ,,Case Status: INACTII/E

Offense: TRESPASSING

Case Mng Status: INACTII/E Occured: 04/23/2011

Investigator: PLUMMER, P. (3221)

Supervisor: ANDRANIS, P. (1930)

Contact: Reference: Follow Up

ON 0412412011, I RESPONDED TO 3821 N 51ST AVE IN REFERENCE TO A NEIGHBOR DISPUTE. I MADECONTACT WITH SANDRA EINHORN. Sr{E STATED THAT TODAY r{ER NEIGr{BOR (3841 N 51 AVE),STEVE KOHN'S CHILDREN AND V/IFE WERE TRESPASSING ON I{ER PROPERTY AND RANG HER DOORBELL AND WERE RI]NNING AROUND IN I{ER FRONT YARD. SIIE EXPLAINED THAT SIIE DOES HAVE ATEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (COtrRT CASE #DVCE-I t-2439) ON STEVE KOHN, BUT NOT HrSWIT'E OR CHILDREN. SANDRA DOES I{AVE VIDEO OF TODAY'S INCIDENT AND WILL BRING T}IEVIDEO TO SHOW TI{E JUDGE AT T}IE FINAL I{EARING FOR TIIE RESTRAINING ORDER IN MAY. I GAVEA VERBAL WARNING TO TIM RESIDENTS OF 3841 N 51ST AVE TO STAY OF OFF SANDRA'S PROPERTY.

Date / Time: 04/24/20 I I I 5 : 28: 3 3, Sunday

Supervisor Review Date / Time: 04/24/2bt t 20:24:35, Sunday

Page 575

75

-IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: DVCE ll-2439Division: 59

SANDRA JRST] EINHORN n*Trl*r >1, r d

i. lr.:.Petitioner,

and

iil

i-1

t-*-,'-ij

c-)l.t

:DF-E

Lt1

for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence on {date} 5l2lll , at 1:30 4/p.m)at {location}-Judee M. KAPLAN ,3@[-$70, 201 SE 6th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Fhffiat which time the Court will consider whether a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic,Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence should be entered. If entered, the injunction will remain in effect until a

fixed date set by the Court or until modified or dissolved by the Court. At the hearing, the Court will determine

whether other things should be ordered, including, for example, such matters as visitation and support. Il;i

If Petitioner and/or Respondent do not appear,orders may be entered, including the impqsition'+*f

court costs or an injunction.

Florida Supreme Court Approved Farnily law Form 12.980(bXl), Order Sefting Hearing on Petition for Injunction for Protection Againsl.Pomestic ,

Violence, Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence without Issuance ofan Interirn Temporary Injunction (03/04) ' l.ri

, (r)

0trDSTEVE KOHN

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON PETITION FOR INJUNCTIONFOR PROTECTION AGAINST &-

( )DOMESTTC ITOLENCE ( X)REPEATVTOLENCE ( )DATINGVIOTTTpE( ) sExuAL VIOLENCE B=i

WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF AN INTERIM TEMPORARY INJUNCTIOff"II ';

The Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence filed under sectibn 741.WFlorida Statutes, or Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, or Sexual Violence under section 78a.fiafflorffiStatutes, has been reviewed. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matt$F'ff ::Temporary lniunction for Protection Against Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence, pending thBhbarinfjscheduled below, is NOT being entered at this time but an injunction may be entered after the hearing,

depending on the findings made by the Court at that time.

FINDINGS

The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the matter, do

nct demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic, rcpeat, dating, or sexual violence or that Fetitioner has

reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic or datingviolence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a TemporaryInjunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence prior to a hearing. A hearingis scheduled on the Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual

Violence in section II of this Order. Petitioner may amend or supplement the Petition at any time to state

further reasons why a Temporary Injunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearingscheduled below.

NOTICE OF HEARING

Petitioner and Respondent are ordered to appear and testify at a hearing on the Petition for Injunction

F i[iT

76

76

77

77

78

78

79

79

I l*oq alsFl u

PAGE 1GENERAL AEEIDAVIT AND APPI.ICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

IN T}IE CIRCUIT COT]RT OF TIIE SEYENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND F'ORBROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL AT'F'IDAVIT AI\[D APPLICATIONFOR SEARCH WARRANT

STATEOF FLORTDA ))ss

CoUNTYoFBROWARD )

BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, THE HONORABLE Judge Marcia Beach, Judge ofthe Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward Cormty, State of Florida,personally came Detective ROBERT KNAPP #2536, of the Hollywood Police Departrnent, whoafter being first duly swom, deposes and says:

DESCRIPTIOI+OF PREMISES TO BE SEARCIIED:

A residential house, any detached structues, and any registered vehicles on the propertylocated at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State ofFlorida. The residence is a concrete biock construction single family residence. The exteriorwalls are painted tan with a terra cotta barrel tile roof. The blue front exterior door faces westbetween two decorative off white colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The residencehas a circular driveway $iith a two car gamge. The address number "3841" is afExed to theexterior wall facing west above the garage doors.

The location in question can be reached from I-95, to west on Sterling Road, to south onSarazen Drive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of3841 North51 Avenue'

'il't:' -sAll electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated periphq-BL locefrwithin the residence listed above at 3841 North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollyw@Qi$""Sf 'Broward, and the State of Florida ,t,->-i -*- *

--s<*' cd i-;

-:r,, \ C.)-.!- -+ €,-- ii

3

Page 1 of9

80

80

PAGE 2GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION

STATUTE(S) BEING VIOLATED:

Aggravated Stalking

PROPERTY SOUGHT:

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

ll- oYs iS(lo

F.s.s .784.048 (1) (d) (4)

Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search ofanyof tle listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.

