Bell v. Florida Highway Patrol

Full title: RENEE BELL, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL LARRY COSTANZO, Defendants

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

Date published: Jul 22, 2010

Case No. 6:05-cv-1806-Or1-31DAB (M.D. Fla. Jul. 22, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 6:05-cv-1806-Or1-31DAB.

July 22, 2010

ORDER

GREGORY PRESNELL, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 129) filed by Defendant Florida Highway Patrol ("FHP")¹ and the response (Doc. 133) filed by the Plaintiff, Renee Bell ("Bell").

1 So far as the Court can tell from the record, and despite an earlier notice to the Plaintiff regarding the issue, Larry Costanzo has not been served. Therefore, FHP is the only proper Defendant in this case.

I. Background

Bell, who appears pro se, filed the original Complaint (Doc. 1) in this matter on December 5, 2005. Her handwritten, rambling, 13-page Complaint (Exhibit 1), which was never served, alleged that she had suffered an on-the-job injury to her wrist while working in the Defendant's communications department. (Doc. 1 at 3). She also alleged, in no particular order, that she had been harassed, discriminated against, unfairly treated, experienced pain and suffering, and been retaliated against in relation to the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (the "FMLA"), and suffered defamation, retaliation, and lost pay in relation to worker's compensation. Bell, who is African American, also made references to the race of others at her workplace, but it was not clear whether she intended to claim that her superiors had treated white employees more favorably than she was treated. For example, Bell alleged that, due to a worker's compensation injury, she lost fifteen percent of her salary "during a lateral transfer within the department at the same time another employee who was Caucasian transferred lateral". (Doc. 1 at 3). Bell provided no further explanation in regard to this assertion.

Due to a lack of funding, this Court is almost never able to provide attorneys for parties in a civil matter. However, this case was the exception to that rule. Bell sought to have the Court appoint counsel to represent her, and on December 15, 2006, her motions (Doc. 25, 26) were granted (Doc. 31). In February 2007, the two attorneys appointed to represent Bell sought an extension of time to June 4, 2007 to review Bell's claims and supporting documents, and to prepare and serve an amended complaint. (Doc. 34). The motion was granted (Doc. 35). But on April 13, 2007, the attorneys sought permission to withdraw as Bell's attorney, citing "irreconcilable differences". (Doc. 37). The motion was granted (Doc. 43), and Bell has appeared on her own behalf through the remainder of the case.

Bell filed her First Amended Complaint (Doc. 44) on May 21, 2007. This 20-page, single spaced, all-caps document (Exhibit 2) contained 16 "Claims," most of which also contained "Warrants" and "Data" that allegedly supported those claims. Some were short, but the vast majority were somewhat if not entirely indecipherable. For example, on one page, Bell listed a "CLAIM" for "RETALIATION," and below that listed "DATA: INCIDENT ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD/ADVISED PLAINTIFF WERE NOT IN THE BUILDING." (Doc. 44 at 13). That was it. Bell did not provide any further explanation as to what happened, such as who advised the school board of this, or what conduct of Bell's sparked this alleged instance of retaliation.

Immediately below that claim, Bell listed another, also for retaliation, below which she included the following:

• NOT ALLOWED TO RECEIVE ANY PHONE CALLS

DATA:

INCIDENT FAMILY CONTACT RECORDED LANDLINE OUT/OF STATE/CONNECTION @ PLACE OF BUSINESS

DATA:

RECORDED LANDLINE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY PLAINTIFFS DAUGHTER

WARRANT:

UNNECESSARY MEDICAL SHAN'S HOSPITAL/FLORIDA HOSPITAL NEMOURS CHILDRENS CENTER HEART/CARDIOLOGIST

DATA: DAUGHTER ADVISED PARENT WAS NOT IN BUILDING/MISSING

DATA: FREEDOM OF SPEECH: NOT ALLOWED TO TALK TO MY CO-WORKERS AND I HAD TO REMAIN AT MY ASSIGNED LOCATION

DATA: DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMODATION: ASSISTANCE OF PERSONS AT THE ENTRANCE WINDOW. MY TRAINING WAS CHALLENGED AND I HAD TO ASSIST IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

DATA: EQUAL PAY: TRANSFERRED FROM COMMUNICATION INTO WORD PROCESSOR. MY PAY WAS ADJUSTED BY 15% (PERCENT) OVER THE CAUCASIAN EMPLOYEE(S) TRANSFERRING AT THE SAME TIME.

DATA: MARTIAL LAW WAS DECLARED ON SEVERAL INSTANCES THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL IS A QUASI-MILITARY BASED ORGANIZATION. GIVEN SEVERAL DIRECT EMERGENCY ORDERS.

(Doc. 44 at 13-14). Again, that was it. Bell did not explain who did these things, when they occurred, or what she had done (or was believed to have done) that sparked this "retaliation."

After reviewing the First Amended Complaint, the Court granted (Doc. 53) a motion to dismiss (Doc. 49) filed by Defendant Florida Highway Patrol ("FHP"). Bell was given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. If she chose to file such a pleading, she was told, she must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the pleading set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Bell filed her Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 54) on August 7, 2007. A copy is attached as Exhibit 3. This pleading contained both upper and lower cases, but was still single-spaced. The pleading included 16 "Counts," split up into three areas: defamation of character, "discrimination/racial," and "retaliation". Although some of the "Counts" contained a bit more information, some remained entirely incomprehensible, and all still fell woefully short of stating a claim. As an example, the first count of Bell's retaliation section read, in its entirety, "Segregation: Removed from Caucasians, to closed confinement." (Doc. 54 at 7). The second count of the retaliation section, though containing more words, was no more illuminating. It read:

Wrongful Termination:

Right to present defense and show evidence on mitigation and to show contradiction with the opportunity to have removed the charges that were non/relating during an informative hearing to the agency regarding the charges made against Renee Bell. Regarding (F.M.L.A) employee suffered forced harassment/employee terminated for taking time off/wrongful discharge cause of action.

(Doc. 54 at 7). Obviously, this "Count" contains scattered words and phrases suggesting that one or another possible causes of action exists, but as it reads, it is gibberish, a quality it shares with the remainder of the pleading. The Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, noting that despite having already been ordered to comply with Rule 8, Bell had not provided a plain statement of the relevant facts or shown that she was entitled to relief.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that, if proven, allegations by Bell that her boss had ordered her to use a rear door (while white employees used the front door), to use separate restrooms from white employees, and not to talk to white employees, would entitle her to relief under Title VII. (Doc. 69 at 4-5). The Court of Appeals also noted that "many confusing citations and allegations, including repeated references to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, criminal statutes, and the Constitution" were "[i]nterspersed throughout" the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 69 at 5). The Court of Appeals also pointed out this Court's obligation to narrow the issues by stripping away frivolous claims, allowing meritorious claims to proceed." (Doc. 69 at 5).

This Court has spent the past year attempting to satisfy this obligation. After remand, FHP again moved for dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint or for a more definite statement (Doc. 74). Because the Eleventh Circuit had already found that Bell had stated a Title VII claim, this Court denied FHP's request to dismiss with prejudice her racial discrimination claim. (Doc. 81 at 3-4). However, Bell was ordered to delete the references to Title II and III found within that claim, as well as the references to the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and to claim only damages permitted by Title VII in regard to the race discrimination claim. (Doc. 81 at 4). Bell's defamation claim was also dismissed with leave to replead, and she was ordered to delete any references to criminal libel or Sarbanes Oxley, and to seek only damages available under Florida defamation law. (Doc. 81 at 4-5).

With regard to Bell's third claim, for retaliation, the Court pointed out that it was impossible to decipher the facts underlying the claim, such as who retaliated against her, or why, and that she had mentioned statutes ranging from the FMLA to Sarbanes Oxley in the claim, making it impossible to determine the statute under which she intended to proceed. (Doc. 81 at 5-6). The claim was dismissed with leave to replead. (Doc. 81 at 6). In repleading that claim, Bell was ordered to "identify the right or rights that she asserted (or attempted to assert) that led to the retaliation, and what form or forms the retaliation took." (Doc. 81 at 6). The Court informed Bell that a chronology of events would likely prove helpful, and she was ordered to "delete all references to extraneous laws such as the False Claims Act, and claim only those damages available under the underlying statute, such as the FMLA, rather than the Sarbanes Oxley Act." (Doc. 81 at 6). Finally, as to the entire newly pleaded complaint, Bell was ordered to comply with Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that

A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by number to a paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence — and each defense other than a denial — must be stated in a separate count or defense.

On August 7, 2009, Bell filed her Third Amended Complaint² (Doc. 84). A copy is attached at Exhibit 4. Though still largely single-spaced, the pleading had ballooned from eight to 34 pages. Instead of being trimmed of extraneous material, her pleading now referenced six Federal laws (though some were identified descriptively, e.g., "Discrimination/Racial," rather than "Title VII" or the like, and may have been intended to refer to multiple Federal laws). The Third Amended Complaint also referred to six Constitutional Amendments that had allegedly been violated, as well as state law claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, wrongful discharge, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and fraud. (Doc. 84 at 4-5). There was also a reference to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and, possibly, a Bivens claim. (Doc. 84 at 5). And despite being ordered to delete any references to criminal libel, Bell included a statement that she was asserting a claim for criminal libel. (Doc. 84 at 8).

2 Bell's third amended complaint was titled "Second Amended Complaint," which led to some confusion amongst the parties and the Court in referring to the document.

The remainder of the Third Amended Complaint was a random jumble of allegations, recitations, and definitions of legal terms and causes of action. At one point or another throughout the Third Amended Complaint, a series of sentences would suggest the existence of a viable cause of action. But those sentences always lacked some of the information needed to establish one or more elements of a cause of action, and they were lost within reams and reams of irrelevant material. Despite being ordered to comply with Rule 10, Bell did not bother to number her paragraphs, making it impossible for the Defendant to reply. And that rule's requirements that the paragraphs be limited "as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances" and that each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence be stated in a separate count were also ignored. It should go without saying that the pleading did not comply with the obligation set forth in Rule 8 to provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. As the Court put it in dismissing the Third Amended Complaint without prejudice:

The Court recognizes that the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, these pleadings have been reviewed with greater leniency than normal. The Court also recognizes that the Eleventh Circuit believes that somewhere within these pleadings lies a valid racial discrimination claim. And that may indeed be the case. But enough is enough. The fact that a plaintiff may have a valid legal claim does not authorize her to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the orders of this Court, so as to pursue that claim in any fashion that she chooses. No defendant can be expected to respond to this mess, and no court can be expected to untangle it.

(Doc. 110 at 5).

Bell was informed that she would be given "one final opportunity" to plead her claim or claims properly. (Doc. 110 at 5). If she chose to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, Bell was ordered to make sure that it complied with Rule 8 and Rule 10, that it contained at most three claims (defamation, racial discrimination, and retaliation), that it did not explain the law or list the elements of the claims she was pursuing, and that it describes what happened and when, rather than listing or describing items of evidence that purport to establish what happened and when. (Doc. 110 at 6). Bell appealed that order, but her appeal was denied as frivolous by the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. 130 at 1).

Which brings us, at last, to the Fourth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 127). A copy is attached to this order as Exhibit Five. Bell filed that pleading on December 9, 2009, and FHP filed a motion to dismiss it on December 28, 2009 (Doc. 129). Bell filed a response to the motion on June 23, 2010. (Doc. 133). With Bell's appeal finally resolved, the Court may now address FHP's motion.

Despite being ordered to trim and focus her pleading, Bell has expanded her 34-page Third Amended Complaint into a 41-page (single-spaced) Fourth Amended Complaint. The paragraphs remain, for the most part, unnumbered.³ The pleading again consists of laundry lists of legal concepts, statutes and Amendments allegedly violated by Defendant FHP (Doc. 127 at 1-2), plus randomly interspersed evidence⁴ and an impenetrable mass of allegations of misconduct by FHP. Rule 8 and Rule 10 have again been ignored. Told to restrict her pleading to three claims, Bell has instead raised innumerable "counts," some of which appear to assert entirely new claims, such as one for "malicious prosecution" (Doc. 127 at 22) and another for conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (Doc. 127 at 24-25).⁵ As was the case with her previous efforts, no defendant can be expected to reply to the Fourth Amended Complaint, and no court can be expected to untangle it.

3 The numbering that is present is not particularly useful, as the numbers tend to restart with each new count. Thus, the Fourth Amended Complaint has numerous paragraphs numbered "1", numerous paragraphs numbered "2", and so on.

4 For example, at pages 3 through 7, Bell has apparently retyped some sort of intake form, perhaps from the EEOC, and some sort of notice she apparently received from the FHP regarding her impending dismissal.

5 In her response to the most recent motion to dismiss, Bell admits that her pleading contains more than three claims. (Doc. 133 at 3).

We are now five years and five pleadings into this case, and if anything we are further away from being able to proceed to discovery than when we started. The Court has made repeated efforts to explain the minimum requirements to Bell, both by pointing out specific items to be fixed and by citing to the Federal Rules with which she must comply in drafting a pleading. Nothing has worked. Despite direct orders, Bell has repeatedly proven unable or unwilling to provide a short and plain statement of her claims or to organize them in anything resembling a comprehensible manner, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After being ordered to remove extraneous material, she instead adds pages and claims while retaining most of the surplusage. The Court concludes that dismissal with prejudice is warranted, both because Bell has demonstrated that she cannot state a claim and as a sanction for repeatedly failing to abide by the orders of this Court.⁶

6 To the extent such a finding is not obvious in light of the foregoing, the Court finds that no lesser sanction will suffice in this matter. See Betty K. Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1340 (11^th Cir. 2005).

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 129) filed by Defendant Florida Highway Patrol is GRANTED, and the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 127) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Florida Highway Patrol and against Bell, and close the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.

EXHIBIT 1

Exhibit

EXHIBIT 2

05/22/2007

TO: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 80 NORTH HUGHRY AVENUE ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801

FROM: RENEE BELL 3338 LAKE TINY CIRCLE ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32818

CASE# 6:05 CV-1806-ORL-31DAB

RENEE D. BELL/PLAINTIFF V FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL LARRY COSTANZO

AMENDED COMPLAINT

TERMINOLOGY USED: CLAIM:

THE CLAIM AGAINST THE AGENCY

WARRANT:

IFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE CLAIM

DATA:

DOCUMENTS AND VDO TAPES SUPPORTING THE CLAIM AGAINST AGENCY

CLAIM:

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

*ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS CONTACT

CLAIM: THE PURPOSE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE DOCUMENT IS TO SHOW WHAT WAS STATED IN THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF.

THE DEFENDANTS ADVISED THEIR REASONING FOR DISMISSAL WAS INPART RELATING TO THE TELEPHONE CALL MADE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE QUOTING THE PLAINTIFF SAYING AND I QUOTE `ANOTHER CAPTAIN WAS BEING ARRESTED'.

WARRANT: THE DOCUMENT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE CLEARLY INDICATES A MIS-JUDGEMENT BY THE DEFENDANTS.

DATA:

SPECIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE WARRANT. THE RECORDED TAPE FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF.

THE PLAINTIFF MADE THE CALL AFTER BEING ATTACKED; THIS WAS A CRY FOR HELP. (AT THE TIME, LOCATED AT A POLICE AGENCY NO REPORT COULD BE FILED.)

CLAIM:

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

REFERENCE: LOCAL NEWS MEDIA CONTACT.

THE PURPOSE OF THE NEWS MEDIA DOCUMENT INDICATE A SWORN STATEMENT BY THE NEWS OF STATEMENTS MADE CONCERNING THE PLAINTIFF.

WARRANT:

SUPPORTING, SWORN AFFIDAVIT/BY CHANNEL 9-.

DATA:

A. TAPE/VIDEO RECORDING OF INCIDENT/BY CHANNEL 9

B. INTERNET (WEB) ACCESS OF AIRING WITH DETAIL.

THE DEFENDANTS INDICATED THAT YET ANOTHER PORTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS DISMISSAL WAS BECAUSE OF NEGATIVE STATEMENTS MADE WITH MEDIA, AND WHISTLEBLOWING REGARDING THE COMPANY BUSINESS.

DATA:

THE RECORDING/AIRING OF THE TAPE INDICATE THE MIS-JUDGEMENT BY THE DEFENDANTS.

CLAIM:

DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER:

LOCAL NEWS MEDIA CONTACT.

PURPOSE:

TO INDICATE FALSE ACCUSATION MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS. AFTER, PLAINTIFFS SPEAKING WITH MEDIA.

WARRANT:

THE TESTIMONY OF THE NEWS REPORTER. (MARY NYGUYEN). IN REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF.

A. TESTIMONY OF MALE REPORTER. B. RECORDED LANDLINE CONVERSATION TO NEWS. INDICATES THE STATEMENTS SAID BY THE PLAINTIFF.

THE ASSUMPTION OF WHISTLEBLOWING WAS ADVISED AFTER THIS CONTACT WAS MADE, WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE CONVERSATION.

CLAIM: DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

WARRANT:

LARRY COSTANZO, PERSON REPRESENTING THE COMPANY. (FL HIGHWAY PATROL). I QUOTE" SAID, I SAID/COMMENTED ABOUT A PERSONS CHARACTER (A TERMINATED HIGH RANKING EMPLOYEE). WITH WHICH MY PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION LATER BECAME TARNISED, AND AFTER WAS TERMINATED FROM DUTIES BECAUSE OF.

CLAIM: DISCRIMINATION/RACIAL.

WARRANT:

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. THE DR. MARVIN DAVIES ACT/FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871.

CHAPTER 760

760

760.02

760.021

760.08

760.07

760.10/UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE. INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION

CLAIMS OF RETALIATION/VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

DATA:

ORDERED BECAUSE OF RACE TO ENTER THROUGH THE REAR DOOR OF STATE FACILITY, WHILE CAUCASIAN WAS ALLOWED TO ENTER, THRU SAME DOOR.

DATA:

INCIDENT: JANUARY 18TH ATTACK OF THE PORTAMEDIC SENT BY INSURANCE COMPANY FOR STATE OF FL.AFTER, ENTRY INTO THE BUILDING WAS MADE BY THIS CONTACT PERSON, THE PORTAMEDIC WAS ORDERED TO COME OUT OF BUILDING ENTER THROUGH SIDE, THE DEFENDANT LARRY COSTANZO, ADVISED THE PORTAMEDIC, RENEE BELL (PLAINTIFF) COULDN'T ENTER THROUGH LOBBY.

DATA:

COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PORTAMEDIC WITH THE CHANNEL 9 NEWS, ALLOWING THE NEWS TO RESPOND TO THE AIDE OF RENEE BELL (PLAINTIFF).

CHANNEL 9 HAS RECORDED LINES/CONTACT MADE WITH THE NEWS PERSON ADVISED PORTAMEDIC FILED COMPLAINT, REGARDING, INCIDENT.

DATA:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAION CAMERAS AND PERSONEL/VIEW THE ENTRANCE FROM ADJOINING BUILDING/ALONG WITH CHANNEL 9-NEWS.

DATA:

VIDEO TAPE/ENTRY OF BUILDING, AND REROUTE BY LARRY COSTANZO.

DATA:

DATA:

• EMAIL SENT ORDERED BY THE E.E.O.C. • INTEROGATION INTERVIEW BY DEFENDANT, LARRY COSTANZO, REFERENCE EMAIL SENT/COLONEL KNIGHT.

*WITNESS AVAILABLE FOR THE EMAIL DOCUMENTATION.

CLAIM: RETALIATION/DISCRIMINATION

WARRANT:

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE ACT 1998.

PROTECTS WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM VICTIMIZATION AND DISMISSAL.

NO FEAR ACT: THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR UNLAWFUL RETALIATION.

JIM CROW LAW:

SEPARATE FACILITYS, RESTROOMS ETC.

REMOVAL OF THE COMPANY TELEPHONE FROM WALL: (FORCED TO USE PRIVATE PHONE).

SEPARATE COMPANY MATERIALS

NO USE OF THE COMPANY PHONES

SEPARATE ENTRANCE WAYS THRU CORRIDORS

NO SPEAKING TO/WITH CAUCASIAN PERSONS

NO COMPUTER USE/ONLY ONE PERSON (MYSELF) IN THE BUILDING WITHOUT A COMPUTER.

RETALIATION

WRONGFUL TERMINATION, FEBRUARY 2006.

THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT OF 1986

IN 1986, CONGRESS ADDED THE ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTIONS TO THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT. THESE PROVISIONS, WHICH DIDN'T EXIST PREVIOUSLY ARE CONTAINED IN 31 U.S.C. SEC 37309(h): ANY EMPLOYEE WHO IS DISCHARGED, DEMOTED, SUSPENDED, THREATENED, HARRASSED OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY HIS HER EMPLOYER, BECAUSE OF LAWFUL ACTS DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE ON BEHALF OF HIS/HER EMPLOYER OR OTHERS IN FURTHERANCE OF AN ACTION UNDER THIS SECTION, INCLUDING INESTIGATIONS FOR, INITIALLY OF, TESTIMONY FOR OR ASSISTANCE IN AN ACTION FILED OR TO BE FILED UNDER THIS SECTION, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL RELIEF NECESSARY TO MAKE THE EMPLOYEE WHOLE.

THE WHISTEBLOWER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT WITH SENIORITY, DOUBLE BACK PAY, INTEREST, SPECIAL DAMAGES SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF DISCRIMINATION TREATMENT. AND ATTORNEYS FEES AND COST. THERE IS FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWERS CLAIMS.

DISMISSAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT. REFERENCE EMPLOYEE HAVING FILED CLAIM AGAINST EMPLOYER. WITH FEDERAL E.E.O.C. COMMISSION. (COPY PART OF CASE FILES).

