U.S. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 06 March 2007
• Docket Number: No. 6:06-cv-0096-Orl-19-KRS.,6:06-cv-0096-Orl-19-KRS.
• Citation: 476 F.Supp.2d 1368
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. David WILLIAMS, Janet Bridley, and Floridaucc, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

476 F.Supp.2d 1368

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. David WILLIAMS, Janet Bridley, and Floridaucc, Inc., Defendants.

No. 6:06-cv-0096-Orl-19-KRS.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

March 6, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles T. Harden, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.

David Williams, Sanford, FL, Pro se.

Janet Bridley, Orlando, FL, Pro se.

Larry Dean Simpson, Judkins, Simpson, & High, PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER AND INJUNCTION

FAWSETT, Chief Judge.

This case comes before the Court on the following:

1. Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction, filled by Plaintiff United States of America on December 15, 2006; (Doc. No. 72) 2. Statement, filed by Defendant David Williams on January 16, 2007; (Doc. No. 74);

3. Table of Contents of Exhibits to Statement, filed by Defendant David Williams on January 16, 2007; (Doc. No. 75); and

4. Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment, filed by Defendant Janet Bridley on January 18, 2007. (Doc. No. 76).

Background

On June 13, 2001, Defendant David Williams was tried and convicted of various narcotics offenses in this Court in the case of United States of America v. David Williams et al., Case No. 6:01-cr-58-Orl-31-DAB. (See Case No. 6:01-cr-58-Orl-31DAB, Doc. No. 121, filed on June 15, 2001). Mr. Williams was ultimately sentenced to prison and has remained in custody since at least that date. As a result of his conviction, a number of items of property belonging to David Williams, or those associated with him, were forfeited as part of the criminal case. Additionally, property owned, used, or held as nominee by Defendant Janet Bridley, an unindicted coconspirator in the criminal case,¹ was forfeited or sought to be forfeited as part of the separate criminal prosecution in the case of United States v. Darrell Williams et al., 6:01-cr-88-Orl-19KRS.

United States District Court Judge John Antoon II presided over the criminal trial and sentencing of Defendant David Williams. (See, e.g., Case No. 6:01-cr-58-Orl-31 DAB, Doc. Nos. 110-113, 121). Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Perry was the prosecutor who conducted the trial of Defendant Williams and who initiated the above-referenced forfeitures of property. (See, e.g., id.). United States Attorney Paul Perez is the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, but it is not disputed that he was not directly involved in any aspect of the prosecution of Defendant David Williams. (E.g., Doc. No. 72-7; ¶ 7).

Defendant FloridaUCC, Inc. is a Florida corporation which maintains the Florida Secured Transaction Registry on behalf of the Florida Secretary of State. The Secured Transaction Registry is designed to provide the public with notice of consensual liens given by debtors to creditors. FloridaUCC maintains a log of all incoming mail that contains UCC filings and the payment of UCC filing fees. (See, e.g., Case No. 6:06-cv-96-19KRS, Doc. No. 72-2, ¶ 3).

Beginning in late 2004, certain documents were filed with FloridaUCC. First, FloridaUCC Registry Document Number 200408301021 was filed on November 12, 2004, and purportedly creates an interest between the debtor, "David Williams," and the secured party, "David: Williams III," in the amount of $1,000,000.00. (See Doc. No. 72-3, p. 2). The United States presents undisputed evidence that this document was mailed by David Williams. (E.g. Doc. No. 72-2; 72-3, p. 2).

Secondly, FloridaUCC Registry Document Number 200509631787 was filed on May 9, 2005. (See Doc. No. 72-4, p. 8). This document names "David: Williams III" as the secured party and purports to create a lien against Matthew Perry, John Antoon II, and Paul Perez in the amount of $100,000,000.00. (See id.). Attached to this document is a "Security Agreement" between "David: Williams III" and each of the purported debtors. However, none of the three documents is signed by the named debtors. Rather, the names of Matthew Perry, John Antoon II, and Paul Perez are typewritten on the signature lines of the agreements. (See id. at pp. 11-13). Also attached to this document is a copy of a "Bill of Exchange" from "David: Williams III" to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of America. (See id. at pp. 17-19). The Bill directs the Secretary to "charge back" the $100 million to a UCC Contract Trust Account number which matches Mr. Williams' social security number. (See id. at p. 18; Doc. No. 72-3, p. 5). The United States presented undisputed evidence that this document is fraudulent and was created and mailed by Defendants.

On November 28, 2005, FloridaUCC Registry Document Number 200501251640 was submitted to FloridaUCC by sender "Janet M. Bridley." (See Doc. No. 72-4, p. 21). This document purports to assign the interest in Document Number 200509631787 from "David: Williams III" to Janet Bridley. (See id.). The United States presents undisputed evidence that this document is fraudulent and was mailed by Defendant Bridley.

On January 23, 2006, the United States filed suit against Defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and civil penalties for the allegedly fraudulent acts of Defendants. (See generally Doc. No. 1, filed on January 23, 2006). On March 7, 2006, the Court entered a preliminary injunction on behalf of Plaintiff, finding, inter alia, that the United States had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and had shown the requisite evidence of injury if the injunction was not granted. As a result, the Court declared two of the purported liens null and void² and enjoined Defendants Williams and Bridley from filing any additional liens against Matthew Perry, Paul Perez, and John Antoon II without the Court's consent. (See Doc. No. 38).

The United States now files the instant motion for summary judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (See generally Doc. No. 72). Plaintiff contends that the evidence submitted clearly demonstrates that Defendants Williams and Bridley were responsible for the creation and mailing of the lien documents and that the liens were false claims. (See id.). Plaintiff further contends that by failing to respond to its requests for admissions, Defendants Williams and Bridley have admitted that they are responsible for filing such lien documents through the U.S. Mail. (See id. at pp. 10-11).

In response, Mr. Williams has filed an "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment," which denies the existence of, inter alia, David Williams, the United States of America, the subjects of the lien documents, counsel for Plaintiff, and several federal judges, including the undersigned. (Doc. No. 74-2, p. 1). Mr. Williams further states that any person who wishes to rebut the contentions of the affidavit must do so in the manner in which the affiant "David Williams III©" prescribes. (See id. at pp. 4-5). Mr. Williams also states that he does not consent to any orders against himself or his property. (Doc. No. 74, p. 2). Defendant Bridley also filed an Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment, arguing the same points and in addition denying the existence of Janet Bridley. (Doc. No. 76).

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate only in circumstances where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could [not] return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

In determining whether the moving party has satisfied its burden, a court considers all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and resolves all reasonable doubts against the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The court may not weigh conflicting evidence or weigh the credibility of the parties. See Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). If a reasonable fact finder could draw more than one inference from the facts, and that inference creates an issue of material fact, then a court must not grant summary judgment. Id. (citation omitted).

Once a movant who does not bear the burden of proof on the pertinent claim or defense satisfies its initial burden under Rule 56(c) of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the party bearing the burden of proof on the pertinent claim or defense to come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115-17 (11th Cir.1993); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The non-movant must demonstrate that there is a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir.1991). "A mere `scintilla' of evidence supporting the [nonmoving] party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir.1990) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202)). "[T]he nonmoving party may avail itself of all facts and justifiable inferences in the record taken as a whole." Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998 (11th Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8...