1 . Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software andhardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computer printers,modems, tape drives, disk appiication programs, data disks, system disk operatingsystems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and hard drive andother computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computer photographs,graphic interchange forrnats and/or photographs, digital cameras, slides, scanners or othervisua.l depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment which may be or are usedto visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

2. Any and all electronic equipment thalis capable of accessing the intemet and./or thesending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones andtablet computers, pertaining to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

3. Any and all correspondence, in elechonic, printed or any other form, pertaining toaggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

4. Any and a"ll mziterials and photographs, either electronic, printed or any otlgq form,conceming aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4). S; H

5rE

5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, storeffifaiffiq -r,the evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or stdfiH :* ftcommunications described in the affidavit. S.S,i ; 5

'..-!e -= 56. Files and data on the computer that show the suspect's ownership, posselffin and;- -{control at time of the offense. '- - -i.. [r.}

C}

7 . kry and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:Steven Kohn [email protected], Rebecca Kohn (reUecca@amniqvseffc ), Mike boy

(mitceyUoyg1a@hotma ),sandra.veszi@)rahoo.com,HannahKohn

([email protected]), and Hinda Esther Kohn ([email protected]).

Page2 of9

81

81

J l-oVst J Ftt

PAGE 3

GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

8. Encrllpted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of theinformation listed in previous paragraphs.

GROUI\DS FOR ISSUANCE:

u t . "u;t1t:If-rflitrIentalitv, or

committed is contained therein.Evidence relevant to proving atherein.

means by which a felony has been

felony has been committed is contained

F.S. 933.02: (Non-Dwel1ing). (2) Properfy has been used as a means to commit any crime.. (3) Property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that-a*felony has

been committed.

i--: 1l t\,

-U-\)'-b

c:!' * ?.-- ' ...*- -\ t-i]. : 'r'_, fq

-rr,r-,f 'l # -T-;a#n - rr*i

r\.,-.Y r= ..- r--,*=-: b ;-< !,,! ? d*t_-1 ^.F: -i-<;:'*

- *\

" .r_...J r

tt

.-;;.il (.o:l-_i ft

Page 3 of9

82

82

ll-cV3l Sfia

PAGE 4

GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT

PROBA.BLE CAUSE:

Affitant's reason for his beliefthat the laws of the State ofFlorida are being violated as stated above

and the facts establishing the grounds for this Affidavit and the probable cause for believing that such facts

exist are as follows:

Detective Alex Perez is assigned as the lead investigator to t}lis case. He described that the victim,

Sandra Veszi Einlorn alleges the suspect Steven Kohn and his wife Renee Kohn have been continually

harassing her and her husband over the course ofthe past several months. She alleges the harassment

commenced on or about 1 1/2812010 when she made a complaint about the livestock they keep at the rear

of their property. Shortly afterwards, the victim began receiving harassing messages via facebook.com and

her e-mail address of [email protected].

An 01/0712011, victirn Einhom applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,

restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interfering with, or stalking the

victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18201 1 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this

order on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court date of 04/15/201 1.

The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on '.-l: E.-.=,OZl23/2Oll and the dates listed were confirmed. ;l .f :: *c.:;E a- il

During the time period of 0l/ I 2/201 1 through 04/1 1/201 1, ar least eighty-ejght (8S Seftronic ;11_ ".r;_i = =mail messases (e-maiD were sent to the victim at [email protected] from various e-d6lBdreE&s. 1.

This time period was within the time period the protection order was active. Vtany of ttre}4qait messigesc)

are addressed from Steve Kohn. Listed below are tlle email addresses (and names, if available) of the e-

mails that were sent to victim:

Fage 4 of9

83

83

ll-DY 3l srl a

PAGE 5GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION EOR SEARCH WARRANT

Steven Kohn [email protected]

Rebecca Kohn (rqbpqaa@effuiih/searqh.com)

Mike boy (lo1kq&ay&!4@hatmailpa!0)

sandra.veszi@lahoo. com

Hannah Kohn ([email protected])

Hinda Esther Kohn ([email protected])

Many of the e-mails from Steven Kohn Gsb!@14aet sqra) were regarding victim Einhom's

appearance. The remmks in the e-mai1 referred to having seen victim Einhorn on that day and included

attached pictures related to the content ofthe e-mails. The author repeatedly criticized victim Einhom's

personal appearance or attirc. Additional e-mails from the same internet potocol addrcss were regarding

the victim's vehicle (an Audi), and how some Gemans misteated the Jews during the World War tr era.

In particular, one of the e-mails wamed she had a front left flat tirc and rJrat "cmeful it's dangerous" and

another ten (10) e-mails with videos depicting an Audi, similar to victim Einhom's, either involved in a

crash or on fire (attached copies are provided). These e-mails in particular, were sent durine the. time tSabove listed protection order was in effect, which frightenerl and intimidated UcUm finhom:iile aaaAf

la j:: (-that many of the photographs seart to her were not publicly available on the internet ana sne$$lg6iea $ -lsomeone hacked into her computer to obtain thern. Sib ..r- FF=;+F

Detective Perez and your affiant examined the header information for each of theg"Eilr. fr :i

- :i:

discovered that they were all sent from the intemet protocol (IP) address of 65.34.193.158. "This ad$ss

was researched using the American Regisky for Intemet Numbers (ARIN). ARIN provides sen ices

related to the technical coordination and management of internet number resources. A semch on their

website of the IP address 65.34.193.15 8 revealed this was one of a set of IP addresses that belong to

Comcast Cable Comrnunications Holdings, Inc. A subpoena was drafted and approved by the Broward

county state attomey's oIEce on 04/2912011 requesting the information for some of the e-mails sent. Arequest for the entire time frame was not made, due to the possibility of a great deal of subscribers assigned

to this dynamically assigned IP address. The subpoena was submitted to Comcast Communications on the

same date. On 05/18/2011, Comcast retumed the subpoena to Detective Perez indicating the IP address

Page 5 of9

84

84

tl-DLf SlStto

PAGE 6GENERAL AFEIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

65.34.193.158 is a dlmamically assigned IP address and that for the time period where many of the above

e-mails were sent, the IP address belonged to a commercial account registered to search affinity executive

out of 3841 n 5 1't Ave in Hollywood, Florida. This is the home address for Steve and Renee Kohn, the

suspects in question. This IP address has also been assigned to this customer, without intemrption, from

the time period of 0412912011through 0511812011. Additionally, one of the e-mail addresses,

[email protected], specifically appears to be affiliated with the business name on the account.