FIRING IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL/STATE ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAWS. REGARDING THE FEDERAL MEDICAL LEAVE ACT.

DATA:

LAST REQUEST FOR FEDERAL MEDICAL LEAVE DENIED REQUEST REFERENCE ATTACK AND INJURY.

• DOCUMENT SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF, IN WRITING, DENIED INDICATING PHYSICIAN ADVISED O.K. TO WORK IF LIGHT DUTY WAS AVAILABLE/NO USE OF RIGHT/HAND TO PERFORM DUTIES BY LEFT HAND ONLY/WEAR SPLINT. • DENIED MEDICAL ATTENTION • DENIED ATTENDANCE TO/FROM MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS WORKERS COMP/SCHEDULED APPOINTMENTS WERE CANCELED LARRY COSTANZO REPRESENTING THE HIGHWAY PATROL ADVISED I WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND, REFERENCING IT WAS ON WORK DAY.

DATA:

ON TWO OCCASSIONS THE DEFENDANT REPRESENTING THE COMPANY/STATE OF FLORIDA CONTACTED THE PHYSICIANS OFFICE VIA RECORDED LANDLINE, NEARLY CAUSING A VERBAL DISPUTE WITH THE DR'S OFFICE PERSONEL.

(ATTORNEY WAS THEN CONTACTED)

* FILED COMPLAINT REFERENCE MEDICAL, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE CARE.

DATA:

ALTHOUGH THIS ISNT CONSTUCTIVE DISCHARGE, THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE THE COMPANY CREATED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT. THE PLAINTIFF RENEE BELL, WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO RESIGN, IF NOT TERMINATED BY THE COMPANY, DUE TO INTOLERABLE WORKING CONDITIONS, AFTER FILING THE CHARGES WITH EEOC-COMMISSION.

DATA:

HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT.A WORK ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SO CHARGED WITH HARASSMENT OR SIMILAR UNWANTED BEHAVIOR THAT IT INTERFERS WITH THE ABILITY TO DO ONES JOB AND IS SAID TO VIOLATE ANTIDESCRIMINATION LAWS.

DATA:

EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWN OF CHARACTER, AND STATEMENT MADE BY HIGH RANKING PERSONEL REGARDING MY MOTHER.

DATA:

THE LETTER SENT ON MODAY OCTOBER 4TH, 2004 THRU CHAIN OF COMMAND AFTER THE PLAINTIFFS RETURN OF THE FEDERAL FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE, THIS LETTER WAS ADVISING OF PROBLEMS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED TO COLONEL KNIGHT. (A COPY IS APART OF THIS CASE FILE.)

DATA:

COPY OF MEMORANDUM SENT BY FELLOW EMPLOYEE ON 10/27/2005 ADVISING THE PROBLEMS IN THE WORK PLACE. (HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT)

DATA:

DATA:

CASE NO.: 48-2005-DR-002575-O

JENIFFER GLOVER (INDICATING PROBLEM IN THE DEPARTMENT.)

DATA:

CASE NO.: 48-2005-DR-017922-O

JENIFFER GLOVER

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (INDICATING PROBLEM IN THE DEPARTMENT)

DATA:

CASE NO.: 48-2005-DR-2576-O (INDICATING PROBLEM IN THE DEPARTMENT). STERLING KING/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

DATA:

THREAT FILED TO THE DEPARTMENT/MADE BY JENNIFER GLOVER. REFERENCE THE STERLING KING INCIDENT. (INDICATING PROBLEM IN THE DEPARTMENT).

DATA:

MAY 10, 2005 AGREEMENT SENT FROM ATTORNEY LINDSAY N. OYEWALE, ESQUIRE, OF THE FIRM DE' BEAUBIEN, KNIGHT, SIMMONS, MANTZARIS, NIEL, LLP TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

DATA:

MAY 9TH, 2005 AGREEMENT RECEIVED BY ATTORNEY LINDSAY N. OYEWALE FROM STATE OF FLORIDA. AGREEMENTS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA REGARS THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT OF 1986 IN 1986, CONGRESS ADDED THE ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTIONS TO THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT. THESE PROVISIONS, WHICH DIDN'T EXIST PREVIOUSLY ARE CONTAINED IN 31 U.S.C. SEC 37309(h): ANY EMPLOYEE WHO IS DISCHARGED, DEMOTED, SUSPENDED, THREATENED, HARRASSED OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY HIS HER EMPLOYER, BECAUSE OF LAWFUL ACTS DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE ON BEHALF OF HIS/HER EMPLOYER OR OTHERS IN FURTHERANCE OF AN ACTION UNDER THIS SECTION, INCLUDING INESTIGATIONS FOR, INITIALLY OF, TESTIMONY FOR OR ASSISTANCE IN AN ACTION FILED OR TO BE FILED UNDER THIS SECTION, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL RELIEF NECESSARY TO MAKE THE EMPLOYEE WHOLE.

THE WHISTEBLOWER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT WITH SENIORITY, DOUBLE BACK PAY, INTEREST, SPECIAL DAMAGES SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF DISCRIMINATION TREATMENT. AND ATTORNEYS FEES AND COST. THERE IS FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWERS CLAIMS. DING RENEE BELL IN AN AGREEANCE TO THE INJUNCTIONS BEING DISMISSED.

DATA:

WHISTLE BLOWER. THE TERM FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO "BLOWS THE WHISLTE" ON AN EMPLOYER, WHO REPORTS TO THE AUTHORITIES AN EMPLOYERS ILLEGAL ACTION OR PRACTICE. WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE ENTITLED TO A NUMBER OF PROTECTIONS UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

A. THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS THE PLAINTIFF, WAS ADVISING THE MEDIA NEGATIVE INFORMATION REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT IMPLIES IN THE LIST OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT THE DEPARTMENT AS A SPOKES PERSON, FOR THAT AGENCY.

*(SUPPORTING DOCUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF/VIDEO TAPED).

PLAINTIFF STATEMENT ALSO AVAILABLE VIA INTRANET. (BY THE CHANNEL 9 NEWS AGENCY.)

B. DURING HEARING, FOR PERC THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' COMMISSION.

ATTORNEY GEISMAR ATTENDED REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF, RENEE BELL. THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED THE QUESTIONS OF WHISTLEBLOWING AGAINST AGENCY. IMPLYING WHISTLEBLOWING AGAINST DEPARTMENT.

INSTEAD OF ATTACK OF A STATE EMPLOYEE, IN WHICH THE ISSUE EMBARRASSED THE AGENCY.

*(SUPPORTING DOCUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF/RECORDED).

CLAIM: RETALIATION

WARRANT:

TUITION REIMBURSEMENT

DATA:

COLONEL C.A. KNIGHT ADVISED WAS POSSIBLE FOR ANY EMPLOYEE TO ATTEND SCHOOL WHILE WORKING.

THE COLONEL WAS IN ORLANDO, AGREED FOR THE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, LT. J SAUCEDO, ASSISTING SUPERVISOR AGREED TO THE ATTENDANCE ONCE PLAINTIFFS LETTER SUBMITTED.

• ADVISED BY PERSON REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT WHICH WAS LARRY COSTANZO, WITH INPUT OF THE LETTER/HE WOULD DENY THIS. LATER, PLAINTIFF WAS FORCED TO INPUT LETTER FOR DENIAL OF SCHOOLING.

DATA:

DENIAL OF ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOLS

DENIAL EXTRA TRAINING

DENIAL TO SPEAK WITH COLONEL/REGARDING ISSUE.

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS/PLACED BY THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE (LARRY COSTANZO)

RETALIATION

WARRANT:

TELECOMMUTTING WORKING FROM HOME. THE DEFENDANT LARRY COSTANZO ADVISED THE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T HAVE AN AVAILABLE JOB FOR ME DUE TO MY INJURY, INSTEAD OF HONORING THE REQUEST TO SEE A PHYSICIAN TO HANDLE THE INJURY, USING THE FEDERAL MEDICAL LEAVE, THE PLAINTIFF WAS ORDERED TO HOUSE ARREST, WORKING FROM HOME, UNLESS AN EMERGENCY ARRIVED TO LEAVE MY HOME. ASSIGNED 8AM TO 5PM, TO DO NOTHING, ON STATE TIME. (WHEN THE STATE WAS ADVISED I WAS CARETAKER TO MYMOTHER, WHICH IS TERMINALLY ILL.)

• EMERGENCY DID ARISE/SPOKEN DIRECTLY WITH COLONEL KNIGHT/THE MORNING MY MOTHER WAS HOSPITALIZED.

DATA:

STATE OF FLORIDA HAD A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT. A CONTRACT OR PART OF A CONTRACT IN WHICH AN EMPLOYEE PROMISES NOT OT WORK FOR A COMPETING EMPLOYER.

DATA:

THE STATE POLICY.

WARRANT:

APPLIED FOR OTHER PLACES FOR EMPLOYMENT HOWEVER WITH DAMAGED CHARACTER UNABLE TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT, BECAUSE OF THE STATED FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

CLAIM: RETALIATION

WARRANT:

HEALTH COVERAGE NOT MAINTAINED WHILE ON FEDERAL MEDICAL LEAVE.

DENIAL OF FEDERAL ACT, THE NEED TO CARE FOR MEMBER OF THE EMPLOYEES IMMEDIATE FAMILY SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION. (MEDICAL RECORDS SUPLLIED TO DEPT.). 12 WEEKS OF LEAVE IN EVERY 12 MONTHS PERIOD. THE FMLA ALSO PROVIDES THAT EMPLOYEES WHO TAKE LEAVE CAN'NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR DISCHARGED FOR DOING SO. ALLOWS EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST TO BRING SUIT FOR LOST WAGES AND OTHER DAMAGES.

DATA:

REINSTATEMENT OF POLICIES/AFTER PLAINTIFFS RETURN TO DUTY.

CLAIM: RETALIATION

WARRANT:

ADVISED BY DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, DEFENDANT LARRY COSTANZO, THAT PLAINTIFF WILL/NOT BE COMPENSATED.

DATA:

UNCOMPENSATED WORK HOURS.

DATA:

WITNESS'S ADVISING TIME SPENT AFTER, WORK HOURS.

DATA:

VIDEO TAPED LEAVING THE BUILDING AFTER WORK HOURS. RECORDED LANLINE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE DEPARTURE.

DATA:

DOCUMENTS IN WRITING (APART OF CASE FILE).

CLAIM: RETALIATION

RETALIATION/BY SEGREGATION

PLACED BEHIND A WALL, WITHIN A CORRIDOR THAT IS THE STORAGE CLOSET AREA WHERE FILES ARE KEPT.

DATA:

ADVISED BECAUSE I NEEDED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE CAUCASIAN PERSONEL.

FORCED TO UTILIZE MY RIGHT HAND, BECAUSE OF THE INJURY.

DATA:

WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM FILED. ADVISED BY THE DEPART. REPRESENTATIVE, (REPRESENTATIVE-LARRY COSTANZO, THERE WASN'T A LOCATION FOR ME TO RELOCATE TO.

DATA:

DATA:

DATA:

COMMENTS, JOKES WERE MADE "THE CRAZY PERSON IS BEHIND THE WALL. OFFICERS PAST BY/NOT ALLOWED COMMUNICATING."

CLAIM: RETALIATION

DATA:

INCIDENT ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD/ADVISED PLAINTIFF WERE NOT IN THE BUILDING.

CLAIM: RETALIATION

• NOT ALLOWED TO RECEIVE ANY PHONE CALLS.

DATA:

INCIDENT FAMILY CONTACT RECORDED LANDLINE OUT/OF STATE/CONNECTION@ PLACE OF BUSINESS.

DATA:

RECORDED LANDLINE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY PLAINTIFFS DAUGHTER.

WARRANT:

UNECESSARY MEDICAL SHAN'S HOSPITAL/FLORIDA HOSPITAL NEMOURS CHILDRENS CENTER ORLANDO REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER HEART/CARDIOLOGIST

DATA:

DATA:

DATA:

DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMODATION: ASSISTANCE OF PERSONS AT THE ENTRANCE WINDOW.MY TRAINING WAS CHALLENGED AND I HAD TO ASSIST IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

DATA:

EQUAL PAY: TRANSFERRED FROM COMMUNICATIONS INTO WORD PROCESSOR.MY PAY WAS ADJUSTED BY 15% (PERCENT) OVER THE CAUCASION EMPLOYEE(S) TRANSFERING AT THE SAME TIME.

DATA:

MARTIAL LAW WAS DECLAIRED ON SEVERAL INSTANCES THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL IS A QUASI-MILITARY BASED ORGANIZATION. GIVEN SEVERAL DIRECT EMERGENCY ORDERS.

CLAIM: RETALIATION

WARRANT:

DURING THE TIME OF HEARING REGARDING THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION, CONCERNING THE EMPLOYEES RIGHTS TO PRESENT DEFENSE AND SHOW EVIDENCE ON MITIGATION, AND TO CONTRADICT/AN OR CAST OUT ANY DOUBT SHOWING THAT THEIR COULD BE A REDUCTION IN PENALTYS. THIS ADVANTAGE WASN'T GIVEN, DUE TO THE MEETINGS INCOMPLETENESS, AND CLOSING, AFTER 5:15 HOURS ADVISING THAT `EXCEPTIONS' WOULD BE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES REGARDING THE ISSUES. THAT THE COMMITTEE RAN OUT OF TIME.

• DURING HEARING SOME PART OF THE ACCUSATIONS WERE SUPPOSEDLY OMMITED ACCORDING TO THE HEARING OFFICER NOTING: THAT THE WITNESS'S/AVAILABLE FOR THE PLAINTIFF WASN'T NEEDED BECAUSE THE HEARING OFFICER OMITTED THE AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES, INPUT BY THE DEPARTMENT.

**BOTH THE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND ATTORNEY REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF, WAS ADVISED WE WOULD BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITYTO SUBMIT ARGUMENT. THE AMERICAN COURT REPORTING AGENCY (HIRED BY THE STATE), PERC OFFICE UPHELD THE DOCUMENTS NOT ALLOWING THE CHANCE FOR ANY REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT, TO STATE'S ALLEGATIONS. THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT, WITHOUT THE PLAINTIFF BEING HEARD. THEN SHIFTED TO THE STATE COURT TO BE HEARD.

RETALIATION

THE RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS FALL INTO BROAD CATERGORIES THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM UNFAIR ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE RIGHT TO HAVE EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE BASIC FREEDOMS, THE STATE OF FLORIDA TAKEN THESE RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE PLAINTIFF THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE FILED LAWSUIT.

AMENDMENT # 1 — PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THERE OF OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

AMENDMENT # 4 — RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS. MONITORED BY JENIFFER GLOVER AS I SAT IN THE BACK ENCLOSED WALL AREA. BOB BLACKWELL (A SGT.) MONITORED CONTINUALLY ASLO BY DOING CONSISTANT WALK BY'S.

• WITNESS TO INFORMATION. AMENDMENT# 5 — FORCED INTO A CAGE AGAINST MYSELF, USING HIGHWAY SAFETY POLICIES AND COMPANY POLICIES AND STATUTES TO VIOLATE MYSELF. UNABLE TO REFUSE TO ANSWER ON THE GROUNDS, OF AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT USING MY ANSWERS TO INCRIMINATE, BY MEANS OF INVESTIGATION, COUNTINUAL COUNSELING LETTERS, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE WITH ME AS ACCUSSED PERSON JUST CHARGED THAT I HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME.

AMENDMENT # 6 — THE RIGHT TO HAVE WITNESSES IN MY FAVOR, THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATIONS.

AMENDMENT 14/AMENDMENT 1

"CLAIMS"

THE FEDERAL SARBANES OXLEY ACT PASSED 2002. EMPLOYEES PROTECTIONS.

DEFAMATION/UNDER SARBANES OXLEY ACT.

ADVERSE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST EMPLOYEE/UNDER SARBANES OXLEY ACT (WRONGFUL TERMINATION).

INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION/UNDER SARBANES OXLEY ACT. INCLUDING HARRASSMENT.

INTENTIONAL HARASSMENT OFFICER ARRIVED FROM SHERIFFS OFFICE/TO TESTIFY ON HEARING NOT WAS THE OFFICER WHO RESPONDED TO THE CALL THE DATE OF INCIDENT.

(TWO OFFICERS ON DUTY/WHO ARRIVED.)

DISCRIMINATION/RACIAL-SARBANES OXLEY ACT

THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT 1986/WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION EMPLOYER RETALIATION/UNDER FALSE CLAIMS ACT.

TITLE 7 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964/CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1991

EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWN OF CHARACTER MENTAL ATTACK TO THE STATE OF EXHAUSTION CAUSING MENTAL FACULTYS TO BECOME DIS-ORIENTED AND CAUSING INJURY TO MYSELF.

THE DR.MARVIN DAVIES ACT/FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS

CHAPTERS 760/760.02/760.021/760.08/760.07/760.10/.

JIM CROW LAWS

DISCRIMINATION/RACIAL INVOLVING HARRASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, SEGREGATION.

RETALIATION/UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 760.10 UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE ACT 1998. UNNECESSARY MEDICAL, FAMILY MEMBR SUFFERED ILLNESS.

NO FEAR ACT/UNLAWFUL RETALIATION.

IN SUMMARY,

THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED INTO THE COURT DECEMBER 2005, AFTER THE ATTACK OF AUGUST 2005, AND THE OCCURRENCE OF INCIDENTS THERE AFTER.

ON DECEMBER 4TH, 2006, AT 12:55 A MOTION WAS ENTERED TO SPECIFIY THE COMPLAINT IN REGARDS TO WHAT WAS STATED BY THE PLAINTIFF.

AT THIS TIME THIS `AMENDED COMPLAINT' IS BEING ENTERED INTO THE COURT AS AN UPDATE TO THE ORIGINAL, THIS IS THE COMPLAINT THAT THE PLAINTIFF WISHES TO GO FORWARD WITH. AS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT INDICATED, THE PLAINTIFF IS ASKING TO SETTLE THIS CASE IN THE AMMOUNT OF THREE MILLION DOLLARS. THIS IS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED CLAIMS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES SUFFERED.

RENEE D. BELL Exhibit

EXHIBIT 3

United States District Court

Middle District of Florida

80 North Hughey Avenue

Orlando Florida 32801

Renee D. Bell

3338 Lake Tiny Circle

Orlando FL, 32818

Case# 6:05 CV-1806-ORL-31 DAB

Renee D. Bell (Plaintiff) VS

Florida Highway Patrol Larry Costanzo

Amended Complaint

The Civil Actions is based on violations of civil rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction is based in whole or in part on Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1343; The District Courts shall have privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States.

1. To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42:.

2. To recover damages from any person [including federal judges, or the Federal government] who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

3. To redress the deprivation, under color of any State Law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States

4. To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.

The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person. Relief sought consists of money damages in the amount greater than 150.000.

Plaintiff, Renee D. Bell hasn't agreed to arbitration. A timely complaint was filed 12/2005, case# 6:05-CV-1806-Orl-31DAB The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1343. The Damage amount of each Charge in this Case in compliance with Sarbanes Oxley Act excess of $250,000.00. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 does not list an exact dollar amount which could contain more or less than what is stated, according to Law.

The Plaintiff Renee Bell is requesting a total sum of Three Million Dollars for all damages she and her immediate family (minor Child, and her Mother) has suffered. The Plaintiff Renee Bell, has NO contract agreement reference arbitration with the agency (Florida Highway Patrol), Relief Sought consists of money damages in the amount greater than 150.000.

The Claims of the Amended Complaint are listed as follows: (Attached)

Defamation of Character

Discrimination/Racial

Retaliation

Signature of Renee D. Bell

Certificate of Service:

6TH DAY OF August 2007.

Certify that a copy has been sent by regular U.S. Mail.

Attorney of Defendants: Sabrina Redd ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, STE 1100

TAMPA FL. 33602

Claim:

Defamation of Character:

Criminal libel:

A person who falsely defames another without Legal excuse or justification may be subject to Criminal liability as well as civil liability. Criminal based upon its tendency to cause a breach of the peace. Under some other statutes, criminal based upon the tendency to injure another. The offense is committed when the Defendant communicates the libel directly to the person libeled as well as when he makes it known to third persons. The purpose to indicate false accusations made by the Defendant Larry Costanzo representing the Florida Highway Patrol.

Count I

The Defendant Larry Costanzo advised the agency Florida Highway Patrol, including Renee bell, as well as third party that a phone call was placed by Plaintiff Renee Bell, and that Renee Bell stated that he/himself would be arrested.

Count II

The defendant Larry Costanzo stated to the agency and third party that regarding Renee Bell, that Renee Bell had leaked personal Department information about the Agency to the Local News Media in an act of whistle blowing the company business.

Count III

The Defendant Larry Costanzo stated to Renee Bell, and third party that Renee Bell was representing/or impersonating the Agencies Public Information Officer, in making public statements for the Agency.

Count IV

The Defendant Larry Costanzo implied as well as stated that the response of the Orange County Sheriffs Office was there to arrest him implying that this was the reasoning for the contact made by Plaintiff Renee Bell.

Count V

The Defendant Larry Costanzo representing the Florida Highway Patrol said Plaintiff Renee Bell stated or commented about a person's character which was Sterling King a high ranking employee that was terminated, with which Renee Bells professional reputation later became tarnished and Renee Bell was terminated from permanent duty.

Count VI

The Defendant Larry Costanzo advised Renee Bell had falsified records and altered documents of records of the Agency.

Count VII

The Defendant Larry Costanzo stated that Renee Bell, made statements of foul and abusive language, to any person within the Agency.

Damages Suffered:

Termination of Employment:

Unable to continue a normal life with respect to obtaining gainful professional employment as had been established (approx: twenty years state service.) as any other U.S. citizen as a means of support of family and maintain well being.

Courts Jurisdiction: Title 28 United States Code section 1343.

The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person. The Civil actions are based on rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.

Application of the Law:

Sarbanes Oxley Compliance Sec. 1107. RETALIATION AGAINST INFORMANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL-Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this Title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." Compliance with The Sarbanes Oxley Whistle blower.

In compliance to The Sarbanes Oxley Act the damage amount according to Law would be in excess $250,000.00. The Total Sum Requested for the Case as a whole would be Three Million Dollars.

Claim:

Discrimination/Racial:

Count I

The Defendant Larry Costanzo, representing the Highway Patrol, Demanded/Ordered Renee Bell, to enter through the rear door of the State facility, in which she worked, due to her race (African American), while she was still employed. While at the same time others being of Caucasian decent were allowed/able to enter through the front entrance door of the State Facility.

Count II

The Defendant Larry Costanzo, representing the Highway patrol, Ordered Renee Bell due to her race separate entrance ways through the corridors (inside the building) no allowance of entry same area of Caucasian decent.

Count III

The Defendant Larry Costanzo advised Renee Bell no communicating with any personnel of Caucasian decent.

Count IV

The Defendant Larry Costanzo advised Renee Bell no use of the public restrooms with personnel of Caucasian decent, utilize separate facilities.

Damages suffered:

The Freedom to enter a State facility as any other individual, no matter what Race or Nationality.

Courts Jurisdiction:

Document Number: PL 88-352 Date: 02 JUL 64 88th Congress, H. R. 7152 To enforce the Constitutional Right, to confer jurisdiction upon the District Courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against Discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect Constitutional Rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent Discrimination in Federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity.

Application to the law:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 TITLE II — INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by Law. TITLE II-DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES SEC. 301.(a)(b)(a) SEC. 302. In any action or proceeding under this Title the United States shall be liable for costs, including a reasonable Attorney's fee, the same as a private person. SEC. 303. Nothing in this Title shall affect adversely the right of any person to sue for or obtain relief in any court against Discrimination in any facility covered by this Title. SEC. 304. A complaint as used in this Title is a writing or document within the meaning of Section 1001, title 18, United States Code.

In Compliance to The Sarbanes Oxley Act the damage amount according to Law would be in excess $250,000.00. The Total Sum requested for the Case as a whole would be Three Million Dollars.

Claim:

Retaliation:

Count I

Segregation:

Removed from Caucasians, to closed confinement.

Count II

Wrongful Termination:

Right to present defense and show evidence on mitigation and to show contradiction with the opportunity to have removed the charges that were non/relating during an informative hearing to the agency regarding the charges made against Renee Bell. Regarding (F.M.L.A.) employee suffered forced harassment/employee terminated for taking time off/wrongful discharge cause of action.

Count III

Denial of F.M.L.A.:

Criminal Offense, the Act makes it a crime to terminate or discriminate against, or threaten any employee who exercises any Law conferred by the federal statute. Upon receiving F.M.L.A. (-when approved) Acts of Intentional harassment followed. Denial of schools/training, with continued threats of lost of employment, health coverage not maintained during leave. Given applications to nearby state agencies, Enforced sittings referencing employment openings around the State. After, the assault and injury to Renee Bell the Defendant advised no attending of the physicians appointments (denial of care). After complaint was filed with Corvel (state insurance) by Renee Renee, then allowed to be sent for care, through the States Workers Compensation.

Count IV

Providing Safety to Employees:

Employer is under the common-law duty to furnish an employee with a reasonably safe place in which to work. Warning the employees of any unusual dangers peculiar to the employers business is a given. Highway Patrol was aware of Larry Costanzo's character, and quick tempered state. He was transferred from one troop of the Patrol because of sexual harassment involving an employee. After, several consecutive occurrences between Renee Bell and Larry Costanzo the patrol never came forward to do an inquiry, or any type of investigation, regarding the nexus between Costanzo and the occurences, on any of the charges Renee Bell filed with the agency regarding Costanzo, which led to the assault on August 3, 2005, to Renee Bell by Larry Costanzo.

Count V

Employer Created Hostile Work Environment:

Renee Bell, Would Have Been Forced to Resign from The Company, Due To Intolerable Working Conditions, Telecommuting from home/house arrest. Federal Criminal Civil Rights Laws prohibit hate crimes, for the purpose of enslavement or forced labor. Uncompensated work hours, unequal pay, intentional harassment, several Martial law declaring, use of company telephones, while on duty. The incident of the port medic, complaint filed with Channel 9 Local news. Sworn affidavit of Local 9 News, Orange County Sheriffs copy of (911) tapes. No assigned computer/Renee Bell only individual in facility without the assignment of computer. (because of race). Separate company materials, negative comments about race, (jokes, statements made regarding the disability of parent). Filing of the charges, with The E.E.O.C. Commission, the Civil case filings/no's: 48-2005-DR-002575-0, Civil case filing no: 48-2005-DR-017922-0, Civil Case filing 48-2005-DR-2576-0. Threat charges filed, (The May 10th agreement, with law firm) e-mail sent to the chief of Department (Colonel, C.A. Knight)/ordered by the E.E.O.C. Commission. The Defendant Larry Costanzo proceeded with and set up a conspiracy to have Renee Bell relieved of her duties, utilizing also the following.

Amendment # 1 — Prohibiting the free exercise there of or abridging the freedom of speech.

Amendment # 4 — Right Of The People To Be Secure In Their Persons.

Amendment # 5 — Forced into a cage against myself, using Highway Patrol Safety Policies and Statutes to violate.

Amendment # 6 — Right to witness's/during Investigations.

Damages Suffered:

The Liberty to exercise one's rights to be able to have freedom of speech, and the Ingenuousness to be able to seek an Education, like any one person, as well as entitlement to FMLA without Discrimination, no matter if the person is trying to justice reprisal/or gain revenge.

The Courts Jurisdiction: Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1343

(OTHER ACTS RELATING TO RETALIATION)

Congress added: the Anti Retaliation protections to the False Claims Act of 1986. Civil Rights Act 1964/Civil Rights 1871 chapter 760, DR. Martin Davies Act. No Fear Act/Responsible for unlawful retaliation.

In Compliance to the Sarbanes Oxley Act the damage amount according to Law would be $250,000.00. The Total Sum Requested for the Case as a whole would be Three Million Dollars.

EXHIBIT 4

ORLANDO, DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA U.S. Courthouse 401 West Central Boulevard Suite 1200 Orlando, Florida 32801-0120 407-835-4200 RENEE D. BELL PLAINTIFF V. FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL/LARRY COSTANZO DEFENDANTS COURT APPEALED NO. 07-15274-BB/ELEVENTH CIRCUIT REFERENCE: CASE NO: Civil Action File No. 6:05-CV-1806-ORL-31DAB

Updated Version: "Second Amended Complaint"

COMES NOW RENEE DENISE BELL (herein after "RENEE D. BELL"), the plaintiff party of Florida, And the Defendants FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL (herein after "FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, LARRY COSTANZO) parties of Florida.

(Herein after the "plaintiff") Brings this civil action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1343, Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 Title VII, the civil rights act 1964, Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1)(b). The _______ Complaint seeking; Injunctive relief and judgment for damages: Compensatory; general; punitive, and special damages; statutory, and treble damages. The Defendant's actions against policies and procedures were unconstitutional, there was violation of Discrimination/Racial, Plaintiff asserts claim for defamation, defamatory libel acts, Retaliation, and Segregation, Criminal Acts under color of law, Malfeasance in office, as well as rights to free speech, due process and equal protection under the Law, with violations to several Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. When the Florida Highway patrol enforced policy criminalizing the use and enjoyment of the employee Renee D. Bell, the plaintiff had been threatened with prosecution when she had sought to peaceably seek protection from harm, by calling for emergency services against the representative of the Florida Highway patrol, Larry Costanzo, the plaintiff brings this civil action against the Defendants; Florida Highway Patrol Larry Costanzo.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

This action arises under the authority vested in this court by virtue of Title 28 U.S.C. 1343, and Title 28 U.S.C. 1331, Title 42 1985(1); Title 28 1367(a) only; Venue rests with this Court. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court pursuant to Title VII, (subjected to a hostile work environment) The defendants are vicariously liable; the plaintiff belonged to a protective class, this issue involved a tangible employment action. The Harassments involved violated federal law which involved Discriminatory treatment based on race, in which the plaintiff's received an injury; resulting in Partial disability this became a tangible employment action in which the plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) was demoted unfairly later terminated. The plaintiff also, acknowledges Pendent Jurisdiction, Is the authority of a United States federal court to hear closely related state law claims against a party already facing federal claims, described by the Supreme Court as "jurisdiction over nonfederal claims between parties litigating other matters properly before the court."^[1] Such jurisdiction is granted to encourage both "economy in litigation",^[2] and fairness by eliminating the need for a separate federal and state trial, hearing essentially the same facts yet, potentially reaching opposite conclusions.

Parties:

Plaintiff, (Renee D. Bell) is an individual, born in the United States, of Orlando Florida; and has and is still currently residing here for over 30yrs of her life; she has served over 20 years with the Florida Highway Patrol, with service to other law enforcement; and is an upright citizen, whom has had no problems with the law, until this incident occurred to her on August 3^RD, 2005. The plaintiff is Lawfully entitled to bring this cause of action against the Defendants. The Defendants, the Florida Highway Patrol Larry Costanzo, is a law Enforcement Agency (state Agency), for the Enforcement of the Law Highway Citations in the City of Orlando, The County of Orange, and The State of Florida.

The following Statement is the complaint of the plaintiff: against the Defendants:

*** This case is about, the Defendants (Florida Highway Patrol Larry Costanzo) whom violated the following issues regarding the plaintiff (Renee D. Bell).

"State Law "Federal Law" "Tort Law"

Personal Injury Case the U.S. Constitution Defamation Workers Compensation Civil Rights Assault/intentional (Discrimination/Racial) emotional distress/fraud Retaliation

Cont:

and the Federal Medical Leave Act, with intentional retaliation to cause harm to Plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) a career service employee; the acts relating to hearsay and the assumption of breaking an instructed code of silence order thereby leaking the department information, which led to adverse information input against her in the state of fl. Retirement system and thus, ended her career with wrongful termination from the state Agency that is listed under county government.

Note: References the aforementioned, Rule 8 Fed, R. Civ. P . . ., a complaint need only provide a concise statement of the Claim.

Cont: On the following page; The Laws involved in this case

Federal Laws:

Discrimination/Racial

Retaliation

Intentional Emotional Distress

FMLA/Federal Medical Leave Act

Hostile work Environment

ADA/American Disabilities Act

The Violated Amendments to U.S. Constitution by Defendants; Larry Costanzo:

Are laws necessary to govern ethical treatment of employees.

1st: Amendment: Freedom of speech, prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

4th: Amendment: Right of the people to be secured in there persons.

5th: Amendment: Forced into case against self using (FHP) policies to violate plaintiff.

6th: Amendment: Right to a witness during forced investigations.

8th: Amendment: Cruel and Unusual punishment.

13th: Amendment: Slavery, Involuntary Servitude.

State Laws:

*The Federal Tort Claims Act: the case could today be brought as a Federal Tort Claims Act case. The Tort Claims Act is essentially a sovereign immunity waiver, and allows private parties to sue the Federal Government in Federal Court as though it were a private citizen, for violations of state-law created rights. Plaintiff recognizes that the below mentioned claims, Tort claims, that the federal tort claims act would cover;

Title 42 US; § 1983;403-US 388 (1971); Title 28 US; § 1331

The plaintiff, asserts these claims. According to Tort law, in addition to Bivens claim.

Bivens is Federal Common Law.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress:

Assault: putting another in reasonable fear or being struck. CONT: State Law

Libel:

(defamatory); false statement made to someone about a third person that has the capacity to harm the third person's reputation or business.

False Imprisonment:

Restricting a person's freedom of movement without legal justification.

Invasion of privacy:

Substantially interfering with the right of a person to be left alone.

Wrongful discharge from employment:

Terminating an employee for improper reasons.

Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing:

Employment

Negligence:

Results from behavior that is considered unreasonably careless under the circumstances and that directly results in injury to another.

Fraud:

a false statement known to be false at the time made, opinion statement made; which is known to be false.

Cont:

Tort Law (Personal Injury Law); any injury to a person or business that is directly caused by the intentional or negligent actions of another; in which the plaintiff suffered, suffers because of the Negligence of the Defendant (Larry Costanzo).

Results from behavior that is considered unreasonably careless under the circumstances and that directly results in injury to another.

Fraud:

a false statement known to be false at the time made, opinion statement made; which is known to be false.

Cont: The Factual Allegations made by the Defendants; toward the Plaintiff: FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS: of the Defendants, Against the plaintiff as follows: (pg.1) Jan 26, 2006.

This is to notify you that the department is proposing to dismiss you under the authority of Rule 60L-36, Florida administrative Code, and Section 110.227, Florida Statutes. This proposed Action will be effective no sooner than February 10, 2006, and is based upon the following: On Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 11:24 am, after being counseled by your immediate supervisor, Captain Larry Costanzo, who advised you and your coworkers not to discuss the recent firing of Another division employee, you became angry and upset and made a 911 call to Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) from your cellular phone and falsely reported that you had been "Threatened" by Captain Larry Costanzo. You specifically requested that the OCSO send a Deputy To the "Florida Highway Patrol Station" located at 133 South Semoran in Orlando. You advised the 911 operator that you had been threatened by a superior officer.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office dispatched two Deputies to the Orlando, Florida Highway Patrol Station. The Deputies met with you in front of the station. Trooper Wanda Diaz was present when the Deputies arrived. Trooper Diaz stated "I have never been so embarrassed in my life. I just wanted to Crawl under a rock and hide after seeing the way BELL acted in front of those deputies in the lobby of the Florida Highway Patrol Station." No action was taken by the deputies.

Also, on August 3, 2005, after calling the OCSO, you placed a call to WFTV Channel 9 and reported That another Florida Highway Patrol Captain was being arrested. WFTV news anchor Jorge Estevez Called public Affairs Officer Trooper Kim Miller to inquire about what was happening. Trooper Miller Stated she was highly embarrassed by your actions. Pg. (2) Jan 26, 2006.

Aggravating Circumstances:

You have a history and pattern of creating a hostile work environment for supervisors and for Co-workers. You have showed a strong unwillingness to interact and cooperate with supervisors And coworkers as well. When you do not get your way you have repeatedly left your work station, alleging that you are sick. This is your practice especially when management speaks with you Regarding your unacceptable behavior in the workplace. Recently, you were assigned to a workstation By yourself because of the unbearable situation you were creating for those working in the same area As you. Repeatedly, local management and co-workers have gone out of their way to accommodate You. You continue to be a disruptive force in the workplace. All attempts to assist you in becoming a Valuable employees have been met with resistance from you.

IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS:

The Department relies upon the following documents in support of this disciplinary action:

IVESTIGATIVE CASE FILE D-05-0467-D

Copies of this document can be obtained from MAJOR Cyrus R. Brown, Commander Troop D, Orlando. 133 South Semoran Boulevard Suite A, Orlando, Florida 32801.

CONT: The classification overview of the case:

Federal/Civil/Substantive, please note that the majority of the defendants testimony is hearsay. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it is not sufficient in itself to support a finding of fact, unless It would be admissible over an objection in civil actions. Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida-Statutes; Rule 60BB-5.024(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code; Yost v. Unemployment Appeals Commission: 848 So.2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, referencing the incident that occurred August 03, 2005, the statements the Defendant gave the Department, as well as the local news was defaming against the plaintiff, also, the statement regarding the public Information officer referencing Mr. Estevez's statement to Kim Miller are considered hearsay, thus, the state couldn't form a basis of a factual finding Fla. Stat 120.57(1)(c).

The relationship between Larry Costanzo, and the Florida Highway patrol; Symbiotic relationship: Costanzo, a private person violates someone's constitutional Rights while engaging in state action, the private person and possibly the government Can be liable.

Joint Participation: Costanzo, private person in concert with a governmental entity or State official, resulting in private person performing public functions and thereby being Subject to claims under the civil rights laws. Costanzo, at that time was employed by the Florida Highway patrol/a state Agency engaging in state actions, violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights amongst other Laws.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: an employer may be liable for an unauthorized tort committed by his employee, even one that is in flagrant disobedience of his instructions, if the tort was committed by the employee in the course of his/her employment. This is a form of liability known as vicarious liability or imputed liability and is based on the doctrine of respond eat superior.

CONT:

Relationship Cont:

suit against a state officer was not barred when his actions aside from any official authority claimed as its jurisdiction, was a wrong. When the officer under such enactment comes into violation of the federal constitution he is stripped of his official or representative character and is subject in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. Therefore the manner, in which the Defendant acted, stripped him of the states shield against suit. The Employers The Florida Highway Patrol are vicariously liable; under the respond eat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment.

DEFAMATION CLAIM:

DEFAMATION CLAIM

Plaintiff asserts that her defamation claim is bought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343

This confers jurisdiction upon this Honorable Court to hear civil rights claims.

The Defamation is a Tort, A civil wrong; which entitles the injured party to compensation.

The Unconstitutional Acts and conduct of the Defendant Larry Costanzo, damaged the Reputation of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts her claim, for criminal Libel:

• The Defendant (Larry Costanzo) acted maliciously.

1. The defendant, had knowledge of correct information however acted with deliberate Ignorance of the truth of information.

2. Acted in reckless dis-regard of the truth and of falsifying documents given to the department about any/all Information.

The following are the Facts, In support of the claim for defamation:

The following Statements were made with "Actual malice".

a. There is no statement of what policy plaintiff (Bell) violated regarding "Safety and security".

b. No Statutory Authority, Rules, Regulations, or policy violated.

c. No false reports

d. No Harassment to Anyone.

E. Didn't falsify, or alter any documents or records

Cont: The Elements of a cause of action for defamation include: this is: "per se" Defamation (defamation of character)

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;

2. third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);

3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence On the part of the publisher; and

4. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a Damage to the plaintiff.

Defamation Cont:

1. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, advised the agency Florida Highway Patrol, including Renee Bell, as well as third party that a phone call was placed by plaintiff, and the Plaintiff stated that Larry Costanzo would be arrested, as stated in the aforementioned factual allegations of January 26, 2006.

2. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, stated to the agency, and third party that the plaintiff Had leaked personal department information to the local news media in an act of Whistle blowing the company business.

3. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, stated to Renee Bell and third parties that plaintiff was Trying to represent/or impersonate the agencies public information officer, such as Making public statements for the agency.

4. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, implied, and stated that the response of the sheriffs office was there to arrest him, and stated, this was the reason for the contact made by Plaintiff.

5. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, stated plaintiff commented on the character of a Another high ranking official known as Sterling King, indicating to others that the Plaintiff was advising of his termination with the department, later tarnishing plaintiffs Reputation followed by her termination from duty.

6. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, advised that the plaintiff had falsified records, and altered documents of the Agency.

7. The Defendant stated the plaintiff made foul and abusive languages to any persons Within the agency on the date of occurrence (Aug 03 2005).

CONT:

CASE LAW : Defamation claim: Libel per se

Broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another this accuses Him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, and Dishonesty In business, such, claims are considered so obviously harmful that Malice (hate) need not be proved to obtain a judgment for general damages.

Punitive damages in this case can also be requested, because the defendants willful acts were malicious.

Defamation: a false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule or condemnation. If the false statement is published print or through broadcast media, such as TV or Radio it is libel.

Defamation Claim Cont:

Fraud as a Tort:

Fraud, In addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. The tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy; the civil fraud typically Involves the act of intentionally making false representation of a material fact, with the

Defamation Claim Cont:

Intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that persons detriment.

a. Defendant Costanzo, made a false statement of fact, known to be false at the time it was made.

b. The Defendant made statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement.

c. A statement of opinion that the maker knows to be false

d. An expression of opinion that is false, made by one claiming or implying to have knowledge of the subject.

e. Intentional omission or concealment of some material fact done with the design of deceiving another party, with the intent the other party will rely on the deception.

The Federal Tort claims act is a statute which removed the power of the federal government

To claim immunity from a lawsuit for damages due to negligent or intentional injury by Federal employees in the scope of his/her work. Under the FTCA, the United States is Liable for money damages relating to the personal injury received by the plaintiff Or the wrongful act committed by the employer during the scope his/her work. However, the plaintiff advises, that this is a state agency not the federal government. Additionally, with the Defamation claim the plaintiff asserts a claim for "criminal libel". Fact: Referencing the defamation. The Defendant Larry Costanzo actions were of Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Tort is a civil wrong recognized by Law as grounds for a law suit. To the plaintiff's detriment the Defendant Larry Costanzo erroneously gave material to The Florida Highway patrol in which he knew was false representation; ending with the plaintiffs termination from employment. The manner, in which the Defendant acted, stripped him of the states shield against suit. Additionally, fraud is also a criminal act and is a type of civil law violation known as a tort. The tort committed is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy; A civil fraud typically involves the Act of CONT:

Defamation Claim Cont;

Intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that persons detriment. To the plaintiff's detriment: the Defendant Larry Costanzo, erroneously gave Material to The Florida Highway patrol in which he knew was false representation, the published statements knowing it was false with reckless Disregard to truth, accordingly, the alleged factual allegations submitted Jan 26, 2006, this consisted of invalid — complaints about an Incident that had Taken place on Wednesday august 3^rd , 2005 @ approx: 11:24am. The State then apparently contended that the "embarrassment" of the two of its own employees One being a public information officer, Is a reason for discharge. The discharge Which is improper because it is based on the improper belief that a law enforcement Agency can punish its employees for cooperating in any investigation, official or Unofficial, regarding the criminal abuse of power by an officer. Further, the plaintiff Did not co-operate with any investigation, and additionally didn't break the instructed Code of silence. Therefore the defamation claim is correctly stated; the communication Of the aforementioned statement implied to be factual gave the plaintiff negative Image, the claim was/is false and communicated to other than the person defamed This in addition to the charges aforementioned resulted in the plaintiffs' dismissal from the department, this was about a high ranking Captain being terminated of which at the time presented the plaintiff knew nothing about.