Finally, one of the e-mail addresses used, sandra.veszi@)zahoo.com, is very similar to the victim's

e-mail address of [email protected]. It appears to have been created to harass the victim and to

masquerade the identrty of the person sending the intimidating e-mails.

kr light of concerns that may arise that the iisted home business may be hindered without the use

of their computer system(s) while a forensic examination is conducted, your affiant assures the Court that

every effort will be made to expedite the forensic examination and retum any system(s), e_lpeditiously ifafter the forensic exam determines that no evidence was found in such system(s).

q*- j-:'t

E

,5-:.-r k-.l-r . nr \k

=:,*.,, F'j B

--':- ( ) -r,,.1il-"1 1..)/-'-/*

:;=,; >JF .r 'i -F.-+

- ra -r*L

-\ 'lw' E,\!: ! k

,-;, r l

r-l -':i; (-t)'-r c)

-Jt

\-J

Page 6 of9

85

85

t I - o'/sisvlo

PAGE 1

GENERAL AFF]DAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

EXPERIENCE A}{D TRAINING OF AIT'IANTS

Your affiant is a certified police officer with the City of Hollywood, Florida Police Departrnent

and has been so employed for 15 years. Your affiant has been a detective for 9 years and is cgrrently

assigned to The Economrc Crimes Unit (Specializing in Computer Crimes). Your affiant has been a swom

law enforcement officer since 1988 in the State of Florida. Your affiant's responsibilities include

rnvestigating computer crimes, conducting computer acquisitions / forensics / analysis, conducting video /aud:ro acquisitions / forensics i analysis, and cellula phone / skinnner / pda / gps acquisitions / forensics /

analysis. Your affiant has successfully attended and completed over (1000) hours of specialized training in

the forensic anallsis of electronic digital media / computer systems, the use of colnputer systems to commit

or facilitate crimilal activity, the investigations of internet crimes, and the subsequent seizure and analysis

of those systerns. This included an (80) hour training gogram at The Federal Law Enforcernent Training

Center (FLETC) in Glenco, Georgia, a (200) hour training / certification program conducted by the

Departrnent of Defense and The United States Seoet Service titled "Electronic Crimes State and Local

Program @CSLP) -IRC-ENCASE" which focused on the techniques for the seizure, forepg& acquisi$on

and analysis of electronic data from computer systerns, a (80) hour training / certifcation fd:dlr" "E*

States Secret Semce Cellulm Phone Lab in Tulsa, OIg and an additional (80) hour rffi$t urEg I 1*,=c) __ l-rrcertification from The United States Secret Service Cellular Phone Lab in Tulsa, Ok whifrfi&bed 6a the r"-''

ectonic data from c"rrfi$o*$onErDevices, Skrmmer Devices, and GPS Devices. Yow affiant has investigated a wrde iirfie of c&rinal "

cases in which computer(s) and / or electronic device(s) was utilized as the means to commii feloq&?imes

as well as a means of storing relevant evidence to proving felony criminal crimes- Your afhant is a

federally deputized active member of the multi-jurisdictional Miami Electronics Crimes Task Force

CA4ECTF) consisting of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcernent Agencies. Said Task Force is headed

by the United States Secret Service and is engaged in the investigations of electronic crimes with a focus

on computer related investigations. Your affiant has participated in the execution of numerous search

v/arrants and was an affiant or co-affiant on a number of those warrants. Your affiant has successfully

performed numerous forensic acquisition and analysis of electronic data from corputer systerns for both

State and Federal cases which vrere seized for criminal investigations.

Page 7 of9

86

86

tl'- o\stsrl o

PAGE 8

GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

THE ROLE OF TIIE COMPUTER IN THE OFF'ENSE

Your affiant knows that computer hardware, software, and electronic files may be important to a criminalinvestigation in two distinct ways: (1) the objects themselves may be contraband, evidence,instrumentalities, or fruits of crime, and/or (2) the objects may be used as storage devices that containcontraband, evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of crime in the form of electronic data. In this case, thewarrant application requests permission to search and seize data related to aggravated stalking, includingthose that may be stored on a computer. This data constitutes evidence of crime. This aftrdavit alsorequests permission to seize the computer hardware that may contain the data related to aggravatedcyberstalking. Your affiant believes that, in this case, the computer hardware is a container for evidenceand also itself an instrumentality ofthe crime under investigation.