Fact: according to the false statements given by the Defendant Larry Costanzo. The Perc — Committee on behalf of the State charged the plaintiff with conduct that was Unbecoming a public employee, which were based on the plaintiffs 9-11 call and the Plaintiff's interaction with the sheriff's department; according to the Defendants.

Defamation Claim Cont:

over half of the states information about the plaintiff, was hearsay, which was received from the defendant Larry Costanzo. On May 9^th 2006, in findings of the state, with the PERC committee, the Agency withdrew the charge of harassment. Case No. (CS 2006-047). There were no allegations that at any time that any official Records had been in Bells (Plaintiff) custody or control. Last, Plaintiff (Bell) didn't break a code of silence, and plaintiff never stated defendant Costanzo was under any type of an arrest.

Additionally, the state agencies policy #59, restricts the discipline penalty to a suspension For first occurrence dismissal is outside the range. The agency promulgated or enacted new administrative Law; this policy that circumscribes the disciplinary penalty established In the statute and DMS rule to a suspension. And because of the merits of the charges Alleging a violation of statutory authority agency rules and policies these weren't Considered during the hearing. The Word Processor and Typist/Level I position of Classification for which equitable mitigation of the disciplinary decision could apply under The "service First" reform of the career service system see 110.227(6)(c) Fla. Stat. Therefore, the state agency dismissed plaintiff after over 20 years of service for the conduct Unbecoming, without verification of the facts presented by the plaintiff and her Attorney At that time; at that time there was no statutory authority for the commission acting on Behalf of the state (Defendants) to consider mitigation against the agency's selected Discipline penalty. Thereby, concluding to Defendant Larry Costanzo allegations. Moreover, the conclusion of Law by the committee on behalf of the Defendants The agency didn't demonstrate a cause to discipline plaintiff for falsification of records And was advised to remove such from the records of the plaintiff; at current, pending. The tarnished reputation of the plaintiff by the defendant additionally caused other Issues, after the injury the plaintiff received because of the intentional act of the defendant

Defamation Claim Cont:

Larry Costanzo, plaintiff was denied entitlement to TPD partial disability, 08/03/2005, And continuing, the Defendant Larry Costanzo, falsified documents indicating the plaintiffs Injuries was related to claimants own mis-conduct resulting in a termination from her Employment. JCC No. 05-036667 JPT D/A 08/03/2005, after over 20 years of service the plaintiff wasn't allowed unemployment, and when appealed, finally received the unemployment, however, not the full claim, with additional requirements of school attendance as a requirement, and the forced issue of settling the claim, for the workers compensation case that occurred because of the attack of the agencies rep. Larry Costanzo, or the plaintiff would be tried in a case of Fraud to/or against an Insurance company; regarding the state agency.

Note: when a complaint alleges no factual allegations and Evidence that will support The cause of action, then the grant of a motion to dismiss would be proper.

Id. Citing Marshall County Bd. Of Educ. V. Marshall county Cas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir 1993).

THE EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIES THE FACTS:

*Intentional omission or concealment of some material fact done with the design of deceiving another party, with the intent the other party will rely on the deception.

Evidence and facts omitted from Larry Costanzo's statements about plaintiff

Document 1-2, filed 12/05/05 pg. 16-21 (Letter dated Monday, October 4^th 2004).

Local News Station Video (channel-9 reports — tape recording of evidence).

Orange County Sheriff's office recorded document of 9-11 call, tape recording/printed statement.

Testimony of Local News reporter

Recorded conversation of reporter to information officer

Tape recorded entry to State building

Taped Entry from the Department of Transportation

Defamation Claim Cont:

Taped Entry by local news Reporter; News taping

Testimony of law firm: Debeaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris, Neal reference

Recorded conversations of complaints, regarding the agency.

Orange county court documents verifying injunctions,

Case: #'s 48-2005-DR-2575-0 and 48-2005-DR-2576.

Tape recorded conversation regarding The High ranking Captain that was terminated

State recorded Telephone calls, Telephone removal from the wall

Physical Injury Re' sustained/obtained after the attack

JCC No. 05-036667 JPT D/A 08/03/2005

Documentation of medical attachments/restrictions

Taped Conversation with the medical offices that plaintiff attended

Sworn Affidavit of news anchor/confirming conversation with plaintiff

Testimony of E.E.O.C. representative/EEOC representative via landline

Teletype copy sent to Colonel of Patrol; Telephone calls; made to/from Colonel of Patrol

Documentation verifying administrative duty at residence

Office harassment/grievance letters/Over 50 grievances filed

Letters from Law firms ***please note not all isn't listed, however, Input to the Court 2005.

Prima facie; the aforementioned fact's and evidence are what the plaintiff basis its claims.

Prayers for relief: wherefore, the plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants for:

1. A declaration of fact to resolve the dispute between parties in regards to the statements In controversy and for an injunction ordering the defendants to correct the inaccuracies In the complaint of the state records, and correct the negative reports of violations.

CONT:

DEFAMATION CONT:

In addition, to this plaintiff request punitive damages in this case, because the defendants willful acts were malicious. The Defamation is a Tort. A civil wrong; which entitles the injured party to compensation; plaintiff requesting treble damages regarding such defamation.

2. Agency's duty to maintain records:

Maintenance of Information, on first amendment activities prohibited an agency maintaining Records shall maintain no record on individuals exercising their rights, unless it is authorized Law Enforcement activity. (Remove from records the inaccurate statement of plaintiff with records).

3. The Defendants agency: is maintaining information in its records describing the plaintiffs

Activities while in the exercise of her rights, when plaintiff called for assistance against

The agencies representative. (Plaintiff called for help, in fear of her life).

4. The plaintiff request for an amendment to the Records, the court shall order the

Defendants, to amend its records concerning the accusations against the plaintiff.

5. Detrimental effect to the plaintiff:

Allegations of independently and unlawful issues which has caused damage to the plaintiffs reputation and job employments, and career as a whole; this has been/is detrimental to the plaintiff; plaintiff, unable to obtain gainful employment because of the accusations; placed Within her state file, with the employment issue; this effects the plaintiffs whole life, the Plaintiff isn't able to provide for her family, or survive by a means of her own from employment Or receive any income relating to employment; which has caused several problems for the Plaintiff, including a possible foreclosure to her personal property. To the plaintiff's detriment; the Defendant Larry Costanzo erroneously gave material to defendants The Florida Highway patrol in which he knew was false representation and the published statements knowing it was false with reckless disregard to truth. Plaintiff, suffered attacks on her professional character and allegations that plaintiff had committed a crime of moral turpitude.

Defamation CONT:

6. Relief by writ of mandate:

For abuse of discretion, by an administrative agency.

7. Injunction against agency: If agency fails to comply the court may make a judgment or order as necessary.

Cont:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION:

Plaintiff asserts her claim for Racial Discrimination A Prima facie Case of Discrimination; Under Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. the Civil Rights Act `1991; And the Title VII Disparate-treatment prohibition. Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) Disparate treatment; 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) Disparate impact.

a. The plaintiff was employed June, 13^th 1988; as a communications Dispatcher officer with the Florida Highway patrol; plaintiffs Title changed near the year `2000, to word Processor and typist/Level I position in which plaintiff held until her separation on February 20^th 2006. Incident Occurred within the scope of employment.

b. As a state employee, the plaintiff was allowed key entry to the secured state office building, given uniforms, and a state photo ID card for representation. The plaintiff returned the uniforms after her transition from communications Dispatcher, to the clerical position, Word Processor typist/level I."

Cont:

Factual Allegations:

The Defendant (Larry Costanzo), after becoming aware by numerous investigations of the Discrimination charge filed by the plaintiff, displayed harsh disparate treatment towards the plaintiff, and Unconstitutional actions, the Defendant taken adverse actions against the plaintiff; The actions are the plaintiff's prima facie case for a claim under section 703; of The Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONT:

Such as: Defendant, ordered the plaintiff to enter work through the rear door of the Fla. Highway patrol Building while Caucasian employees were allowed to use The front door; because of the plaintiffs race.

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that provides for monetary damages in case of intentional discrimination; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of Section 703(a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

a. The Defendant (Larry Costanzo), ordered the plaintiff to use separate restrooms From the Caucasian employees, due to plaintiffs race.

b. And, not to talk to Caucasian employees, due to plaintiffs race. Finally, the Employers (the Florida Highway Patrol Larry costanzo) the reasons they given were in fact mere pretext. The employer wanted to hide the embarrassment that one of its superior officers would commit such an act; advising the employee to enter from the "rear door" because of her race. Just Prior to the incident about the entry, the Defendant (Larry Costanzo) had ordered plaintiff to use separate restrooms from Caucasians, and not to talk to Caucasian employees; the plaintiff then asked Defendant was this because of her race? The Defendant replied yes. When the plaintiff asked the Defendant as to why plaintiff would have to enter thru the rear door, the Defendants reply was "Quote;" "because it's you Renee, because it's you." Thereafter, leaving the Presence Of the defendant (Larry Costanzo), the plaintiff responded to the cafeteria Area of the building, where plaintiff burst into tears in a side restroom, after minutes of trying to regain her composure, the plaintiff then called the EEOC. The EEOC was contacted, plaintiff spoken to a Duly Ross, who was advised of the situation Mr. Ross responded, by advising plaintiff not to enter thru the rear door, but to enter thru the adjacent facility; in which in this case would be the Department of Transportation Building and he advised if proof is available this would be good. the plaintiff then proceeded to ask the Department of transportation if it would be ok

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: CONT

to enter thru their door, as the plaintiff wasn't employed by them. They advised yes, Therefore, the plaintiff was then allowed to enter the building.

Note: the Department of Transportation area is a recorded premises, therefore the The plaintiff's entry was also videotaped, along with verification by the local news.

The entry was ordered by the Defendant Larry Costanzo, because of the plaintiff's race.

On the basis of the plaintiff's Race, she was ordered by the Defendant in order to gain access to the state building, in which plaintiff was employed, it would be thru the rear entrance; while

a. Caucasian descents were permitted to enter thru the front entrance.

b. Non — Communication with Caucasian descent

c. No use of public restrooms with persons of Caucasian Descent

d. Segregation, removed from Caucasian Descent to closed confinement

Fact: the plaintiff was ordered to enter to her place of employment, by the rear entrance, by Larry Costanzo, because of the plaintiff's race. The plaintiff was ordered to use separate restrooms, by Larry Costanzo; the plaintiff because of her race wasn't issued an office computer, as the Caucasian office workers. The plaintiff was removed from using office equipment, files etc; because of race. Last the Plaintiff, was ordered to work confined to her home; upon returning to the office this ended with confinement to a closet space area, away from Caucasians as ordered due to plaintiffs' race.

Cont:

CONT: Discrimination:

The defendants are vicariously liable; the plaintiff belonged to a protective class, this issue Involved a tangible employment action, culminating in termination; The Harassments involved violated federal law which, involved Discriminatory treatment based on race.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONT:

Plaintiffs, racial discrimination claim is brought under TITLE VII; as aforementioned 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and Title 28 U.S.C. 1343; for the honorable court to hear claims. Plaintiff filed a statement of jurisdiction with the Eleventh Circuit, during submission Of briefs the honorable Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff's complaint Filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C., The violation of the title VII of the civil rights act 1964.

Appellate jurisdiction pursuant — 28 U.S.C. Sections (1).*

*(Title 42, U.S.C., [section] 1983) End Quote — "liable to the party injured

In any action at law. . . ." According to US Constitution this would cover Discrimination

And Retaliation, regarding deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities. Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for more than 19 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The Plaintiff has provided such — documentation, acknowledging that plaintiff has alleged compliance accordingly which is the condition precedent to suit, plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to suit, and has stated her claim for which relief can be granted.

Under Discrimination Racial/Employment Discrimination is Title VII:

1. What must be alleged in the complaint?

2. What defenses are available

3. What kinds of remedies are the Court authorized to grant?

4. Whether attorneys fees should be paid

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONT:

1. The alleged discrimination complaint must be filed no later than one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days following: the date of the alleged act of discrimination; the date when the complainant(s) became aware of the alleged discrimination; or the date on which the alleged act of discrimination occurred.

As aforementioned, plaintiff has complied with thus rules, in filing with the E.E.O.C. Case Nos. 511-2006-00367; and No. 511-2006-00991.Filed within the 180 days Following the date of Discrimination.

2. Statutory defense available under Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the primary federal statute providing protection against workplace discrimination.

a) Discrimination: any action or inaction, whether intentional or unintentional, in any program or activity of a Federal-aid recipient, sub-recipient, or contractor which results in • Disparate (unfavorable or unequal) treatment, • Disparate impact, or • Perpetuating the effects of prior discrimination based solely on the person's race, color, sex, national origin, age, or disability (in the case of disability, failure to make reasonable accommodation is included as a potential basis for discrimination) toward any person in the United States.

the Title VII prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (disparate treatment), as well as policies or practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on _______ minorities, § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) (disparate impact).The plaintiff suffered intentional acts of employment

Discrimination based on her race as well as disparate treatment.

The Defendants, Larry Costanzo treated plaintiff differently than other employees. The defendant acted With malice, and reckless indifference towards the plaintiff, because of the plaintiffs attendance record In which, the Defendant Larry Costanzo, altered; and the taking of leave by the plaintiff en titled the Federal Medical Leave Act, which was allowed by the Colonel of the Highway Patrol, this protected trait is what assisted in the motivation of the Defendants, Larry Costanzo (Employers) actions towards the plaintiff.

Finally, the Defendants statement was a mere cover up to hide the truth, and the shame and/or Embarrassment to the Agency; by giving statements about the plaintiff of she was rerouted through another entrance to keep down confusion.

3. Employment preference; Court remedy

Compensatory remedies under Title VII; Compensatory damages refer to damages that are Recovered in payment for injury or economic loss. Punitive damages are damages that are Added due to maliciousness or grossly negligent action. Punitive damages may be awarded in a lawsuit as punishment and example to others for malicious evil of particularly fraudulent acts. Injunctive relief refers to a court ordered act or prohibition against an act or condition which has been requested, sometimes granted in the petition for the injunction, injunctive relief isn't a judgment for money; sometimes part of the "suit" for damages or contract performance. CONT:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONT:

Accordingly, the plaintiff request; Compensatory damages for her injury and economic loss. and punitive damages; relating to the maliciousness, and grossly negligent actions of the defendant (Larry Costanzo). plaintiff, request court order written as mandate apology from Defendants, requesting treble damages.

In a Disparate treatment case, in which this case applies;

4. Additionally, the statute (Title VII) Allows remedies as applicable: injunctive relief, reinstatement, front pay (until or in lieu of reinstatement) back pay, attorneys fees and cost, in which plaintiff obtained Several regarding this case; with direct out of pocket expenses that plaintiff couldn't afford, Compensatory damages for any past or future out of pocket losses and any emotional harm, Which was caused by the Defendant, in which plaintiff sought assistance; and punitive damages if the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference to the individuals federally protected rights; In which the Defendant (Larry Costanzo) acted. Cont:

ADA 1990 American with Disabilities ACT 1990.

The plaintiff asserts her claim of the ADA of 1990; According to the Title VII. : Title I Title V.

Under Title I Title V the plaintiff asserts her claim of the ADA of 1990. Which prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector in the state and local governments.

Plaintiff asserts claim against employer for failing to provide her with reasonable accommodations as required by the Americans with disabilities Act 1990 42 U.S.C. 1122(b)(5)(A.) there was evidence that plaintiff had an substantially limiting impairment, in which the Defendants were of aware due to the type of work in which the plaintiff was employed to do the receptiveness of the work procedure over the 13yr period caused continual breakdown of the injury. The initial case with the state was filed In 1997; with the state of Florida.

Thus the defendants were aware of the plaintiff's impairment. When plaintiff transferred and changed job titles the same injury was apparent; the incident that occurred on Wed Aug. 3, 2005 resulting in Yet another injury to the same arm/hand the JCC No. 05-036667 JPT D/A 08/03/2005. Aggravated the existing injury.

The impairment substantially limited the plaintiff in major life activities when performing manual tasks relating to work or employment.

Following: Class of manual activities relating to the plaintiffs work:

1. Typing (repetitive)

2. Input data computer/entry (limited)

3. Filing

4. Lifting (limited)

5. Manuscript

6. Calculating (repetitive) office equipment requiring repetitive motion

7. Wrist/arm prompt for repetitiveness

8. Gripping of tools; such as whole punch; over size staples.

The plaintiff's ailments prevent her from doing certain types of manual jobs that require work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder levels for extended periods of time. Although, plaintiff is able to tend to her personal hygiene and carry out some of the household chores. Additionally, Major means important, major life activities refer to those activities that are of central importance to daily life. The tasks in question are central to daily life, the plaintiffs ailment prevent her from doing certain types of manual jobs. The activity of being able to extend the arms at or above shoulder level for extended periods of time is no longer enjoyed by the plaintiff among manual task of

American with Disabilities ACT 1990.CONT:

Central importance, repetitive motion in brushing of the teeth, limited bathing, and limited household chores. The plaintiff's impairments restrict her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives.

Plaintiff, bases her claim under ADA on the grounds that her physical impairments substantially limit her in manual tasks such as lifting and working.

1. Limited repetitive motion in brushing teeth

2. Limited repetitive motion in bathing

3. Limited lifting and limited repetitiveness motion with household chores.

4. Limited work as a fore mentioned No. 3 (1-8) as related to the plaintiff's type of work.

The Act defines a "qualified individual with a disability" as an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable functions of the employment position, that such individual holds or desires. 12111(8).

A disability is:

A. A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.

B. A record of such and impairment;

C. Being regarded as having such and impairment; 12102(2).

Accordingly, plaintiff fits all categories.

The plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) has a physical impairment, the type of impairment relevant to this case, to mean "any physiological disorder or condition". Plaintiff requested additional accommodation after the incident or re-injury on August 3, 2005. Specifically during the time plaintiff was placed in closet space area and confined behind wall.

The plaintiff has record of such impairment

A. (dominant) old injury 1997 (17-98-1185) Second occurrence; 8/28/2001 Carrier File No. 01 14000071 Protegrity INS File# 17-101-51410 0980001185 — State claim # 10/6/99 original injury date

B. Limitation by Physician: placed on permanent work restrictions; that precluded plaintiff from lifting more than 10LBS or carrying objects weighing up to 10LBS. Engaging in constant repetitive flexion or extension of plaintiffs wrist or performing "over head work" or use of vibratory tools, etc.

C. Plaintiff has been regarded as having such impairment: due to 13yrs of radio dispatch. Workers Comp Case 8/3/2005 JCC No. 05-036667 JPT D/A 08/03/2005 Case No. Corvell grievance filed 8/3/2005 (for Medical assistance)

American with Disabilities ACT 1990/CONT:

Plaintiff, was forced to settle a claim under Workers Comp unless, the state would proceed against plaintiff with fraud case claiming plaintiff, had frauded an Insurance Company. Cont:

Renee Bell attended the Florida Department of Education Rehabilitation Training and completed the training; upon completing classes, with Valencia Community College; of which plaintiff has (5) remaining Classes; for an Associates/Arts General Degree, the Department of Education will secure employment with a State job, for Plaintiff.

Substantially Limited : plaintiff would be significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which plaintiff could perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. The duration of the impairment is for the plaintiff's whole life. The injury is permanent, unless possibly corrective surgery with no guarantee outcome, the continual repetitive motion can continue to deteriorate, in which the plaintiff would be at greater risk because of the type of work that plaintiff is trained and was employed with.

Under the Americans with disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or ACT) 104 Stat. 328 42 USC 12101 et. Seq. (1994 ed. And Supp. V), a physical impairment that "Substantially limits one or more . . . major life activities is a "disability". 42 U.S.SC. § 12102(2)(A) (1994 ed.).

RETALIATION:

For the purpose of this case the state enforced that the state is immune from suit (governments can't be held liable by court) unless the government waives that immunity and allows itself to be sued. A law called government claims act or The Tort claim Act, in which all levels of government from municipalities to the state can be held liable in tort cases. The plaintiff assert claim under the Tort Law, And Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964; Section 704 the Anti-Retaliation Provision; in Addition to Claim under the Bivens Federal common Law. Retaliation : Plaintiff asserts claim for retaliation; A prima facie case of retaliation. Under Title VII; this prohibits intentional discrimination.

Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964; Section 704 the Anti — Retaliation Provision Retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation or opposing discriminatory practices.

The plaintiff asserts her claim for the Retaliation; Retaliated against for taking leave, under the Federal Medical leave Act; by the Defendant Larry Costanzo; the Defendant created a hostile work environment, in which the plaintiff suffered, forced harassment and Retaliation.

RETALIATION CONT:

1. Engaged in the activity of Title VII

a. The incident occurred while in the scope of employment; between plaintiff and defendant.