I{ECESSITY TO REMOVE COMPUTERFROM PREI\{ISES

Based upon your affiant's knowledge, training and experience, your afFlant knows that searching andseizing information from computers often requires agerts-to seize most or all electronic storage devices(along with related peripherals) to be searched later by a qualified computer expert in a laboratory or othercontrolled environmeni. This is true because ofthe following:

.?rl ts( I ) The volume of evidence. Computer storage devices (like hard disk, diskettes, tapes, ,Ia.ffi disksfranstore the equivalent of millions of pages of information. Additionally, a suspect mayi+d JS copal . .

criminal evidence; he or she might store it in random order with deceptive file names. Iffi&riy r.Fire r.'isearching authorities to examine all the stored data to determine which particular nf es &Sfliaen6B or Iinstrumentalities of crime- This sorting process can take weeks or months, depending € ffie'irohift of Udata stored, and it would be impractical and invasive to attempt this kind of data searct onip&

= -i

:F G)(2) Technical Requirements. Searching computer systems for criminal evidence is a hiihly tecFnicalprocess requiring expert skill and a properly controlled environment. The vast array of computer hardwareand software available requires eyen computer experts to specialize in some systems and applications, so itis difftcult to know before a search which expert is qualified to analyze the system and its data. In anyevent, however, data search protocols are exacting scientific procedures designed to protect the integrity ofthe evidence and to recover even "hidden," erased, compressed, password-protected, or encrypted files.

Page 8 of9

87

87

ll oL{ zls({r

PAGE 9GENERAL AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

FOR SEARCH WARRANT

Because computer evidence is vulnerable to inadvertent or intsntional modification or deskuction (bothfrom external sources or from destructive code imbedded in the system as a "booby trap"), a controlledenvironment may be necessary to complete an accurate analysis. Further, such searches often require theseizure of most or all of a computer system's input/output peripheral devices, related software,documentation, and data security devices (including passwords) so that a qualified computer expert canaccurately retrieve the system's data in a laboratory or other conkolled enyironment.

h light of these concerns, your affiant hereby requests the Court's permission to seize the

contents of the computer hardware (and associated peripherals) that are believed to contain some

or all of the evidence described in the waffant, and to conduct an off-site search of the hardware

for the evidence described.

WHEREFORE, your AIfiant hereby makes application for a Search Warant authorizing theAffiants, Police Officers for The Cii,- of Hollywood, Broward County, Florid4 with proper andnecessary assistance, to include but not limited to The United States Secret Service and membersof The Miami Electronic Crimes Task Force, to search the above described prertdse ing$edalimeinighttime or on Sunday, and to seize any and all of the aforesaid propgrft foun@yvirtue of such Search Warrant and to list the properry seized on a retum and invent#mh $O _within this Judicial Circuit within ten days of this date. d-!B rfi

0-/ /, k"'-*oE#-rl 5AFFIANT Detective Robgfl/Knapp#36 :*- -''-

,=cr-= 3

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED beforeme at Fort Lauderdale, p,rcwardCounty, Florida, this -f dayoRx,lttxA- . A.D. 20\t.

UJUDGE OF THE CIRCTIIT COI'RT

Page 9 of9

88

88

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THESEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORTDA )

couNTY oF BROWARD )

)SS

SEARCH WARRANT

IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO ALL AND SINGULAR:

The Chief of Police of the City of Hollywood, of Broward County, Florida, and his

officers, specifically Detective Robert Knapp.

Aftidavit having been made before me by Detective Robert Knapp, of the City of

Hollywood Police Department, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida that they have

probable cause to know and they do know that on or about the premises described as:

A residential house, any detached structures, and any registered vehicles on the propertylocated at384l North 51 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, and the State ofFlorida. The residence is a concrete block construction single family residence. The exteriorwalls are painted tan with ateruacotta barrel tile roof, The blue front exterior door faces westbetween two decorative offwhite colored shutters attached to the exterior wall. The resideneehas a circular driveway with a two car garuge. The address numb er "3841" is affixed to theexterior wall facing west above the garage doors.The location in question can be reached from l-95,to west on Sterling Road, to south on SarazenDrive, to east on North 41 Street, to south on North 51 Avenue to address of 3841North 51Avenue.

All electronic storage devices, computer hardware (and associated peripherals), locatedwithin the residerrce, any detached skuctures, and any registered vehicles listed above at 3B4lNorth 5 1 Avenue, in the City of Hollywood, County of Broward, ffid the State of Florida.

The following grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant, as required by chapter 933,exists, to wit: the law relating to Aggravated Stalking F.S.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4), has beenviolated, and property constituting evidence relevant to proving that such a Felony has beencornmitted may be found therein, to wit:

89

89

PAGE TWOSEARCITWARRANT

Your affiant seeks to seize the below-described evidence and to conduct a forensic search ofany of the listed items that may be in electronic or digital format.

1. Any and all tapes, cassettes, cartridges, streaming tape, commercial software andhardware, computer disks, disk drives, flash memory drives, monitors, computerprinters, modems, tape drives, disk application programs, data disks, system diskoperating systems, magnetic media floppy disks, electronic mail, tape systems and harddrive and other computer-related operation equipment, in addition to computerphotographs, graphic interchange formats and/or photographs, digital Gameras, slides,scanners or other visual depictions of such graphic interchange format equipment whichmay be or are used to visually depict aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

2. Any and all electronic equipment that is capable of accessing the intemet and/or thesending and receiving of electronic mail to include but not limited to cellular phones andtablet computers, pertaining to aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

3. Any and all conespondence, in electronic, printed or any other form, pertaining toaggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

4. Any and all materials and photographs, either electronic, printed or any other form,concerning aggravated stalking F.S. 784.048 (1) (d) (4).

5. Any and all software that may be utilized create, receive, distribute, store, or modifythe evidence sought and all software that may be used to communicate or storecommunications described in the affidavit.

6. Files and data on the computer that show the suspeot's ownership, possession andcontrol at time of the offense.

7. Any and all electronic mail from the following names and/or email addresses:

Steven Kohn [email protected], Rebecca Kohn , Mike boy

(m ikevbov8 1 4@hotmai I. comt, sand ra. veszi@vahoo. com, Hannah Kohn

, ffid Hinda Esther Kohn

8. Encrypted, deleted and unallocated files on electronic media that contain any of theinformation listed in previous paragraphs.