The plaintiff was employed 6/13/1988 as a communications dispatcher officer, with the State, plaintiff's title was changed around August `1999, the position of Word Processor

Typist Level I was held until the Plaintiff's separation with the company.

The following Retaliation issues; the plaintiff suffered: by the Defendants Larry Costanzo.

Retaliation Case Nos: 511-2006-00367 511-2006-00991

JCC No. 05-036667 JPT D/A 08/03/2005 Workers Compensation CaseNos. Wrongful Termination

FMLA/uncompensated Work hours/Work standard evaluation problems Injunctions/Confinement/False Imprisonment/'Ordered' entry thru rear Door Schools Training Issues (Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 forbade gender discrimination in education programs,

Reprimands/Depriving of rights and privileges/prevention from performing duties Continual Investigations/Warnings-Signings. Insurance Issues/Building supplies/Computers phones/Confinement Assault Injury/sexual harassment/Acts of intentional Harassments

Assault: a crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a Way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened.

Note: physical contact not necessary, threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.

Statement of Fact: when OCSO, deputies arrived to the aid of plaintiff, the plaintiffs Statement was that she felt threatened, by her Superior by the acts the Defendant made against her.

Denial of care from physicians

2. The Employer, was aware of the plaintiffs participation in the protected activity:

CONT: RETALIATION CLAIM

Records submitted in evidence reflect that the agency was disciplining plaintiff for Conduct unbecoming a public employee; stemming from an incident. Where the plaintiff placed a call to 911, to report an incident in which the defendant (Larry Costanzo) alleged this wasn't an emergency; and for calling the local news station, though the plaintiff was allowed to continue working until plaintiff was released from employment Feb. 20^th 2006. Capt. Larry Costanzo, On Wednesday August 3^rd 2005 contacted plaintiff to respond to his office, he sent a Co-worker to locate plaintiff. After plaintiffs arrival she was informed this was regarding an arrest and the termination of Capt. Sterling King a high ranking officer with the department who was in the midst of the arrest taking place, or it had taken place and that it was currently being reported on the local news stations.

*The actions is the element of the plaintiffs prima facie case for a claim under the section 704.4. The plaintiff wasn't aware of the incident, and issues relating to the arrest. The Employer had taken adverse action against the plaintiff.

3. The Defendants (Larry Costanzos) state of wretchedness and mis-conduct; are verifiable

Actions relating to the arrest of Capt. Sterling King, his emotions enforced upon the plaintiff, This caused distress to the emotions of the plaintiff. This immediately led to the plaintiffs Injury to herself; phone call to 911 in a dis-oriented state, and yet another call to ascertain About the accusations against her. The plaintiff suffered what is called nervous paroxysm; Known as a physical injury; Caused by shock to the nervous system; plaintiff was Uncontrollably crying and shaking which was witnessed by a superior officer, passing by; and later witnessed by the female deputy that responded from OCSO, whom consoled the plaintiff.

CONT: RETALIATION CLAIM

RETALIATION CLAIM CONT

When stated above in NO. (3) of the aforementioned paragraph, the acts of the Defendant

(Larry Costanzo) were verifiable, this statement was not to be taken in a literal since; the actions Of the Defendants towards the plaintiff were a direct cause of why plaintiff re-acted the way she did; But the actions of the defendant if not personally seen are unforeseeable by the naked eye But yet and still obviously apparent.

4. A casual connection existed between the plaintiff protected activity; and the adverse action That was taken place by the employer.

The plaintiff, in this case was employed by the Defendants.

The plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) the defendants (The Florida Highway Patrol Larry Costanzo).

Employer/Employee.

Finally, the employers purported reasons was mere pretext for the retaliation action Or actions. The Employer, wanted to cover-up the retaliation against the plaintiff because this Involved the case of one of its superior officers; Capt. Sterling King, which was arrested Terminated for issues that he caused, seen on national television. The superior officer that Attacked the plaintiff was transferred from his official location for issues he himself had with The department. The initial incident which occurred on Wednesday Aug 3, 2005, which is before this honorable court, was related to the arrest termination of this Capt. Sterling King. After, this was aired on National television; the attack to the plaintiff by the Defendant Larry Costanzo, was on the assumption or hearsay that the plaintiff was involved with the Arrest, termination, and or discussion of the news report in the office, and the plaintiffs Suspected leak of department information. This was relating to the Defendant (Larry Costanzo) Who had previously improperly threatened persons in the office that they were to Maintain a code of silence, regarding "king" by instructing them to discuss the facts with no-One. Later; this ending in the plaintiff being discharged in relations to the arrest, termination,

CONT: RETALIATION CLAIM

And eventual criminal conviction of Captain Sterling King.

Fact: plaintiff states as a method of continued Retaliation; additionally, the plaintiff has shown there is real and immediate threat by submission Of her briefs to the Appeals court (Eleventh Circuit) the threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again as stated, plaintiff was advised she would be stopped In her personal vehicle by an officer of the Florida Highway patrol, and snatched From her vehicle, on the assumption that plaintiff had something to do with the arrest, termination, and eventually criminal conviction of the Captain, Sterling King; submitted to state March 2006, with received threats to do bodily harm.

Negligent infliction of serious Emotional Distress:

1. A cause of action may be stated for emotional distress: Pain, and suffering, and mental disturbance Intentional negligent infliction of emotional distress Generally, assault which is aforementioned. Abuse of process The Abusive language

2. The negligent infliction of serious emotional distress; the following applying the principles to the case.

3. The negligent actions of Larry Costanzo and the conduct flowing from one verifiable action by the defendant that foresee ably elicited serious emotional responses in the plaintiff and hence serve as a measure of the validity of the plaintiffs claim for emotional distress.

Regarding Tort action and Damages; the Plaintiff suffered an injury; crying and shaking as viewed By the passing witness; and police when they arrived to the (FHP) building; and emotional suffering that was arguably caused by the defendant's acts of negligence; thus plaintiff requesting recovery under the Tort Law, and the Bivens Claim. The difference between Negligence Intentional Tort any action or inaction can be intentional as well as negligent. The physical injury without impact; a Plaintiff who as a result of the Defendants negligence had suffered an emotional trauma resulting in a nervous — disturbance or disorder may recover damages. Such shocks to the nervous system are classified as physical injuries.

Case Law: If plaintiff has suffered a shock to the nervous system or other physical harm which was proximately caused by negligent conduct of a defendant, then such plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from such a defendant for any resulting physical harm and emotional distress. In which case plaintiff suffered an injury.

Note: A matter of general knowledge that an attack of sudden fright or exposure to eminent Peril has produced in individuals a complete change to their nervous system; Such result is regarded as an injury to the body.

CONT: Hostile work Environment/follows Retaliation

Hostile Work Environment :

The plaintiff was retaliated against for taking leave under the FMLA, which brought about the Hostile Work Environment, Accordingly the plaintiff asserts claim.

under Title VII :

A Hostile Work Environment, exist when an employee experiences workplace harassment and fear going to work because of offensive, intimidating, or oppressive atmosphere generated by the harasser based on race, religion, sec, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation, political affiliation, citizenship status, marital status, or personal appearance, Hostile Work environment is also one of the two legal categories of sexual harassment. The conditions of employment are altered only if the harassment cumulates in a tangible employment action or is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.

Hostile Work Environment is where speech is severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile or abusive work environment.

Sexually oriented jokes

Unwanted verbal contact

Posters, (Applications to other business, left on plaintiffs work station, by Defendant)

Teasing (Initiated while plaintiff engaged in work)

Inappropriate gestures

The connection between Hostile Work Environment Discrimination

A "hostile environment" is a work atmosphere contaminated by a pattern of offensive conduct directed at an individual's protected class status.

The defendants conduct resulted in company liability; this was resistant harassment and hostile work environment harassment.

The Discrimination based on any of the protected classes is prohibited in hiring, compensation, termination, and all other terms of employment.

Claim of harassment requirements:

1. The complaining party must be a member of a statutorily protected class

2. Person subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct related to his/her membership in that protected class.

3. The unwelcome conduct complained of was based on his/her membership in that protected class.

4. The unwelcome conduct affected a term or condition of employment or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfere ins with his/her work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

CONT: Hostile Work Environment:

Accordingly, plaintiff was employed with the Florida Highway Patrol, and subjected to unwelcome verbal comments, which did effect and interfered with the plaintiffs work/work performance, there there were numerous letters of grievances filed with the Department; Accordingly, indicating the incidents and advising of the intimidations, and hostile work environment. (Court, DOCS; filed 2005.)

Workplace Safety: the plaintiff filed several letters, with the department regarding workplace safety; in which on several occasions the plaintiff was sent to medical care; due to injuries relating to the — safeness of the workplace; the result of this added the total of increasing workplace injuries; to the plaintiffs file. No complaint was filed under the Occupational safety and Health Act; due to the Employer advising they would handle the situation, they removed plaintiff from her original work location; and medication was administered by the physicians advised of by the company.

FMLA: Claim regarding FMLA:

Case Law: An employee may bring civil Action against an employer for violations

Regarding this act., plaintiff entered suit 12/2005, and additionally notified the

Department of Labor, Attorney Generals, EEOC; amongst others.

The FMLA:

The Plaintiff asserts her claim under Title 29 USC 2615 (2000).

A. Plaintiff was retaliated against for taking leave under the FMLA;

B. Retaliated against for the discrimination charge filed; Damages suffered :

1. Failed to reasonably accommodate disability 8/3/2005

2. Decrease in pay on set Aug/Sept 99 — Nov 2005 for leave taken regarding immediate family (mother) 15% decrease in pay; accumulated leave in retirement system taken; discharged Because of the negative leave absences/regarding caring for terminal mother.

3. Termination date: 2/20/2006

4. Insurance canceled, along with schools trainings.

According to the FMLA an employee's use of the FMLA cannot result in the loss of any employment benefit that the employee earned or was entitled to before the usage for the FMLA nor be counted against, under a no fault attendance policy. The State removed time from the plaintiff, authority of the defendant Larry Costanzo only accounting for 19 1/2 yrs (19.5) versus over 20 yrs of tenure.

Prayers for Relief : FMLA

Letter of recommendation from Department (Apology).

1. Unblock unemployment — portion not received; or payment thereof.

2. Compensation for retirement retroactive, until current.

3. Un freeze Retirement; Unblock Retirement privileges' lost.

4. Retroactive pay, regarding pay decrease, until current

5. Accumulated years and time returned, to the Retirement system.

CONT: FMLA CLAIM

FMLA Forms of equitable relief

a. Employment as aforementioned.

b. Promotion

c. Reinstatement

Recover

1. Wages

2. Employment benefits other compensation

3. Cost of providing care (to a family member)

4. Liquidated damages and interest

JOB RESTORATION REGARDING FMLA

Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be restored to the employee's original job, or to an equivalent job with equivalent pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. An employee's use of FMLA leave cannot result in the loss of any employment benefit that the employee earned or was entitled to before using FMLA leave, nor be counted against the employee under a "no fault"

attendance policy. If a bonus or other payment, however, is based on the achievement of a specified goal such as hours worked, products sold, or perfect attendance, and the employee has not met the goal due to FMLA leave, payment

may be denied unless it is paid to an employee on equivalent leave status. An employee has no greater right to restoration or to other benefits and conditions

Of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed.

FMLA LAW : makes it unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of any right provided under FMLA. Or to discharge, or discriminate against any person for opposing any practice made unlawful by FMLA or involvement in any proceeding under or relating to the FMLA.

Note: the Family Medical leave of 1993, has been amended, since the incidents in this case that occurred in 2005; therefore any rules that were enforceable according to Law, at that time shouldn't be omitted because, of the new ruling; new rules became effective Jan 16^th 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED;

DATE; 8/7/2009 pro se plaintiff, Renee D. Bell

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

Sent to: Gerald D. Siebens, By Regular US Mail.

On 7th Day August 2009, by Regular US Mail.

(Representing/FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL/ LARRY COSTANZO : KATHY JIMENEZ MORALES OFFICE OF THE ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 EAST KENNEDY BLVD.STE. 1100 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this honorable Court:

Issue judgment for damages; Compensatory; General; Punitive, special damages, Statutory, and treble damages, that Defendant's actions, policies and procedures, Embodied in Florida thus violated Plaintiffs' rights secured under the _____________ United States Constitution; The free speech clause of the First Amendment; Privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; 1st Amendment to The U.S. Constitution freedom of speech, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 4^th Amendment, right of the people to be secure in their persons;5^th Amendment Plaintiff forced into a case against herself, using FHP policies to violate;6^th Amendment Plaintiffs, right to a witness during investigations, 8^th Amendment cruel and unusual Punishment; 13th Amendment, Slavery and Involuntary Servitude. Other plaintiffs Federal Claims; Discrimination/Racial charge of Retaliation; Intentional Emotional Distress; FMLA/Federal Medical Leave Act charges; Hostile work Environment; ADA/American Disabilities Act CONT:

CONT: PRAYERS FOR RELIEF;

Charges, and for State claims; Assault; Intentional infliction of emotional distress; Libel; False Imprisonment; Invasion of privacy; Wrongful discharge from employment; Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; Negligence; Fraud; Negligence; Title 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 And Article I, Section I paragraphs 1 (life, liberty, and property) 2 (protection to Person and property; equal protection), and 5 (freedom of speech) of the Florida Constitution; Title VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 Sect:703;704.4; Title VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1991; Title 42 USC Sec:1983.

Bivens federal Law; Title 42 1985(1); Title 28 1367(a) only; Title 42 USC 2000e-2(a)(1)(b). Title 18 242; Title IX; Title 29 USC chapter 18; Title 29USC2615; Title 42, USC 12101; and Title 42USC12102(2)(A); Title 42 USC2000e-2(a)(1); Title 42 USC2000e-2(K)(1)(A)(i).

(2) enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant, its officers, Agents, successors, employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert with it, from Enforcing with respect to individuals who engage in any other protected activity Restrained by the code section" (this injunction will prohibit racial Discrimination.

(3) Order Defendants to issue a public apology to Plaintiff; Includes plaintiffs Daughter and mother who have suffered because of the negligence of the employer. Daughter suffered severe repetitive stress disorders, resulting in hospital Care. (Currently mother very III, has a terminal illness), forced to be without her daughter by her side due to denial leave; mother is now deceased, Sunday May 17^th 2009;@ 22:00hrs.

(4) Grant to plaintiffs judgment, Compensatory; General; Punitive, Special damages, Statutory, and treble damages against Defendants in an amount reasonable and commensurate with the losses imposed upon her by the Defendant's unlawful acts; the plaintiff is asking the amount of three Million Dollars.

(5) Grant to Plaintiffs a jury trial on all issues so triable;

(6) Award to Plaintiffs the cost of the action and reasonable attorney's fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. section and federal and state law;

(7) Grant any and all additional relief as this Court deems proper and just.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of August, 2009.

Thanks,

RDB Signature of Renee' D. Bell 8/7/2009

EXHIBIT 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Middle District of FLORIDA IN And For Orange County, Florida Orlando, DIVISION Renee Denise Bell CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CIVIL NO. Florida Highway Patrol Larry Costanzo PLAINTIFF (, § Title VII; 1964) vs. 6:05-CV-1806-ORL-31_DAB DEFENDANTS

INTRODUCTION

Renee D. Bell ["Bell"], of state of Florida hereby asserts the following claims against the defendants in the above-entitled action:

(1) Violation of Defamation of Character

A. Violation of the Whisleblowing "ACT"

Under laws with broad whistleblower protection provisions, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, employers also may not demote, suspend, threaten, harass or otherwise discriminate against employees who blow the whistle.

[Note: although the defendants violated this Act — The District court has asked that the Sarbanes Oxley ACT not be used]

B. Breach of Covenant Fair Dealing

(2). Violation of Title VII: Racial Discrimination

Statutory defense under Section 703 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(A). Segregation, Racial

1. Workplace Safety/Racial Harassment/Negligence

2. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (False Imprisonment; Home confinement)

3. Intentional Acts of Employment Discrimination § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) (disparate impact)

Violation of TITLE VII Retaliation

Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964; Section 704 the Anti-Retaliation Provision Title 42, U.S.C., [section] 1983

Civil Rights Act of 1964;Civil Rights Act `1991; And the Title VII Disparate-treatment prohibition Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) Disparate treatment; 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) Disparate impact.

(A). Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Retaliation for petitioning,

(2) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985(3): conspiracy,

(3) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: refusing or neglecting to prevent,

(4) malicious prosecution,

(5) malicious abuse of process,

(6) violation 42 USC 1983; and 1985 conspiracy/Injunctions

(7). violation of Title VII: Hostile Work Environment

(8). Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress

(9). violation of Title VII: FMLA Title 29 USC 2615 (2000). 29 U.S.C. Section 2617. Enforcement a) Civil action by employees (1) Liability thru 4; (b) 1-4 e, f.

(10.) Segregation/Wrongful Termination

Title VII

Retaliation: Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964; Section 704 the Anti — Retaliation Provision

1. Segregation 2. Malicious prosecution 3. Refusing or neglecting to prevent 4. Conspiracy/Injunctions/false imprisonment/invasion of privacy. 5. Hostile Work Environment/Harassment 6. Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress 7. F.M.L.A. 8. Wrongful Termination 1st: Amendment: Freedom of speech, prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

4th: Amendment: Right of the people to be secured in there persons.

5th: Amendment: Forced into case against self using (FHP) policies to violate plaintiff.

6th: Amendment: Right to a witness during forced investigations.

8th: Amendment: Cruel and Unusual punishment.

13th/14th: Amendment: Slavery, Involuntary Servitude.

(4) Violation of Title VII; ; Title I Title V. Injury: ADA 42 U.S.C. 12101

1. Defendant FHP violated the ADA refusing medical treatment for the plaintiff.

2. 42 U.S.C. 1122(b)(5)(A.) Abuse and Intentional emotional distress after receiving the injury.

A. JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343(a) (civil rights and elective franchise), and 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights), 1985(3) (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), 1986, and 1988 (proceedings in vindication of civil rights); and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1511; 1961 (and statutes cited therein) through 1967.

2. Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).

1. Jurisdiction is proper in this court according to:

a._ 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

b._ 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Racial Hostility/Discrimination)

c._ Other; Federal Question; 42;2000e-2, USC 2000e-2; (a)(1) 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) Title 28 1343; Title VII, Title 28 1331, Title 28 1367(a) only; Pendent Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction, is also conferred upon this court pursuant to Title VII, subjected to hostile work environment, the plaintiff belonged to a protective class, these issues involve tangible employment action. This case should be heard in federal court rather some other forum, relating to the U.S. Constitution, and Amendments of the Constitution, Bivens claims brought by 42 USC 1983 Federal Laws violated such as Racial Discrimination; Retaliation, based on Race; Intentional Emotional Distress relating to the issues; American Disabilities Act; The (FMLA) Federal Medical Leave Act; and "State Laws" arising out of the Federal-issues; therefore, venue rest with this court.

CONT:

PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

filed other lawsuits

1. Have you in State or Federal court that deal with the same facts that are involved in this action? YES/NO.

Ans: NO;

*Submitted to this honorable court is the pending of other issues; however all relate to the same Case, no other Lawsuit has been filed for this civil case: 6:05-CV-1806-ORL-31_DAB.

Parties involved in suit

2. NAME OF PLAINTIFF: Renee D. Bell

IS A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF: ___ FLORIDA

PRESENT MAILING ADDRESS: 3338 Lake Tiny Circle Orlando Fl 32818

3. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT: Florida Highway Patrol

IS A CITIZEN OF: Orlando, Florida

IS EMPLOYED AS: State Agency (Business) at 133 South Semoran Blvd.

Was the defendant acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims occurred?

Yes_X___ No__________; if Yes; briefly, explain.

4. Name of Second Defendant: Larry Costanzo

IS A NOW A CITIZEN OF: STATE OF MICHIGAN

WAS EMPLOYED AS: CAPTAIN at THE FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL

Was the defendant acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims occurred?

Yes_X___ No__________; if Yes; briefly, explain.

the Defendant acted beyond the bounds of lawful authority, while pretending to act in the performance of official duties. The unlawful "acts" consisted of abuse and "Misuse" of power. The abuse received resulted in "injury" to the plaintiff. By the defendants actions and misuse of power the plaintiff was later, terminated from career service employment, along with other Issues, that occurred regarding these acts.

2. FACTS: The State of Florida's Allegations against the plaintiff

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS: of the Defendants, Against the plaintiff as follows: (pg.1) Jan 26, 2006.

This is to notify you that the department is proposing to dismiss you under the authority of Rule 60L-36, Florida administrative Code, and Section 110.227, Florida Statutes. This proposed Action will be effective no sooner than February 10, 2006, and is based upon the following: On Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 11:24 am, after being counseled by your immediate supervisor, Captain Larry Costanzo, who advised you and your coworkers not to discuss the recent firing of Another division employee, you became angry and upset and made a 911 call to Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) from your cellular phone and falsely reported that you had been "Threatened" by Captain Larry Costanzo. You specifically requested that the OCSO send a Deputy To the "Florida Highway Patrol Station" located at 133 South Semoran in Orlando. You advised the 911 operator that you had been threatened by a superior officer.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office dispatched two Deputies to the Orlando, Florida Highway Patrol Station. The Deputies met with you in front of the station. Trooper Wanda Diaz was present when the Deputies arrived. Trooper Diaz stated "I have never been so embarrassed in my life. I just wanted to Crawl under a rock and hide after seeing the way BELL acted in front of those deputies in the lobby of the Florida Highway Patrol Station." No action was taken by the deputies. Also, on August 3, 2005, after calling the OCSO, you placed a call to WFTV Channel 9 and reported That another Florida Highway Patrol Captain was being arrested. WFTV news anchor Jorge Estevez Called public Affairs Officer Trooper Kim Miller to inquire about what was happening. Trooper Miller Stated she was highly embarrassed by your actions. Pg. (2) Jan 26, 2006.

Aggravating Circumstances:

You have a history and pattern of creating a hostile work environment for supervisors and for Co-workers. You have showed a strong unwillingness to interact and cooperate with supervisors And coworkers as well. When you do not get your way you have repeatedly left your work station, alleging that you are sick. This is your practice especially when management speaks with you Regarding your unacceptable behavior in the workplace. Recently, you were assigned to a workstation By yourself because of the unbearable situation you were creating for those working in the same area As you. Repeatedly, local management and co-workers have gone out of their way to accommodate You. You continue to be a disruptive force in the workplace. All attempts to assist you in becoming a Valuable employees have been met with resistance from you.

IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS:

The Department relies upon the following documents in support of this disciplinary action:

INVESTIGATIVE CASE FILE D-05-0467-D

Copies of this document can be obtained from MAJOR Cyrus R. Brown, Commander Troop D, Orlando. 133 South Semoran Boulevard Suite A, Orlando, Florida 32801.

3.

A. Nature of Case

1. Why are you bringing this case to court?

The attack on the plaintiff with injury, and the intentional false representation of material fact, with intent to deceive, given the Department of the Florida Highway Patrol, the media, and fellow employees; has ended the plaintiffs career service employment; and frozen plaintiffs Retirement, The accusations created a false picture of the plaintiff's character as a public service Career employee, an as an individual; and the fact the plaintiff was ordered to "enter thru the rear door of a business" because of her skin color, and segregated behind a wall because of her skin color, has cause great harm to the plaintiff. These acts caused the burden of needing assistance psychologically, or someone mentally there to talk to on a daily basis about what occurred to the plaintiff? Allowing plaintiff to be able to "cope" after the "attack" and forward. This assistance wasn't paid for by the plaintiff, however, this was paid for by the individuals whom dedicated their time, and efforts to the assistance of the plaintiff; while performing their jobs with the state or local government, These acts destroyed the plaintiffs possibilities for other employment for livelihood, the injury itself has scarred, barred the plaintiff from obtaining certain types of employment, with the requirements of the case this has placed the plaintiff in severe hardship with no money to afford an attorney, plaintiff has been Pro Se; plaintiff is continuously suffering to be heard just to see justice done where she was injured, and repeatedly done wrong, along with her rights violated; continually under demand to produce to the courts the "paper work" for the case to be heard, though she has been declared as indigent, since `2006, with a provided attorney, plaintiff is still complaining; asking for help from the justice system we have today. the overwhelming responsibility has caused more agitation to the plaintiffs injury; and the struggle to go on, on a daily basis. along with this the plaintiffs defamed character standing as a person, or citizen of The United States, was broadcasted on local television, even more detrimental to the employment of obtaining other jobs, or places of employment., this case and the hardship its brought about to the plaintiff, has caused financial lost, and lost possibly to personal property and other assets and liabilities; along, with the deprivement of enjoyment of time with loved ones who was ill and or incapacitating.

4. B. Please explain the circumstances that led to the problem.

There was a termination of an high ranking official, whose rank was Captain with the Florida Highway Patrol, The Captains name was Sterling King; he was being terminated in reference to what was told by the media as an ongoing investigation by the Department. (Highway Patrol). The information was made available to the general public via media source and web source etc. The information Indicated possibility of an arrest regarding this captain, which was unknown at the time of "onset" to the plaintiff, this was the cause of the "attack" by the Defendant Larry Costanzo, to the plaintiff which occurred on August 03^rd 2005; advising the plaintiff she had "leaked" department information.

5.

C. CAUSES OF ACTION

1. I allege that my constitutional rights, privileges or immunities have been violated and that the following facts form the basis for my allegations: beginning with the first cause of action ending with requested relief.

(1.) Count 1 Cause of Action (Whistle blowing) Whistle Blower

Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned Allegations by the defendants the allegations above with the same force and effect as if Herein set forth. a (1) Describe exactly what each defendant did or did not do. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or arguments.) (2) Supporting Facts: 1. The Defendant Larry Costanzo "lied" to the Florida Highway patrol about the Plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) contacting the Local News Media and stating See below in supporting facts `Quote" another of its Captains was being arrested. This was_a false statement known to be false at the time made, known to false (fraud). 2. The Defendant Larry costanzo "Lied" to the Florida State Patrol, that the plaintiff had been counseled by him regarding the firing of Capt. Sterling King on the Date of August 3 2005; just prior to plaintiff calling for help, knowing the phone Call was made after his "attack" to the plaintiff. [defamatory libel] The Defendant Costanzo behavior was is considered unreasonably careless under the circumstances and that directly resulted in injury to another (plaintiff) (negligence). 3. the plaintiff provided written notice to the immediate supervisor defendant Costanzo to inform the department of illegal activities; the plaintiff was notified by department head Cyrus Brown that he had/has a closed door policy and the outgoing "Head" of department was Colonel Rick Gregory with "open door" policy and the plaintiff not to get the two confused; he then referred plaintiff back to Capt. Larry Costanzo; in which all avenues were exhausted. 4. upon the plaintiff cooperating, by contacting the sheriffs office, and media for the illegal activities done to her on behalf of the defendant; plaintiff suffered the other given retaliations by the department. 5. The plaintiff made good faith report of wrong doing; to the Orange County sheriff's office, by verbal contact when plaintiff was in fear of her life; the plaintiff should therefore be protected from dismissal or any other detriment. Defendant FHP didn't provide any support in the mis-conduct of the defendant Larry Costanzo; therefore condoning his actions.

2) Supporting Facts: :

The plaintiff under the "act" was protected; public interest disclosure is a report of relevant disclosure information by a worker, or employer to any person deemed necessary to prevent the matter from occurring or worsening.

The Whistle Blower Protection Act prohibits dismissals or other adverse consequences to individuals who disclose information about a company or agency in the public interest; the plaintiff disclosed Information regarding herself; as to how she was being treated. [Exhibit Court files/Taped Interview].

Renee' Bell (plaintiff) was wrongfully dismissed from her employment; The plaintiff had over 20 years employment with the state.

The employer (Defendants FHP) has over 500 employees.

Public employees are protected by the First Amendment against reprisals by the employer when they speak on matters of public concern; the plaintiff was illegally "attacked" assaulted at a state office.

The plaintiffs speech to the local news media was how "she" suffered reprisals on the job; that the plaintiff didn't understand why this was occurring. [Exhibit Court Files]; Video of the plaintiff televised, local news report of the plaintiff available].

When plaintiff contacted the OCSO, it was for safety of plaintiffs well being, and to ascertain exactly how and why the plaintiff would be involved with the Capt Sterling King; as according to the Accusations of Capt. Costanzo (The defendant) during the time of his "Attack"; the statement made to The plaintiff by the defendant Costanzo was that plaintiff had something to do with the termination Of this high ranking Captain; when the plaintiff contacted the media this was to ascertain why? and give any information needed on her behalf to straighten the confusion; if needed? to report criminal conduct of the defendant Larry Costanzo, against the plaintiff or to report statutory violations relating to the protection of consumer interest (the plaintiff's); the plaintiff didn't know at that time what to expect as a line of questioning from her. Plaintiff never spoken to a reporter about the issues she originally called for; the reporter advised they would contact plaintiff. Later, When plaintiff was interviewed, this interview was about how the plaintiff was being treated by the defendants at the Florida Highway patrol; there was a legitimate purpose, the plaintiff indicated how she was unfairly treated and locked in a closet spaced area of the Florida Highway patrol; by the Defendants. [Exhibit Local News Video IN COURT FILES,].

CONT:

6.

(2) Supporting Facts:

The following "Quote" is from the aforementioned allegations of the Defendants:

after being counseled by your immediate supervisor, Captain Larry Costanzo, who advised you and your coworkers not to discuss the recent firing of Another division employee, you became angry and upset and made a 911 call to Orange County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) from your cellular phone and falsely reported that you had been "Threatened" by Captain Larry Costanzo.

1. This is the "QUOTE" of the Defendants; on "Defendant Larry Costanzo's accusations". Also, on August 3, 2005, after calling the OCSO, you placed a call to WFTV Channel 9 and reported that another Florida Highway Patrol Captain was being arrested. WFTV news anchor Jorge Estevez Called public Affairs Officer Trooper Kim Miller to inquire about what was happening. Trooper Miller stated she was highly embarrassed by your actions.

Breach of Covenant Fair Dealing

Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned allegations by the defendants the allegations above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. by the Defendants the Florida highway patrol against the plaintiff as cause for her dismissal In the aforementioned paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988; Acting under the color of state law, Defendants worked a denial (conspiracy) against the plaintiff (Bell) By creating policy that wasn't in the departments rules and regulations, to relieve her from her duties of employment therefore, stripping her of any all rights, her rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law, to wit, by retaliating against her because it was "assumed" that she the Plaintiff released confidential information regarding a terminated high ranking captain of the Florida State Highway patrol agency, and release upon receiving information that plaintiff had reported thus information to the EEOC, that followed with a suit against the agency. Prior to this release of the plaintiff from the agency, Defendant Larry Costanzo intentionally and continuously inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiff on hearsay and according to the finding that captain Sterling king had been dismissed from the department, this continued with the Racial Discrimination, Segregation, and imprisonment, among other claims, the actions still pending before this court, and by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny the plaintiff (Bell) equal protection of law.

Defendants at all times herein mentioned, was a Business and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. [The Florida State Patrol Office]

The Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, the defendant sued herein was the employee of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment; as result of the actions of defendants; each of them, set forth hereinabove, said defendants have violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against said Plaintiff herein, and as a result thereof, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed. The actions of said defendant's [as — herein-before described —] are in violation of said implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; have caused Plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) to suffer damages. The accusations stated in the aforementioned allegations of the department accuses the Plaintiff in unfair dealing with the defendants; involving violating their policies; and whistle blowing their company business; etc. [defendants exercised power possessed by virtue of under the color of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoers is clothed with the authority of state law].

wherefore, plaintiff pray for judgment against defendants; each of them for such further relief as the court deems proper.

Describe exactly what each defendant did or did not do. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or arguments.

a. The defendant FHP published information regarding the plaintiff on the "allegations "of the defendant Larry Costanzo, defendant Costanzo, as well as defendant FHP knew these were accusations unbecoming its employee; they held investigations of verifications of the actions; however, the information were released prior; Defendant Costanzo knew that they were false statements and were made with actual malice, published by the local news media, these statements caused the plaintiff harm regarding her employment, resulting in her termination from the department, and the plaintiff from seeking other employment for her livelihood. [Invasion of privacy] the plaintiff sudden thrust into the spotlight because of the ongoing events was intrusion, and with false light of the truth, and misappropriation. b. the publication was intentional, due to the lack and care by the Defendant Larry Costanzo. The defendant Costanzo acted maliciously; he had knowledge of the correct Information however acted with deliberate ignorance of the truth of information. c. the act of "publication" of the information damaged the reputation of the plaintiff, and also brought about serous infliction of emotional distress. d. The defendants acted with actual malice concerning the plaintiff, by defendant Costanzos allegations the FHP department advised the plaintiff was in violation of their policies and procedures and that the plaintiff had violated policy regarding safety and procedures [there was no statement of what of what policy plaintiff violated referring to this]. e. The defendants advised the plaintiff violated Statutory Authority, Rules, Regulations, and that plaintiff had falsified reports, or records in her possession. this was incorrect information supplied by defendant costanzo, and later incorporated, ratified by the defendants FHP. The agency also withdrew the charges of harassment against the plaintiff; Case No. (CS 2006-047).

1. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, advised the agency Florida Highway Patrol, including Renee Bell, as well as third party that a phone call was placed by plaintiff, on the Date of August 3^rd 2005 to the Orange County Sheriff's Office and the plaintiff stated That Larry Costanzo would be arrested, as indicated in the "allegations" of the Department January 26, 2006. The Defendant "Costanzo" made false statements of fact known to be false at the time it was made; this occurred at the highway patrol station. The Defendant Costanzo erroneously gave material to defendant FHP, which was later considered also at the Perc hearing in which he knew was false representation, and the published statements About plaintiff knowing they were false and with reckless disregard to the truth. Later, during televised news cast from the state, the agency used Larry Costanzos statements against the plaintiff. "Costanzo" was plaintiff's immediate supervisor, his given information regarding the plaintiff is what the state the Defendants FHP used to "Paint" a picture on broadcast television that plaintiff had an inability to perform her profession, and possibly some dishonesty in business, due to falsified records, there was also newscast that plaintiff appeared in that the State assumed plaintiff was exposing "dirty" laundry of the department to the public. The Defendant FHP didn't investigate the validity of the accusations from Defendant Costanzo And "aired" what was assumed about the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, stated to the agency, and third party that the plaintiff had "leaked" personal department information to the local news media in an act of whistle blowing the company business, that the "plaintiff" broken a code of silence. This was stated on August 3^rd 2005, and "printed" on 01/26/2006, as part of the dismissal Complaint; on the accusations of Larry Costanzo, this violated the plaintiff's right.

3. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, stated to Renee Bell and third parties that plaintiff was trying to represent or impersonate the agencies public information officer, such as plaintiff, making "public statements" for the agency. The Defendant Costanzo, acted maliciously, and in wreck less disregard of the truth; he had the knowledge of the correct information Yet, he falsely gave this information to the state, and the local media, this violated the rights of the plaintiff. (Occurrence date 08/03/2005).

4. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, implied, and stated that the response of the sheriff's office was there to arrest him, and stated, to FHP that this was reason for contact made by The Plaintiff; to the local sheriff's office. The defendant intentionally omitted and concealed material fact about the Plaintiff to the state patrol, with the intent and knowing the state agency relied on his response; [this also occurred on August, 03 2005].

5. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, stated plaintiff commented on the character of a High ranking official known as Sterling King, indicating to others that the Plaintiff was advising of Sterling Kings termination with the department, later tarnishing plaintiffs reputation with the department this was followed by her termination from duty; the defendant Costanzo, made this statement of the plaintiff, with no reasonable basis to make that statement (this occurred August 3 2005, the termination was 02/20/2006).

6. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, advised that the plaintiff had falsified records, and altered documents of the Agency; with allegations that "official records" were in the plaintiffs custody and control, and indicated to the "agency" false reports were made, this occurred August 3^rd 2005. The defendant "Costanzo" advised the agency that plaintiff had violated "Statutory" Authority, Rules, Regulations, and policy of the department, this statement was made with actual malice against the plaintiff; the defendant "Costanzo" presented to the "Department" a false representation of material fact that plaintiff altered documents, this occurred August 3^rd 2005; this was in violation of plaintiffs rights.

7. The Defendant Costanzo, stated the plaintiff made foul and abusive languages to "Persons" Inside the department on the date of occurrence of the incident regarding Sterling King Aug 03 2005; this created public contempt, hatred; ridicule; condemnation, for the Plaintiff, this injured the plaintiff's reputation, and any moral support or working rapport that was left between plaintiff and fellow employees.

8. The Defendant "Highway patrol" didn't follow their policy; the "policy" No. 59 when disciplining the Plaintiff, this policy restricts the discipline penalty to a suspension for first occurrence with "dismissal" outside the range. (During a recorded exit statement, with counsel).

9. The Defendant Highway patrol dismissed the plaintiff after over 20 years of service, on hearsay of conduct Unbecoming a public officer; the "Perc" stating there was no statutory authority for the commission to consider mitigation against, after the agencies newly selected discipline penalty; thereby it (Perc) concluded to the agencies allegations given by the defendant "Larry Costanzo"; on 02/20/2006, this violated plaintiff's rights.

7. (2) Supporting Facts:

1. Sworn Affidavit of news anchor; Mary Nguyen confirming conversation with plaintiff.

2. Taped Entry by local news Reporter; News taping

3. Taped conversation by the Orange County Sheriff's office; manual transcript available From the taped line of conversation with plaintiff the 911 operator.

4. according to the false statements given by the Defendant Larry Costanzo, The Perc — Committee on behalf of the State charged the plaintiff with conduct that was Unbecoming a public employee, which were based on the plaintiffs 9-11 call and the Plaintiff's interaction with the sheriff's department; according to the Defendants.

5. The "Highway patrol" promulgated or enacted a new administrative Law; to remove the plaintiff from office, this "created policy" circumscribed the disciplinary penalty that was already established in the statute and DMS rule to a suspension. 02/2006.

6. The Defendant "Highway Patrol" by the aforementioned "eliminated" the response of an Intelligent "legal Conclusion" Of the States "Perc" hearing, this procedure altered or "handicapped" their response, on the "Merits" of the charges alleging violation of Statutory authority, agency rules, policies weren't considered during the hearing, with The enactment of the new administrative law this, barred the plaintiff from applying under Equitable mitigation of the disciplinary decision the "service first reform" of the career Service system 110.227(6)(c) Stat. occurred (02/26/2006 recorded statements avail).

8. (3.) Count 3. Cause of Action (Discrimination/Racial)

Cause of Action Racial Discrimination Workplace safety; including

No:5D06-2056 Daytona Beach; Case No:5D06-3787 Daytona Beach.

Plaintiff has complied with filing with the E.E.O.C. Case Nos. 511-2006-00367; and No. 511-2006-00991. Filed within the 180 days Following the date of the Discrimination. The Plaintiff has provided such — documentation, acknowledging that plaintiff has alleged compliance accordingly which is the condition precedent to suit,

1. Defendant, Larry Costanzo, ordered the plaintiff to enter work through the "rear" door of the Fla. Highway patrol Building this was because of the plaintiff's race; while Caucasian employees were allowed to use the front door, due to the Defendant Larry Costanzo actions, plaintiff was advised by the EEOC to enter thru the Department of Transportation's Door of which plaintiff wasn't an Employee, this is a violation of plaintiff Civil Rights. This occurred the week of the 20^th before the Christmas holiday on the 25^th of December 2005, in which plaintiff was scheduled off duty by the Defendant Larry, Costanzo. on the basis of race to gain access to the building it would be thru the "rear." The employer acted with discriminatory intent; the conduct of the Defendant Costanzo amounted to racial harassment;[12/2005] The defendant violated the statute; the statute is a safety statute; the act caused the kind of harm the statute was designed to prevent; the plaintiff was within a zone of risk; which would also indicate negligence regarding defendants.

2. The Defendant (Larry Costanzo), ordered the plaintiff to use separate department restrooms because of plaintiff's race, from the Caucasian employees, this occurred before the Christmas holiday the 25^th of 2005, this is a violation of Plaintiffs Civil Rights.

3. The (Defendant) Larry Costanzo ordered the plaintiff not to talk to Caucasian employees, do to plaintiff's race; this is a violation of plaintiff Civil Rights. This occurred before the Christmas holiday the 25^th of 2005.

4. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, removed the plaintiff from using any office equipment because of her race; defendant wouldn't allow the plaintiff to use the office "computer" because of her race, to perform regular assignment. (after the incident 08/03/2005 until plaintiffs departure from the department 2/20/2006; This equipments was allowed for use by the Caucasian employees. This is a violation of plaintiffs Civil Rights.

5. The Defendant moved plaintiff to closed confinement, segregated the plaintiff behind a wall in a "closet" spaced area from Caucasian employees because of her race, while employees of Caucasian descent were allowed to be free. this is violation of plaintiffs Civil Rights; this caused plaintiff great emotional harm, The plaintiff has a partial disability; "the injury caused" by the defendant Larry Costanzo, when confined by the Defendant, the defendant failed to make any reasonable accommodation for the disability, the plaintiff suffered intentional acts of employment discrimination based on her race as well as disparate treatment; while others employed with the same Classifications' were properly accommodated.

6. The Defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff on account of the plaintiffs attendance records, and the taking of "medical leave" authorized by the Department; which shortened his staff to the point of others completing the work load of the plaintiff; Defendant "Costanzo" altered the plaintiffs records the defendant completed a" recalculation" of the plaintiffs work schedules, this is violation of plaintiffs rights; other Caucasian employees of the same class weren't treated in such manner; or had their work attendance schedules altered.

7. The defendant Larry Costanzo, ordered plaintiff to work confined to her home, based on race; plaintiff suffered disparate treatment, and because of plaintiffs use of the "Medical" leave, plaintiff had worst or bad attendance record, therefore the defendant ordered plaintiff to work out of her home. The defendant Larry Costanzo stated "Quote" "you always leave to go home, so therefore you can work at your home;" the Defendant "ordered" "Quote "do not leave your home for anything this is "Direct Order" until you contact defendant "Costanzo". This was racial harassment; there was no other Caucasian employee assigned To their home, or confined to perform the job duties. Documentation verifying administrative duty at residence, is a copy of what the defendant, (Larry Costanzo) submitted to the Agency, in the courts records; this is violation of plaintiffs rights.

8. The defendant Larry Costanzo, intentionally and unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff because of her race and in the retaliation for opposing such discrimination, the plaintiff was amongst other issues involved terminated from her employment; this is violation of the plaintiffs rights, the plaintiff seeks appropriate injunctive relief, lost pay, compensatory and punitive damages. The Plaintiff additionally, and independent of the claims against the state agency seeks appropriate injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages against the individual defendant Larry Costanzo.

9. the defendant FHP has maintained, acquiesced in the maintaining of, or failed to take appropriate required action to eliminate a general and consistent pattern and practice of racial discrimination by the supervisor Capt Larry Costanzo against Bell (plaintiff) a black employee.