90

90

NOW THEREFORE, the facts upon which the belief of said affiant is based as set out in saidAffidavit are hereby deemed sufficient to show probable cause for the issuance of a SearchWarrant in accordance with said application of said Affiant.

And as I am satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the laws of the State ofFlorida are being violated as aforesaid and that the above described property is beingconcealed within the above described residence, I expressly find probable cause for theissuance of this Search Warrant.

THIS lS, THEREFORE to command me, Detective Robert Knapp, Police Officer for the City ofHollywood, Broward County, Florida, with proper and necessary assistance, to include but notlimited to The United States Secret Service and members of The Miami Electronic CrimesTask Force, to search the above described location, serving this warrant and making the searchin the daytime or the nighttime, or on Sunday, as the exigencies of the occasion may demandor require, with the proper and necessary assistance, and if the property above described befound there, to seize it, Ieaving a copy of this warrant and a receipt for the property taken and toprepare a written inventory of the property seized and return this warrant and inventory andbring the property before a court having competent jurisdiction of the offense within (10) daysas required by law.

DONE AND ORDERED at 4ilswstL , Florida,<t

on thi= (''day iJ-J-- , 2011 .

CIRCUIT JUDGE MARCIA BEACH

91

91

City of Hollywood Police Department

INVENTORY AND RETURN ON SEARCH WARRANT

Case #

Received this warrant on

on

20 and executed the same

, 20- at _ _m. by delivering a true copy

thereof to and at the same time showing this original

search warrant and reading it to and explaining to

the contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search

I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the propefi appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.

Sworn to and subscribed before methis _ day of ,20

Signature

Witness to the removal of the above items

WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-3110,/02)

Signature

92

92



Case #


on


, 20- at _ _m. by delivering a true copy




I found:

t, the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.

Sworn to and subscribed before methis _ day of ,2O

Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311(12102)

Signature

93

93



Case #


on,20_and executed the same

20_ at _ _m. by delivering a true copy




I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.


Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311 1AO2)

Signature

94

94



Case #


on


, 20-_ at _ _m. by delivering a true copy


.""r.h *"rr"ntrnd r""dlng !tto"nd "*pl"inlns

lothe contents thereof, and by making diligent search as herein directed, upon which search

I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinventory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.

Sworn to and subscribed before methis _ day of ,20-'

Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311(12n21

Signature

95

95



Case #

,20_and executed the sameReceived this warrant on

on ,20- at _ _m. by delivering a true copy




I found:

t, , the Officer by whom this warrant was executed do swear that the aboveinvenlory contains a true and detailed account of all the property, appliances, apparatus, paraphernaliaand devices taken by me on said warrant.


Signature


WHITE - Records YELLOW - Clerk's Office PINK - Owner22-311('t2lO2)

Signature

96

96

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE: THE MATTER OF: CRIMINAL DIVISION STEVEN KOHN _________________________/

MOTION TO QUASH AND TRAVERSE SEARCH WARRANT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW, STEVEN KOHN, by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby

moves this Honorable Court pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution, Article I, § 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23 of the Constitution of the

State of Florida, and Chapter 933, Fla. Stat., to quash a certain search warrant, allow a traverse of

the Search Warrant to occur challenging the truthfulness of the affidavit in which the warrant

relies, or in the alternative, for a protective order and as ground thereof states as follows:

1. Defendant stands accused by Officers of the City of Hollywood for the alleged

violation of Florida Statute 784.048 (1)(d)(4) entitled Aggravated Stalking in sworn testimony

under oath by Detective Robert Knapp #2536.

2. The Search Warrant was subject to the following requirements:

a. Must be issued by a neutral disinterested magistrate. Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175;

b. Those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate the existence of

probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension of

conviction for particular offense Merrill v. State, 849 So. 2d 1175; and

c. Warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized as well as the place to be

searched. Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979).

97

97

3. The Fourth Amendment, the Florida Constitution, and Florida Statutes (§ 923.04

and 923.05) provide that no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or

affirmation, in particular describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be

seized. A search warrant is issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the

legitimate object of the search is located in a particular place. Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204

(1981). The reason cited must be sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a crime has been

committed, and, as long as a neutral magistrate has a substantial basis for concluding that a

search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the probable cause requirement is satisfied.

Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1991).

4. A basic principle is that searches and seizures inside a constitutionally protected

area without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740

(1984).

5. Statutes and rules authorizing searches and seizures are strictly construed and

affidavits and warrants issued pursuant to such authority must meticulously conform to statutory

and constitutional provisions. State v. Quigg, 17 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1944).

6. The reviewing court, judge, or magistrate, must make sure that a magistrate had a

substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S.

727 (1984); McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Whether an affidavit

supporting a search warrant sufficiently supports a probable cause finding must be determined

within its four corners. State v. Starks, 633 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The burden is on the

state to prove that the police had probable cause for a search and seizure. Doctor v. State, 596 So.

2d 442 (Fla. 1992).

98

98

7. A defendant in the proceeding has the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte issuance of a search warrant to challenge the

truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant. Mason v. State,

375 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Jacobs, 320 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

8. Under the circumstances in this matter, the search warrant would have been

issued pursuant to Section 933.02(3) which provides that a search warrant may be issued when

any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.

9. Even where the search warrant can be found properly issued, an exception exists

to evidence seized which is “testimonial” or “communicative” in nature; such evidence is

considered tantamount to compelling the defendant to become a witness against himself in

violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. State v. Kircheis, 269

So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

10. It is believed that the target of the affidavit and warrant in this matter were

statements made in emails by Defendant which were communicative in nature showing

violations of aggravated stalking. Under Kircheis, such search would be unlawful because of the

nature of the items sought.