10. Such pattern and practice had been consistently manifested for at least one year preceding the filing of plaintiff's administrative complaint by the following acts; plaintiff was ordered into a "rear" door of the business by defendant Costanzo, and made to utilize separate restrooms, not to talk to Caucasian employees, and segregated behind a wall because of her race, these actions occurred December 2005;and continuing until plaintiffs termination from the department of which she was employed; the — termination was February 20, 2006; at that time Defendant Costanzo was Still supervisor with the FHP Department.

11. Black employee Renee D. Bell being subjected to unwarranted criticism and disparagement of her work by the Caucasian supervisor Captain Larry Costanzo.

12. the Caucasian supervisor Captain Larry Costanzo subjecting a black employee Renee D. Bell to harsh and unreasonable performance standards not generally applied and not consistent with applicable personnel practices and regulations; as to the manner for which the performance standard was obtained, because of this the agency received letters from attorneys offices, (Exhibits court files) and formal complaints in the form of grievances through the chain of command. to no prevail; Exhibits, and letters from attorneys in court files indicating to superior officers petitions for better working conditions; on behalf of the plaintiff. also (Exhibit) indicating an official of the state of Florida, an attorney trying to secure agreement for better working Conditions on behalf of the plaintiff.

13. the malicious conduct of the Defendant was sufficiently severe enough to Alter the conditions of the plaintiffs employment, and created a Discriminatory abusive work environment. This occurred while acting in A supervisory position that has immediate or successfully higher authority Over the plaintiff.

9. (2) Supporting Facts: wasn't aware of the conversation, 1. Taped entry by the Local news media; Indicating the "Entry" to the Highway patrol Building by the Plaintiff; and recordings of the building; during time of Incident 12/2005. 2. The Taped "Entry" and departure of plaintiff to the Highway patrol Building by way of the Department of Transportation. Date; 12/2005. 3. The Taped "Entry" to the Highway Patrol Building from Department of Transportation Showing all employees Arrival, along with plaintiff whom wasn't employed by their Office. 4. the phone call of the plaintiff, to the EEOC, directing the plaintiff to Enter thru the Department of Transportation Entrance; (verification thru phone recorded tapes). 5. Pictures of the plaintiffs confinement, and segregation are available copies from the Local news, copies available from plaintiff. 6. The "Documents" or the attendance records of the plaintiff are available as "Exhibits" in this Civil Case indicating or showing the Plaintiffs work records. This was a major part of the confrontations by the defendant "Larry Costanzo". 7. The closed confinement "order" by the defendant Costanzo, is submitted as "Exhibit" In this civil case, the department head, the "Colonel" was advised of "order" when Placed into effect, also, contacted by the plaintiff. 8. The plaintiff was instructed by the Defendant "Larry Costanzo" of a special "path" of walk area within the department, as to arrive at separate restrooms, and non communication with Caucasian employees, because of her race, this is violation of plaintiffs Civil Rights. 9. Department witness; individual coming around corner in the building during time The defendant Costanzo was reinforcing the plaintiff about "path" or walkway to be taken, this Individual however observed the Defendant pointing directions to the plaintiff; at this point the plaintiff asked this individual if called Upon to give same information; would this person be available? The person acknowledges yes; however, this person knew nothing of the incident that occcurred. 12/2005.

The above stated facts will support conclusion that the complaint of the defendants Conduct amounted to racial harassment.

Accordingly, the plaintiff request; Compensatory damages for her injury and economic loss. and punitive damages; relating to the maliciousness, and grossly negligent actions of the defendant (Larry Costanzo).plaintiff, request court order written as mandate apology from Defendants, requesting treble damages.

Regarding Disparate treatment plaintiff requests and; the Title VII allows remedies as applicable: injunctive relief, reinstatement, front pay (until or in lieu of reinstatement) back pay, attorneys fees and cost, in which plaintiff obtained several regarding this case; with direct out of pocket expenses that plaintiff couldn't afford, compensatory damages for any past or future out of pocket losses and any emotional harm, which was caused by the Defendant, in which plaintiff sought assistance; and punitive damages if the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference to the individuals federally protected rights; In which the Defendant (Larry Costanzo) acted.

10. (4.) Count 4. Cause of Action (Retaliation)

Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned Allegations by the defendants the allegations above with the same force and effect as if Herein set forth.

A) The filing of the Discrimination charge against the employer also provoked, the Retaliation; along with hearsay allegations that plaintiff had leaked department Information reference Captain Sterling King.

Assault ^rd

1. The Defendant Larry Costanzo assaulted the plaintiff; Defendant Larry Costanzo made Plaintiff feel immediately threatened; during his attack on the plaintiffs person August 3, 2005 at the highway patrol station the defendant "Costanzos" threatening gestures alarmed the plaintiff, placing the plaintiff in fear of her life, plaintiff was faced with what presented as a dangerous situation, where defendant Costanzo was placing his hands on his department issued weapon, pacing back and forth, yelling acting in malicious manner, the plaintiff was a member of the Florida highway patrol, the occurrence happened during her tenure in office, of which this is a protected class protected under Title VII. [] 2. Because of the defendant "Costanzos" malicious act, and assault on the plaintiff The plaintiff suffered Injury, nervous paroxysm, shock to the nervous system, with uncontrollable shaking and crying, and an injury to her right arm/wrist. this is a violation of the plaintiff's rights. 3. The defendant submitted records to the department blaming the plaintiff of Conduct unbecoming a public employee; for placing a 911 call for help when "Costanzo" knew he made the plaintiff feel threatened; he caused distress to the emotions of plaintiff; she called for help, regarding the incident. 08/03/2005; the plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) suffered adverse employment actions For the actions of the defendants, plaintiff was terminated from her employment On 02/20/2006; A casual connection existed between the plaintiffs protected activity; and the adverse actions that taken place by the employer. Plaintiff, in this case was employed by the Defendants. The plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) the defendants are/were the The Florida Highway Patrol Larry Costanzo; .Employer/Employee. 4. the defendant "Costanzo" submitted records to the department regarding The plaintiff in which he knew was false, reasons the plaintiff was contacting local news media, he indicated plaintiff was "airing" "dirty laundry" of the department, when the defendant "Costanzo" was aware that plaintiff contacted The news reference his "attack" to plaintiff, this "attack" was regarding the news media; and Sterling King and how plaintiff had "leaked" department Information. 08/03/2005; this is violation of plaintiff's rights. 5. The defendant "Costanzo" alleged to the department insisting that the call to 911 on August 3 2005; wasn't an emergency, the defendant fabricated to the department regarding the plaintiff. "Costanzo" also, fabricated about information to the news "Media" and lied about the Incident: 08/03/2005; this is violation of plaintiff's rights. 6. The defendant "Costanzos" attack on the plaintiff was on the assumption of Hearsay, that plaintiff was involved with the arrest; termination; and or the Discussion of the news report in the office, and a suspected leak of department Information; he had no right; or legal right for his actions on 8/03/2005; In addition Plaintiff was retaliated against for the discrimination charge filed; with The EEOC. This is a violation of the plaintiff's rights. 7. The defendant threatened the plaintiff, that plaintiff was to maintain a code of Silence, regarding "Capt. King" plaintiff, instructed to discuss the facts with no-one Later, this ended in the plaintiff being discharged in relations to the arrest, termination and eventual criminal conviction of Captain Sterling King. This is violation of the Plaintiffs' rights; 08/03/2005.

CONT:

11.

(2) Supporting Facts

Describe exactly what each defendant did or did not do .State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or arguments.

Exhibit in court files, Exhibit in court files Exhibits Case: # 's 48-2005-DR-2575-0 and case: 48 -2005-DR-2576. E xhibit of Defendants document Exhibits CONT: 42 U.S.C. § 1983

1. These issues supporting these case numbers were caused by the defendant Larry Costanzo, the retaliation case No's reported to the EEOC regarding the defendant Larry Costanzo, are Retaliation Case No: 511-2006-00367 511-2006-00991; This is violation of Plaintiffs rights. 2. The Defendant Highway Patrol wrongfully terminated, the plaintiff; on the hearsay accusations of Defendant Larry Costanzo; this occurred 02/20/2006. This is violation of the plaintiff's rights. 3. The Defendant Larry Costanzo altered the plaintiffs work hours records, plaintiff wasn't compensated for overtime work hours because of usage of FMLA; Plaintiffs work standard evaluations were "lowered" because of the FMLA-leave given by the department. This is violation of plaintiff's rights. 4. The plaintiff suffered a number of issues because of Defendant Larry Costanzo, such as Injunctions; Confinement False Imprisonment; "Injunctions" were related to Sterling King; Jennifer Glover in which there was an ongoing conspiracy to remove plaintiff from office by the defendant "Costanzo;" Defendant "Costanzo" sent office co-worker "glover" the "girlfriend" of "Capt. King" to daily harasses the plaintiff which began `2004, after the plaintiffs Return off "Medical Leave", which generated the plaintiffs letter to the Department, in 2004; this harassment continued; In which Plaintiff was continually confronted with her working rapport of fellow employees; mainly Jennifer Glover; the defendant "Costanzo" at this point "Orders" the plaintiff to "re-sign" company policies, policies that were signed at the onset of the plaintiffs employment beginning in 1988; this was a daily forced signing of the same documents repeatedly. Because, the Defendant Larry Costanzo, had injured the plaintiffs right/hand arm; the Defendant used this tactic to force plaintiff to use the hand/arm, if plaintiff didn't use the arm hand defendant "Costanzo" would order that plaintiff would be terminated for an In-subordination; this harassment continued to escalate in 2005, involving attorneys letters, request for internal office investigations, letters sent to "Colonel" Phone calls to "Colonel" etc, any means possible to resolve the issues In court records, this was to no prevail. After the Incident and arrest of Sterling king Defendant Costanzo fabricated to the department, about the conditions, and how he was trying to better the situation. This is violation of plaintiff's rights. Orange county court documents verifying Injunctions 5. The Defendant Larry Costanzo, didn't allow plaintiff to attend any Schools Training The plaintiff, input to attend on several occasions, and was informed personally by the Defendant "Costanzo" that the request could be input however, would be denied. He advised plaintiff to consider taking a "night" class if plaintiff was so interested. entered into the courts records. This is violation of the plaintiff's rights. 6. There were several letters sent from Law firms; submitted on behalf of the plaintiff requesting investigation of the defendant "Costanzos" actions regarding the plaintiff where the plaintiff was faced with continual harassment; by defendant "Costanzo". The continued conduct unreasonably interfered and affected the plaintiffs work Performance, to the point of incomplete assignments, the defendant Larry Costanzo created an intimidating hostile or offensive work environment. Submitted documents in court records, (Exhibit from Law Firms) this is violation of plaintiffs rights. 7. Teletype copy sent to Colonel of Patrol; Telephone calls; made to/from Colonel of Patrol, Plaintiff made several calls to the "Colonel" regarding conditions, the last call was to "Colonel" was "Colonel Knight" after the confinement behind a wall where plaintiff was being segregated because of race, a teletype was sent accordingly to explain the issue, 12/2005 by way of co-worker computer, plaintiff wasn't allowed a computer; Exhibit Recorded phone call; teletype exhibit sent "Colonel". this is violation of the plaintiffs rights. 8. The Defendant after placing the plaintiff in closed confinement from Caucasian employees removed the State Telephone, from the wall, plaintiff was placed near the file cabinets near wall, available by photographs via local news media. This was a violation of Plaintiffs' rights. 9. The defendant issued numerous reprimands depriving the plaintiff of her rights and any Privileges that the other employees had. This is violation of plaintiff's rights. 10. Continual Investigations Warnings-Signings; were conducted by Larry Costanzo The Defendant without the proper consent of the Department, in where the defendant Used these sessions as interrogation sessions; indicating to plaintiff this was on behalf of the department. Exhibits in court files. 11. when plaintiff was out of office, do to leave, through the "Federal Medical Leave Act" the Defendant would constantly harass plaintiff, by sending officers to the Plaintiffs home address for signed documents, or two' argue' back and forth regarding Department "Issues;" in addition to this the plaintiffs Insurance would be cancelled And upon returning the plaintiff, each time would have to re-instate the insurance when This occurred plaintiff lost policies either that weren't available any more to the company Or had to insure through other options; according to the "Family Medical" leave policy At that time this was to be maintained; this was violation of plaintiff's rights. 12. The Plaintiff was retaliated against for taking leave under the FMLA; received retaliation for the filing of the discrimination charge. 13. The plaintiff received a Decrease in pay on set Aug/Sept 99 — Nov 2005 for leave taken regarding immediate family (mother) 15% decrease in pay; accumulated leave in retirement system taken; discharged Because of the negative leave absences, regarding caring for terminal mother. 14. The plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the factual allegations presented by the Defendants the Florida highway patrol against the plaintiff as cause for her dismissal In the aforementioned paragraphs above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of all Defendants was subject to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988; Acting under the color of law, Defendants worked a denial (conspiracy) against the plaintiff (Bell) By creating policy that wasn't in the departments rules and regulations, to relieve her from her duties of employment therefore, stripping her of any all rights, her rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution or by Federal law, to wit, by retaliating against her because it was "assumed" that she the Plaintiff released confidential information regarding a terminated high ranking captain of the Florida State Highway patrol agency, and release upon receiving information that plaintiff had reported thus information to the EEOC, that followed with a suit against the agency. Prior to this release of the plaintiff from the agency, Defendant Larry Costanzo intentionally and continuously inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiff on hearsay and according to the finding that captain Sterling king had been dismissed from the department, this continued with the Racial Discrimination, Segregation, and imprisonment, among other claims, the actions still pending before this court, and by conspiring for the purpose of impeding and hindering the due course of justice, with intent to deny the plaintiff (Bell) equal protection of law. 15. as a result of the retaliation by the Defendants for the plaintiff exercising her First Amendment right to petition, plaintiff has been deprived of her right to equal protection of the laws, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and .

12. Segregation

Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned Allegations by the defendants the allegations above with the same force and effect as if Herein set forth.

Describe exactly what each defendant did or did not do .State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or arguments.

The defendant (Larry Costanzo) ordered plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) to confinement, plaintiff was confined in a closet spaced area behind a wall because of the plaintiffs race; persons of Caucasian descent weren't subjected to these acts by the defendant (Larry Costanzo). The plaintiff suffered racial harassment emotional trauma due to seclusion by the defendant Larry Costanzo, and defendant FHP; was notified by Cyrus Brown in his observance of the plaintiff being placed in the closet spaced area. The conduct of defendant (Larry Costanzo) was outrageous, willful, wonton, reckless, intentional, and were unwelcome by the plaintiff. These actions were so outrageous in character, and extreme in degree that went beyond all possible bounds of decency. The defendant Florida Highway Patrol directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wonton conduct of defendant Captain Larry Costanzo, and failed to instruct, supervise, ignored or did nothing about the situation. [False Imprisonment:]

13. Supporting Facts

"Quote": Recently, you were assigned to a workstation. . . . . . . . . . [End Quote] From the aforementioned "allegations" by the department.

Plaintiff was placed in a chair two seats from her assigned chair; later removed by the Defendant to closed confinement. Exhibit in court files of plaintiff seated location.

Taped incident location by the local News

Verifications of witness's to the plaintiffs closed in assigned location.

14. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

15. VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983: AGENCY REFUSING OR NEGLECTING TO PREVENTPage 24

Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations by the State Patrol, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

The Defendants process against the plaintiff was with malice:

a. The Defendant Larry Costanzo played an active part in the initiation of the Proceedings; by advising the state agency on "Hearsay", along with the same Incorrect information the defendant Costanzo supplied to the "Perc" Agency that represents the state; as well as the local news media. The majority of the states complaint was built upon "Hearsay" Information that plaintiff was assumed to have committed; the acts against the state; as told by Larry Costanzo.

b. Defendant Costanzos "Hearsay complaint" and aforementioned Allegations were what were used by the Agency, signed by "Costanzo" to bring the complaint against (Bell) the plaintiff. The charges were not based upon probable cause, but a mere strong suspicion that the plaintiff was guilty.

Defendant Florida highway patrol had a duty to ascertain whether there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, and cruel and unusual treatment received by The plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) in which they failed to carry out or just refused to do so.

1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Costanzo, as a Captain with the Florida Highway patrol in Florida was acting under the direction and control of the Florida highway patrol Department and the Defendant City of Orlando, state of Florida.

Acting under color of state law and pursuant to official policy or custom, the Florida Highway patrol Department knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence failed to Instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis the Defendant Captain Larry Costanzo, police officer in his duties to refrain from:

(a) unlawfully and maliciously harassing a citizen who was acting in accordance with her constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities,

(b) unlawfully and maliciously prosecuting a citizen who was acting in accordance with her constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities,

(c) conspiring to violate the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

(d) otherwise depriving Plaintiff of her constitutional and statutory rights, privileges, and immunities.

The Defendant Florida Highway Patrol had knowledge, or should have had knowledge of, had it diligently exercised those duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis — that the wrongs conspired to be done, were about to be committed. The Defendant Florida Highway Patrol had power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of said wrongs, they could have done so by reasonable diligence, but failed or refused to do so knowing this was recklessly wrongful; and with gross negligence. The Defendant Florida Highway patrol directly or indirectly, under color of law, approved or ratified the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless, and wanton conduct of Defendant Captain Larry Costanzo as heretofore described; and dismissed the Plaintiff as direct and proximate cause of the negligent and intentional acts as aforementioned outlined in the agencies separation allegations against the plaintiff. Defendant Larry Costanzo, caused the plaintiff to suffer physical injury, loss of income, and severe mental anguish in connection with the deprivation of her constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16. CONSPIRACY

VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND 1985: CONSPIRACY

1. (Describe exactly what each defendant did or did not do. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or arguments.)

As a result of the (Defendants) concerted unlawful and malicious conspiracy of all the Defendants, The plaintiff was deprived of her right to equal protection of the laws, and the due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.

17. (2) Supporting Facts:

Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned allegations above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

All the Defendants (a) had an object to be accomplished; (b) had an agreement on the object or course of action; (c) performed one or more unlawful overt acts; and (d) caused the plaintiff (Bell) damages that were a direct result of those acts.

In furtherance of their object, defendants did two or more overt acts against the plaintiff. Those unlawful overt acts include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. The Florida Highway Patrol knew or should have known that Defendant Costanzo had intentionally misrepresented the facts about the use of the states records, and that such records was-not in the possession of the plaintiff, Further, the state patrol shouldn't have denounced the plaintiffs credibility with the agency until proven guilty of said incidences. Once, plaintiff was given the opportunity to be heard before a "Perc" Committee plaintiff should have been given fair and full redress Before the committee until all issues were heard, not the option to send In any correspondence later, to find that the organization is on a time schedule and must report an outcome immediately, therefore the states own hired Court reporter holding the documents until the final deadline, due back to The state "perc agency"; in which the plaintiff suffered the consequences Wherefore, plaintiff missed-out on any redress about said issues against the state therefore, leaving the state to conclude on the aforementioned hearsay allegations of Larry Costanzo. The Plaintiff suffered harm and damages that are a direct result of those acts.

CONT:

b. The state patrol in concert with defendant Larry Costanzos representations and misrepresentations, caused plaintiff (Bell) To be terminated on the grounds that she violated the state's policy and procedures that she should have known over a 20 year tenure.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment for the conspiracy she endured against all the Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable. As included in the plaintiffs entire request of the case; In the amount of three Million Dollars.

18. Hostile Work Environment :

Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations by the State Patrol, above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

The plaintiff was also retaliated against for taking leave under the FMLA, which brought about Hostile Work Environment, the plaintiff asserts claim; Under Title VII :

The plaintiff was employed with the Florida Highway Patrol, and subjected to unwelcome verbal comments, which did effect and interfered with the plaintiffs work/work performance, there there were numerous letters of grievances filed with the Department; indicating the incidents and advising of the intimidations, and hostile work environment. (Court, DOCS; filed 2005.)

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Costanzo, as a Captain with the Florida Highway patrol in Florida was acting under the direction and control of the Florida highway patrol Department and the Defendant City of Orlando, state of Florida.

Acting under color of state law and pursuant to official policy or custom, the Florida Highway Patrol Department knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence failed to Instruct, supervise, control, and discipline on a continuing basis the Defendant Captain Larry Costanzo, police officer in his duties to refrain from:

The defendant Larry Costanzo created a hostile work environment for the plaintiff By his discriminatory intimidations, ridicule, and insults, this was severe enough to alter the conditions of the plaintiffs employment, and create an abusive working environment.

19. (2) Supporting Facts:

Workplace Safety: Regarding the plaintiffs injuries, plaintiff filed several letters, with the department regarding workplace safety; in which on several occasions the plaintiff was sent to medical care; due to injuries relating to the — safeness of the workplace; the result of this added the total of increasing workplace injuries; to the plaintiffs file. No complaint was filed under the Occupational safety and Health Act; due to the Employer advising they would handle the situation, they removed plaintiff from her original work location; and medication was administered by the physicians advised of by the company.

The Defendant Larry Costanzo insulted the plaintiff's ability to correctly perform her job duties. This statement was relayed to defendant FHP, the defendant FHP when airing on local television gave statements on defendant Costanzos allegations regarding the plaintiff which reported on the Plaintiffs performance, stating this issue possibly had something to do with the release of plaintiff.

The Claim of harassment in the work environment, suffered by the plaintiff, continued by the Defendant Larry Costanzo.

1. The plaintiff is the complaining party and a member of a statutorily protected class.

2. The plaintiff has been the party subjected to unwelcome verbal and physical conduct related to her membership in that protected class.