11. Further, regardless of whether the emails sought after by the City of Hollywood’s

Police Department were of the same communicative nature of those described in Kircheis, the

affidavit is completely void of any meaningful probable cause.

12. The affidavit alleges on its face the following:

On 01/07/2011, victim Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn, restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interfering with, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18/2011 and suspect Steve Kohn was served with this order on the same date. The order was active and set to expire on the assigned court date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified via NCIC/FCIC on

99

99

02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed.

(Emphasis Added) (Affidavit is attached as Exhibit “A”).

13. Defendant challenges the truth of the information contained in the warrant

Affidavit.

14. First, the Affiant left out the fact that at the time the search warrant was sought

and signed, victim Einhorn knew that the temporary injunction that was the crux of the alleged

law violation was denied. This is contrary to the Affiant’s sworn statement in which Affiant

verified that a valid injunction was in place at the time the search warrant was signed.

15. Under oath, Sandra Einhorn stated the following:

Q. And did the police officers of the Hollywood Police Department ever ask you, if you have a restraining order against Steve Kohn? A. The Hollywood Police knew that I had been unsuccessful in obtaining a restraining order against Steve Kohn. Q. So they knew that you were unsuccessful? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did they -- did they -- A. Or that's what I told them. Q. And did you ever lead them to believe to believe you had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A. No, it would be foolish to lead police into something that they could very easily figure out for themselves one way or another. Q. So your testimony is that you never told police you had a valid restraining order against Mr. Kohn? A. That is correct. Q. In fact, you told the police you did not have valid restraining order because it was denied? A. I told -- I called the police and I -- actually lost when the decision was made that I did not receive it. I did call Hollywood Police to let them know that I did not receive the restraining order. Yes, that is correct.

100

100

Einhorn v. Kohn, 10-048282 (18) (2011). (Attached is a copy of page ____ of the trial transcript in relevant part).

16. The Affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a

reckless disregard for the truth as Sandra Einhorn states under oath that the Hollywood Police

Department knew she had not obtained a restraining order.

17. The Affiant, Detective Robert Knapp, blatantly disregarded the truth when Sandra

Einhorn specifically told Hollywood Police she did not have a restraining order against Steven

Kohn and yet he still made a representation that he verified the restraining order. Supra.

18. The Affidavit lists Florida State 933.18(6) and Florida Statute 933.02 as grounds

for issuance of the Search Warrant. However, the underlying felony, aggravated stalking

pursuant to Fla. Stat. 784.048(1)(d)(4) that Defendant had been alleged to have violated, required

an injunction to be in place. Because there was no valid injunction, the warrant rested on perilous

probable cause grounds.

19. The Affidavit contained false and manufactured statements made in order to

achieve a willfull and reckeless violation of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be

protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.

20. Because the warrant rests on perilous probable cause grounds, the warrant must

be quashed as there is no crime under which it could be issued pursuant to F.S. 933.18(6) and

F.S. 933.02. Evidence seized under it ought to be suppressed at trial as well. F.S.A. Const.

Declaration of Rights, § 22. Also see Davis v. State, 113 Fla. 713, 152 So. 6 (1934).

21. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing (referred to as a "Franks

hearing;" Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667].) on this issue upon a

"substantial showing" that:

101

101

a. The affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made with a reckless disregard for the truth; and b. The affidavit's remaining contents are reevaluated after the false statements are excised to see if, as corrected, there is still sufficient evidence to justify a finding of probable cause. Frank v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 [57 L.Ed.2nd 667, 672]; precluding the cross-examination of the affiant until the necessary showing is made. See also People v. Wilson (1986) 182 Cal.App.3rd 742, 747; Theodor v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3rd 77, 103; People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3rd 67, 78; and People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297; People v. Lewis et al. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 989); and c. The affidavit contains information that is the direct product of a Fourth Amendment violation. (SeeP eople v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073.)

WHEREFORE, Steven Kohn prays this honorable Court quashed and/or traverse the

aforementioned warrant, or in the alternative, issue a protective order preventing the State of

Florida and the City of Hollywood Police Department from having access to, from examining,

testing, reading or otherwise using any copies of data taken from the Kohns’ illegally seized

items during the execution of the warrant pertaining to all items taken, described or not described

in the alleged search warrant because such search violates the protections afforded to Defendant

pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article

I §12 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the aforementioned Florida Statutes and Florida

case law because, among other things, a) there was no probable cause for the search of Steven

Kohn’s home; b) the probable cause was based on false, misleading or incomplete information;

c) the information on which the affidavit was made was unreliable. Defendant further requests

that this Court convene an evidentiary hearing in order to be able to determine the issues raised

by this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________ DAVID LOW, ESQ.

102

102

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed this _____ day of _____________, 2011 to the Hollywood Police Department 3250 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Floirda 33021-6867 and the Broward County State Attorney’s Office 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

________________________ DAVID LOW, ESQ. 28 West Flagler Street 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Phone: (305) 728-1931 Fax: (305) 675-2685 FBN 67957

103

103

104

104

Blank page due to a paging error in the Motion. There is no page 105

105

105

Subject: Dismissals of Sandra Einhorn's Pe ons for Protec ve Order from Judge Kaplan


Date: 6/27/2011 8:47 PM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org,

jshe el@hollywoodß.org

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. Sheffel, Chief Wagner, and Detective Knapp,

Today, one of my attorneys met with the State Attorney who reviewed the June 1 search

warrant and attached probable cause. He found it impossible to believe that the warrant

could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order and suggested that I

make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

Although I am sure that I provided these already, I am complying with the suggestion and

making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn

Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the

attachment were:

Content Type: application/pdf;

name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64

Content Disposition: attachment;

filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Deleted: 1-27-11 Cover Page.pdf


attachment were:


name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



filename="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"

Deleted: 4-15-11 Dismissal.pdf


attachment were:


name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



106

106

filename="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"

Deleted: 4-15-2011 cover.pdf


attachment were:


name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



filename="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"

Deleted: 4-21 cover.pdf


attachment were:


name="4 21 cover.pdf"



filename="4 21 cover.pdf"



attachment were:






Deleted: Dismissal.pdf


attachment were:


name="Dismissal.pdf"



filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:

Deleted: Jan 7 cover.pdf 254 bytes

107

107

Deleted: 1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf 268 bytes

Deleted: 4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf 266 bytes

Deleted: 4 15 2011 cover.pdf 262 bytes

Deleted: 4 21 cover.pdf 252 bytes


Deleted: Dismissal.pdf 250 bytes

108

108



Date: 6/28/2011 2:27 PM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org,

jshe el@hollywoodß.org

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. Sheffel, Chief Wagner, and Detective Knapp,

Today, one of my attorneys met with the State Attorney who reviewed the June 1 search

warrant and attached probable cause. He found it impossible to believe that the warrant

could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order and suggested that I

make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

Although I am sure that I provided these already, I am complying with the suggestion and

making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn



attachment were:


name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"



filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"



attachment were:


name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



filename="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



attachment were:


name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"


109

109


filename="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



attachment were:


name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



filename="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



attachment were:








attachment were:








attachment were:


name="Dismissal.pdf"



filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:


110

110







111

111

Subject: Fwd: Dismissals of Sandra Einhorn's Pe ons for Protec ve Order from Judge Kaplan


Date: 6/30/2011 8:34 AM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org, jshe el@hollywoodß.org

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. She el, Chief Wagner, and Detec ve Knapp,

The State attorney was confident that all I had to do was show you the 1/7 cover and 1/27 cover, (denied injuctions) and then realizing the error, HPD

The state attorney found it impossible to believe that the warrant could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order.

He suggested that I repeatedly make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

I am complying with the suggestion and making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them. So here it is again.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 21 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="4 21 cover.pdf"




112

112


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Dismissal.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:








113

113



Date: 7/1/2011 8:21 AM

To: cewagner@hollywoodß.org, rknapp@hollywoodß.org, pbober@hollywoodß.org, jshe el@holllywoodß.org

Needless to say based upon experience, our family gets especially nervous around holidays.

I know that in the past you have only targeted our family on Jewish holidays (in fact we have not had a religious holiday in the nearly 3 years we have lived in

Hollywood WITHOUT interference from code enforcement, the police or both) but since American Jews do celebrate Independence Day I thought it best to make sure

that you s ll have these dismissals just in case you have forgo en since yesterday that Sandra Einhorn's mul ple Þlings against Steve Kohn were ALL denied and/or

dismissed.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY INJUNCTION AGAINST ANY MEMBER OF OUR FAMILY!!!

Dear Mayor Bober, Mr. She el, Chief Wagner, and Detec ve Knapp,

The State attorney was confident that all I had to do was show you the 1/7 cover and 1/27 cover, (denied injuctions) and then realizing the error, HPD

The state attorney found it impossible to believe that the warrant could have been issued on the basis of a denied and dismissed order.

He suggested that I repeatedly make ABSOLUTELY sure that the city has been provided with copies of these dismissals.

I am complying with the suggestion and making ABSOLUTELY sure that you have them. So here it is again.

Sincerely,

Steve Kohn


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Jan 7 cover.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Jan 7 cover.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:

114

114

Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 21 cover.pdf"






You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for the attachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Dismissal.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Dismissal.pdf"

Attachments:








115

115

116

116

117

117

Subject: problem I hope we can resolve part 1

From: Steve Kohn <[email protected]>

Date: 7/20/2011 2:55 PM

To: JCANTOR@hollywoodß.org

Part 1 attachments warrant and court orders

Dear Mr. Cantor,

As you might be aware, HPD executed the attached search warrant on 6/8.

What you might not be aware of is that the probable cause is fictitious, and there iscopious proof that it is fictitious and that Detective Knapp knew it.

The statute in the affidavit that was allegedly violated is F.S.S.784.048 (1) (d) (4)which requires an injunction or court imposed prohibition of conduct, and conduct inviolation of that injunction. Since an injunction was sought, but not granted, theprobable cause grounds in the affidavit are insufficient as a matter of law.

The affidavit in question relies on the following information to support probable cause:

"01/07/2011, Sandra Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interferingwith, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18/2011 and suspectSteve Kohn was served with this order on the same date. The order was active and set toexpire on the assigned court date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified viaNCIC/FCIC 02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed."

The affiant, Detective Knapp, made a false statement in declaring that a temporary orderwas approved on 01/18/2011. The order of 01/18/2011, executed on a standard form usedto reschedule the hearing for a later date, merely extended a prior injunction, if onewas already in place. There was no prior injunction and therefore no injunction toextend. Furthermore, on 01/27/2011 Judge Kaplan vacated the order dated 01/18/2011 thatextended the non existent injunction, removing any appearance that there could possiblyhave ever been an injunction. Had there actually been an injunction issued on01/18/2011, it was vacated on 01/27/2011. In other words, at the time the protectionorder was allegedly verified via NCIC/FCIC on 02/23/2011, had such an order actuallyexisted on 01/18/2011 it was already vacated on 01/27/2011. The temporary injunctionthat was the crux of the alleged law violation was vacated. This is contrary to Knapp'ssworn statement that a valid injunction was in place from 01/18/2011 to 04/15/2011.

I met with State Attorney, BSO, FDLE, and HPD members on other occasions to verify thatthe NCIC/FCIC system does not have the entry that Knapp says was there, and furthermore,according to the data entry clerk at the BSO, they would not have been able to enter aninjunction extension unless the original was cross referenced. (after all, one has toknow who is being restricted from exactly which actions). The later vacating orderwould also have been cross referenced by 2/23.

You will find that the HPD system does not show that there was a temporary injunctionunder my name, which would have been required by law for BSO to deliver to HPD upon theorder being made.

Getting my possessions back has proven to be difficult without a state case number.

My attorney was quite sure that all I need to do is make you aware of the factssurrounding this case and that you will immediately correct the situation. He assuredme that if you had this email in your hands by 3:00, I'd probably have all of my stuff

118

118

119

119

Subject: problem I hope we can resolve part 1

From: Steve Kohn <[email protected]>

Date: 7/20/2011 2:55 PM

To: JCANTOR@hollywoodß.org

Part 1 attachments warrant and court orders

Dear Mr. Cantor,

As you might be aware, HPD executed the attached search warrant on 6/8.

What you might not be aware of is that the probable cause is fictitious, and there iscopious proof that it is fictitious and that Detective Knapp knew it.

The statute in the affidavit that was allegedly violated is F.S.S.784.048 (1) (d) (4)which requires an injunction or court imposed prohibition of conduct, and conduct inviolation of that injunction. Since an injunction was sought, but not granted, theprobable cause grounds in the affidavit are insufficient as a matter of law.

The affidavit in question relies on the following information to support probable cause:

"01/07/2011, Sandra Einhorn applied for a temporary injunction against Steven Kohn,restraining him from assaulting, threatening, abusing, harassing, following, interferingwith, or stalking the victim. The temporary order was approved on 01/18/2011 and suspectSteve Kohn was served with this order on the same date. The order was active and set toexpire on the assigned court date of 04/15/2011. The protection order was verified viaNCIC/FCIC 02/23/2011 and the dates listed were confirmed."

The affiant, Detective Knapp, made a false statement in declaring that a temporary orderwas approved on 01/18/2011. The order of 01/18/2011, executed on a standard form usedto reschedule the hearing for a later date, merely extended a prior injunction, if onewas already in place. There was no prior injunction and therefore no injunction toextend. Furthermore, on 01/27/2011 Judge Kaplan vacated the order dated 01/18/2011 thatextended the non existent injunction, removing any appearance that there could possiblyhave ever been an injunction. Had there actually been an injunction issued on01/18/2011, it was vacated on 01/27/2011. In other words, at the time the protectionorder was allegedly verified via NCIC/FCIC on 02/23/2011, had such an order actuallyexisted on 01/18/2011 it was already vacated on 01/27/2011. The temporary injunctionthat was the crux of the alleged law violation was vacated. This is contrary to Knapp'ssworn statement that a valid injunction was in place from 01/18/2011 to 04/15/2011.

I met with State Attorney, BSO, FDLE, and HPD members on other occasions to verify thatthe NCIC/FCIC system does not have the entry that Knapp says was there, and furthermore,according to the data entry clerk at the BSO, they would not have been able to enter aninjunction extension unless the original was cross referenced. (after all, one has toknow who is being restricted from exactly which actions). The later vacating orderwould also have been cross referenced by 2/23.

You will find that the HPD system does not show that there was a temporary injunctionunder my name, which would have been required by law for BSO to deliver to HPD upon theorder being made.

Getting my possessions back has proven to be difficult without a state case number.

My attorney was quite sure that all I need to do is make you aware of the factssurrounding this case and that you will immediately correct the situation. He assuredme that if you had this email in your hands by 3:00, I'd probably have all of my stuff

120

120

back by 5:00.

I laughed at him when he said it, but there is always the chance that he is correct andyou will indeed do the right thing. After all, if you don't, what happens if a Judge ora curious reporter asks "Why didn't you return the property as soon as you learned therewas no injunction?"?

It is a very bad thing that HPD for executed this warrant, on the Jewish Holiday ofShavuot, with 12 armed officers scaring my little children half to death, based on aphony probable cause.

I am hoping you will immediately and apologetically return my property and close thecase.

The attachments I will send necessitate breaking this up into a couple of messages. Ihope you can attend to this matter immediately. My real damages already include havingreplaced 5 cell phones, 2 computers, a camera, and a backup drive, and I will soon bepurchasing other replacement items if I don't get my equipment back immediately.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Steve Kohn3841 N 51 AveHollywood FL 33021954 404 [email protected]

Deleted: Warrant.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="Warrant.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="Warrant.pdf"

Deleted: 1-07-11 Cover page.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 07 11 Cover page.pdf"

Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="1 07 11 Cover page.pdf"

Deleted: 1-18-11 Continuance.pdf

You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;

121

121

name="1 18 11 Continuance.pdf"Content Transfer Encoding: base64Content Disposition: attachment;filename="1 18 11 Continuance.pdf"


You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="1 27 11 Cover Page.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 11 Dismissal.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 15 2011 cover.pdf"



You deleted an attachment from this message. The original MIME headers for theattachment were:Content Type: application/pdf;name="4 21 cover.pdf"



122

122

123

123

124

124

125

125

126

126

127

127

128

128

129

129

130

130

131

131

132

132

133

133

134

134

135

135

136

136

137

137

138

138

139

139

140

140

141

141

142

142

143

143

144

144

145

145

146

146

147

147

148

148

149

149

150

150

151

151

152

152

153

153

154

154

Einhorn v. Kohn Motion to Vacate CACE 10048282

Documents

florida constitutions

florida case

florida legislature

branches of government

renee kohn defendants

plaintiff sandra einhorn

unclean hands doctrine

separation of powers