3. The unwelcome conduct complained of was based on the plaintiffs membership in the Protected class.

4. This unwelcome conduct affected a term or condition of employment or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfere ins with the work performance of the plaintiff or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

5. The employer is responsible for such environment under direct liability.

6. The Defendant Larry Costanzo placed the plaintiff behind a wall; in closet spaced area Secluded with brooms, vacuums, copier machines, area basically used for extra storage And instructed the plaintiff not to talk to Caucasian employees [Exhibit Court Files]. This was because of the plaintiff's race.

7. The Defendant Larry Costanzo instructed the plaintiff to use separate restrooms Because of her race; not to use the same as Caucasian employees.

8. The Defendant Larry Costanzo instructed the plaintiff to enter thru the "rear" door Of the Florida highway patrol office building because she was black, he instructed The plaintiff wasn't to use the same door as Caucasian employees, this was because Of the plaintiffs race. [Intentional infliction of emotional distress]

9. The defendants Larry Costanzo, removed the phones from the wall, he advised Cyrus Brown (FHP) was notified of the decision; this taken place when plaintiff was secluded from Caucasian employees, the Defendants "Issued" office computers were not allowed for "use" by the plaintiff because of her race. office supplies weren't allowed by the defendants, to the plaintiff. [Exhibits Court Files].

10. The accusations of Cyrus Brown to the plaintiff about the plaintiff's mothers Medical condition was unwelcomed verbal comment; that upset the work performance of the plaintiff. [Exhibit Court Files].

20. Negligent infliction of serious Emotional Distress: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Plaintiff incorporates by above reference paragraphs; Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned allegations above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

Premised on the defamatory publications of the defendant Larry Costanzo, and the defendants Florida Highway Patrol, the plaintiff asserts claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

a. The defendant FHP published information regarding the plaintiff on the allegations of the defendant Larry Costanzo.

b. the publication was intentional, due to the lack and care by the Defendant Larry Costanzo.

c. the act of publication of the information damaged the reputation of the plaintiff, and also brought about serous infliction of emotional distress.

1. (Describe exactly what each defendant did or did not do. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or arguments.) (2) Supporting Facts:

The below "QUOTE" example of emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff.

Aggravating Circumstances:

You have a history and pattern of creating a hostile work environment for supervisors and for Co-workers. You have showed a strong unwillingness to interact and cooperate with supervisors And coworkers as well. . . . .

INVESTIGATIVE CASE FILE D-05-0467-D. 21. 2) Supporting Facts: continued.

a. the defendants conduct was intentional and reckless.

b. the defendants conduct was outrageous

c. the defendants conduct caused emotional distress

d. the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, because of the actions of the defendants.

The conduct of defendant Larry Costanzo herein set forth was odious, perverse and outrageous. Not only were the acts of perversity unwelcome by Costanzo, but they were willful, wanton, reckless, intentional, persistent and continuous at the Florida Highway Patrol business; and at plaintiffs address.

Costanzo's, actions and assault upon the plaintiff with imprisonment to plaintiff Both at the office; and at her home address were unreasonable. Costanzo and his requests of acts, and the acts performed there upon were extreme, They were intentional, and caused the plaintiff (Bell) severe emotional distress.

Not content with the events, on August 03^rd 2005; that a high ranking Captain was being arrested (Capt Sterling King) Costanzo acting himself and through his Superior affiliates of the Department as specified above, aggravated further the initial severe emotional damage to plaintiff (Bell); by attacking the plaintiff while she was in office.

These actions were so outrageous in character, and extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and department approval is to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society; against any human being.

The Defendant Larry Costanzo, has without cause or justification invaded and caused to be invaded the seclusion and solitude of plaintiffs residence by unannounced and unwarranted demand of access to plaintiffs residence by agency personnel; claiming to secure documents for the "Patrol" at which time the defendant Costanzo would be on the line, inquiring information, some referring to dates of return from family medical leave.

The actions of the Defendant (Larry Costanzo) has caused plaintiff to be falsely considered as somewhat of a criminal; in that fabricating to a State Agency, criminal dishonest, by Indicating the plaintiff falsified the state Agencies documents, that were — not available even to the plaintiff, and admitting to incompetency by general dissemination of the aforementioned allegations involving the plaintiff to individuals who had no need or justification to know of the allegations, both with the media, and the state patrol, this the defendant Costanzo had the knowledge that the allegations were false.

The acts of Larry Costanzo have caused substantial loss, suffering, humiliation, emotional distress and other damages to plaintiff in the past and in the future. Because the conduct of Larry Costanzo was accomplished with malicious intent and in reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights, plaintiff should recover punitive damages from the defendant.

CONT:

22. FMLA

The Plaintiff asserts her claim under Title 29 USC 2615 (2000).

Plaintiff incorporates by above reference paragraphs; Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned allegations above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

The protected traits that motivated the defendant defendants to discriminate against the plaintiff .

(1). The plaintiffs filing of the "Discrimination Charges with the E.E.O.C;" and the court.

(2). Retaliation for taken leave under the F.M.L.A; to care for the employees' or the (plaintiffs) immediate family member (Mother); and the accrual of negative leave balances of the plaintiff. [Exhibit Court Files].

The plaintiff belonged to a protective class, this issue Involved a tangible employment action, culminating in termination; The Harassments involved violated federal law which, involved Discriminatory treatment based on race. plaintiff was also subjected to harassment on the basis Of her race, involving her employment.

Describe exactly what each defendant did or did not do. State the facts clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or arguments.

Because of the actions of the defendants the plaintiffs use of the FMLA resulted in the loss of her employment benefits that the Employee (Renee D. Bell) earned or was entitled to before the usage for the FMLA; the usage was Counted against the plaintiff and her properly accrued time was hindered, the plaintiff wasn't forgiven as according to the rules of the FMLA under a no fault attendance policy; because the State removed time from the plaintiff, authority of the defendant Larry Costanzo accusations; the state can only account for 19 1/2 yrs (19.5) versus over 20 yrs of tenure; and the information that was given was improperly placed into the system;.

"QUOTE" from the above allegations;

You have showed a strong unwillingness to interact and cooperate with supervisors And coworkers as well. When you do not get your way you have repeatedly left your work station, alleging that you are sick [End Quote]. 23. 2. Supporting Facts;

The defendant "Costanzo" knew that the plaintiffs mother was suffering a terminal Illness; and that the plaintiff was on call, as her medical appointed representative and the power of attorney to her mother; In case of any emergencies, the medical documents were supplied to defendant Larry Costanzo indicating the severe illness's of the plaintiffs mother. The plaintiff had taken several leaves with the department to ensure of her mother's care. Using the Federal Medical leave act; When the defendant Costanzo reported the false information to the department on why the plaintiff was utilizing leave; the plaintiff generated a letter to the department [Exhibit Court Files] on behalf of her mother; this information was supported by documentation from the medical physicians, given to defendant Larry Costanzo. Costanzo, reported to the department; in which he requested specific Documents by the orders of Cyrus Brown; the documents were supplied [Exhibits Court records] the defendant FHP had no notice of the information supplied to them according to the aforementioned statement in its allegations that the plaintiff left the department because of the plaintiffs numerous illness's. The Defendant (Costanzo), didn't allow plaintiff (Bell) to exercise FMLA rights, and/or whose FMLA rights, protections and benefits are being or have been impaired or interfered with as a result of defendant Costanzo's willful conduct in implementing and ratifying unlawful employment benefits and leave policies, procedures and practices in violation of the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor. The plaintiff (Bell) was injured by the Defendant Larry Costanzo, when plaintiff applied to utilize the FMLA to obtain the medical assistance needed by physicians the defendant Costanzo opposed to any assistance and advised that plaintiff would need to handle this own her own time and that the state wouldn't be responsible for the damages he caused. Defendant (Costanzo) went further to contact the physicians at their respected offices or business, to insure that plaintiff couldn't attend to receive the medical attention.[documents Court Files].the conduct of defendant Larry Costanzo was so severe as to alter the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs employment and created a hostile work environment.

The Defendant Larry Costanzo didn't include such notice in benefits handbooks and other publications which were distributed to the plaintiff as indication of the policies. The Defendant (Larry Costanzo) failed to post notices, and any updated information regarding The FMLA leave entitlements and benefits and failing to The Florida highway patrol and its represented employees; for not having such information.

Requiring the plaintiff, the employee with the Florida highway patrol requesting FMLA leave to conform to the more stringent notice and eligibility requirements set forth in the state of Florida's Sickness and Disability Benefit Plan rather than those set forth in the FMLA and in the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor;

The defendant in Counting FMLA-protected absences of the plaintiff used the plaintiffs accumulated time for the leave taken; and in addition discharged the Plaintiff because of the negative leave balances; as a result of the absences from work that are covered under and protected by the FMLA, and/or taking any adverse action of any kind against the plaintiff, Florida highway patrol-represented employees who have taken FMLA-protected leaves; this adverse effect was taken against The plaintiff. Requiring the plaintiff employee to submit her information concerning their requests for leave that is broader than the information required by the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor; The forms issued to the plaintiff; by the Defendant Larry Costanzo were told to be Incorrect; the department needed a more detailed up to date form, with Explanations of the illness's of the employees mother[Court Files]. Denying FMLA leave to an otherwise eligible Florida highway patrol employee Failing to provide the plaintiff with or represented employee of the Florida Highway patrol with adequate notice of and explanation for the denial of her FMLA leave requests. [Exhibit Files] this occurred after defendant caused injury. Refusing to certify certain predetermined medical conditions or illnesses, including chronic health conditions, as serious health conditions covered by the FMLA and/or requiring The plaintiff of the Florida highway patrol in depth forms when defendant Costanzo Understood the illness's were related to the plaintiffs immediate family member the mother of the represented employee; and the represented employee suffering from such conditions to provide health care provider certification information that is not required by the FMLA and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor; Retaliating against any employee for exercising rights guaranteed by the FMLA. The defendant Costanzo retaliated against the plaintiff for taking the authorized Leave approved under the FMLA.

The Defendant Larry Costanzo failed to accommodate disability issues regarding the plaintiff Renee D. Bell [8/3/2005].

The defendants decreased the pay of the plaintiff on set or starting in Aug/Sept 99-This continued Nov 2005; for leave taken regarding immediate family member the lost received was because of leave used for plaintiffs ill (mother) @ 15% decrease in pay; the accumulated Leave in the Florida Retirement System was also adjusted or taken, in 2005; the discharge of the plaintiff was also related to the negative leave absences (Exhibits in court files) in reference to caring for terminal ill mother, followed with the termination date; of 02/20/2006.

CONT:

1. Unblock unemployment — portion not received; or payment thereof.

2. Compensation for retirement retroactive, until current.

3. Un freeze Retirement; Unblock Retirement privileges' lost.

4. Retroactive pay, regarding pay decrease, until current

5. Accumulated years and time returned, to the Retirement system.

FMLA Forms of equitable relief

a. Employment as aforementioned.

b. Promotion

c. Reinstatement

Recover

1. Wages

2. Employment benefits other compensation

3. Cost of providing care [to a family member/Mother]

4. Liquidated damages and interest

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: regarding FMLA

That the Court issue an order certifying, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, consisting of current and former employees of Defendants who at any time in the three years preceding the filing of this complaint have been or are being denied FMLA rights, protections and benefits, or who have been or are being discriminated against for exercising or attempting to Utilize the family medical leave act. The Court enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 2615. Prohibited acts; in favor of Plaintiff an ex Florida Highway patrol employee against Defendants that Defendants' employment benefit, absence and leave policies, practices, procedures adopted and implemented to apply to and govern an employee's request for FMLA leave, as alleged herein, were/are in violation of the FMLA.

CONT:

25. Wrongful Termination

Plaintiff incorporates by above reference paragraphs; Plaintiff, (Bell) repeats and realleges and incorporates by reference the aforementioned allegations above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

The defendants Florida highway patrol and Larry Costanzo, wrongly fully discharged the plaintiff in regards to the racial-discrimination charges filed; because of the plaintiffs race, her disability, and a hearsay claim of whistle blowing the company's business.

The defendants Discriminated against the plaintiff racially, and with plaintiffs created disability caused by the defendants Larry Costanzo.

The acts relating to hearsay and the assumption of breaking an instructed code of silence order thereby leaking the department information, were the accusations of the defendants, by allegations of defendant Larry Costanzo; which was also wrongfully claimed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff (Renee D. Bell) was treated differently by the defendant (Larry Costanzo defendants FHP) from other employees; in which plaintiff suffered racial harassment because of her color; while Caucasian employees did-not. The plaintiff was treated differently from other employees; the plaintiff wasn't allowed the use of office computers, where the Caucasian employees were.

The plaintiff was also retaliated against for taking leave due to plaintiff assisting her immediate family member on a medical condition using the FMLA leave.

Additionally, the plaintiff had to testify against the employer in court case where subpoenaed; Regarding the injunctions filed for her protection, this is also one of the reasons that plaintiff was discharged.

Finally, The defendants for the plaintiff reporting and objecting to such harassments terminated the plaintiff from her duties.

CONT:

26. (5.) Count 5. Cause of Action Injury's (3)

ADA Claim INJURY

1. Right hand/wrist/ right arm [08/03/2005] Injury. 2. Injury shock to the nervous system.[08/03/2005.] 3. Mental breakdown of character; requiring [mental assistance] CONT:

27.

1. How have you been injured by the actions of the defendant(s)?

Defendant (Capt. Larry Costanzo) acted beyond the bounds of Lawful authority, On the date of August 3, 2005, the "attack" by the defendant Costanzo caused The plaintiff several injuries.

A. The first Injury was due to the "shock" an "scare" of the Defendant, in which Plaintiff was in fear of her life, and suffered a shock injury to her nervous system, nervous paroxysm, sending the plaintiff into an uncontrollable shaking motion of her body with uncontrolled crying, and emotional upset; with this, and Injury plaintiff had suffered an "Assault" the plaintiff was "intentionally" placed in fear and harmful or offensive contact, by the Defendant.

B. The Defendant Larry Costanzo "re-injured" the right/arm wrist of the plaintiff. While plaintiff, dis-oriented; do to aforementioned "shock" plaintiff accidentally struck her right/arm wrist against the counter; the front office of the department, these actions of the Defendant placed plaintiff under physicians orders of "work" and "daily life" restrictions and limitations, this forced the plaintiffs participation in a program by the state of Florida, known as Department of Rehabilitation and Disability Services; of which plaintiff was ordered to attend school to receive "any" government assistance, or the departments assistance; after being injured by Larry Costanzo.

C. Because of defendant (Larry Costanzo) plaintiff suffered a mental breakdown of character, plaintiff had to seek assistance to cope with daily life; do to the Ignorance of the defendant, "subjecting" plaintiff through the "rear" of a facility because of her skin color, and segregation because of "color." The entire "mental picture" of what occurred brought about the breakdown of the plaintiff.

28. 2) Supporting Facts:

This complaint of "injury" references the incident that occurred on August 3^rd 2005.

The plaintiff acknowledges by the defendants Larry Costanzo, and FHP's representative Cyrus Brown, any and all exhaustion of all administrative remedies. The Documentation of medical attachments restrictions; (Exhibits in court files) relate to the injury received on August 3 2005; by the defendant, to the plaintiff.

The Taped Conversation with the medical offices that plaintiff attended; where the Defendant Costanzo spoken with the medical personnel the documentation or (Exhibit) in court files.

The Physical Injury itself Re' sustained after the attack on 08/03/2005.

Documentation of the Court assigned numbers JCC No. 05-036667 JPT D/A 08/03/2005;

The following Information is record of the plaintiff's impairment of an injury that occurred prior To the incident of August 03^rd 2005; this history provides information that there was already an existing injury of the plaintiff during her career and tenure with the department of the Defendants the Florida Highway patrol.

(dominant) old injury 1997 (17-98-1185)

Second occurrence; 8/28/2001

Carrier File No. 01 14000071

Protegrity INS File# 17-101-51410

0980001185-State claim # 10/6/99 original injury date; Plaintiff received the initial injury while employed over 20 yrs tenure with the department.

Plaintiff has been regarded as having such impairment: due to 13yrs of radio dispatch. Workers Comp Case 8/3/2005 JCC No. 05-036667 JPT D/A 08/03/2005 Case No. Corvell grievance filed 8/3/2005 (for Medical assistance)

After, The "Attack" of the defendant August 3^rd 2005; the following instructions were advised by a physician. Limitation by Physician: placed on permanent work restrictions; that precluded plaintiff from lifting more than 10LBS or carrying objects weighing up to 10LBS. Engaging in constant repetitive flexion or extension of plaintiffs wrist or performing "over head work" or use of vibratory tools, etc; [Exhibit Court Files].

1. Several formal complaints were filed internally with the department, thru Defendant Larry Costanzo.

2. Letters from Attorneys offices, were sent regarding the plaintiffs injury with request For payment of the bills regarding the plaintiffs injury [Exhibit Court Files].

3. The time and place Incident occurred: Defendant Larry Costanzo acting as Supervisor to the plaintiff; On Wednesday August 3^rd 2005 at the Florida Highway patrol Station, Located @ 133 Sth. Semoran Blvd. Orlando, Fl. The time occurrence approx: 10:45; just prior to 11:00am.

CONT:

29. Wherefore, plaintiff asserts claim of the ADA of 1990; According to Title VII.

Plaintiff asserts claim against employer Florida Highway patrol Larry Costanzo for failing to provide her with reasonable accommodations as required by the Americans with disabilities Act 1990 42 U.S.C. 1122(b)(5)(A.) there was evidence that plaintiff had an substantially limiting impairment, in which the Defendants were of aware due to the type of work in which the plaintiff was employed; the receptiveness of the work procedure over the 13yr period caused continual breakdown of the injury. The initial case with the state was filed in 1997; with the state of Florida. The second injury caused by The defendant Larry Costanzo to same area caused the necessity for other accommodations. The plaintiff has over 22 years of service to the state of Florida, last years of service was professional Clerical.

Plaintiff, a partially disabled adult female now 48 years old, brings this action for disability discrimination against the Defendant Larry Costanzo, and the Florida Highway Patrol; the plaintiff contends the Defendants discriminated against her because of the injury; and her race; the injury disability caused by the defendant Larry Costanzo was "one" of the key factors in contributing to the initiation of the plaintiffs Emotional distress; the defendant Costanzo authorized the plaintiff to be "moved" from her normal working area to another area position; this was upon formal notification to the department, (Exhibit court files) the position held by plaintiff in which she was hired; was still the "assigned" position, however the work-area changed, and allowed for increased responsibilities; as a form of punishment by the defendant Larry Costanzo, because plaintiff had received doctors "orders" not to use her right hand (note: plaintiff right handed) Exhibit, in court files. In which defendant Costanzo injured, the "order" was to keep the hand in a splint. The defendant Costanzo, became angry because now the plaintiff was unable to properly perform her duties, due to the disability; thus defendant Costanzo created a "hostile work environment" because no-one wanted to pick up the extra assignments in the "Orlando" office; office personnel was already "offended" because they had assisted in the paper work for the plaintiff when plaintiff was out on "any" family medical leave, the personnel was cross-trained for various assignments, due to a shortage of help, and now the disability of the plaintiff, created unwanted responsibilities, the "Exhibits" in court files indicate the assistant Colonel visiting the Orlando department because of chaos between workers, and a split district in which no-district wanting to assist the other, the plaintiff was cross-trained same as the other workers, but the problem was now that plaintiff was injured no one wanted to assist with the demanding paperwork. For this the plaintiff (Bell) was retaliated against for not being able to properly perform duties due to the Injury; which lead Defendant Costanzo, to lowering the performance standards of the plaintiff because of her limited abilities. Costanzo fabricated to the department that plaintiff wasn't capable of performing her duties after, several years because of a sudden incompetence of what the requirements were, (Exhibit of last performance appraisal in court files). The defendant advised other fellow employees of the false pretense of the plaintiff and this generated numerous complaints by fellow employees, because they weren't interested in the extra assignments, (Exhibits) in court files regarding co-worker complaints on the related work materials (Exhibit letters, from the co-workers). This is when defendant Costanzo complained to the department claiming he had tried to assist the plaintiff with other workers when he "fabricated" to the department leading the department to believe that he had done all he possibly could to assist plaintiff and the problem was plaintiffs "behavior". Costanzo, was aware that the employee of which problems "arised" at that time was due to co worker Jennifer Glover bringing a space heater to work an setting such heater to obstruct or offend the working capabilities of the plaintiff. (Exhibit court files). The co-worker indicated of her relationship with Sterling King, advising the plaintiff would seek repercussions if plaintiff didn't agree to the environment, and she would also notify defendant Costanzo about the situation Costanzo, did nothing regarding the situation and allowed the uncomfortable environment of the office to escalate. The defendant Costanzo continually created a hostile working environment, and did nothing to correct the situations as a supervisor to assist in any matter. (Exhibit) in court files; after this defendant Costanzo called each front office employee into his office, this lead to a more hostile environment in which the exhibits are in court files, showing co-worker Barbara Bailey demanding assistance for work, verifying the injury of the plaintiff, and stating to seek help of more office personnel. The Defendant Costanzo created this hostile work environment, to enforce plaintiff to seek other means of employment. In the aforementioned complaint by the state of Florida under "Title" other aggravating circumstances;

"Quote" Repeatedly, local management and co-workers have gone out of their way to accommodate you. You continue to be a disruptive force in the workplace. All attempts to assist you in becoming a Valuable employee have been met with resistance from you. (End "Quote)". "The statement was regarding the un true information given to the department by the Defendant Larry Costanzo.

The defendant Larry Costanzo fabricated to the Florida highway patrol department.

For the position of Administrative assistant at the the Florida highway patrol [12/05].

Renee D. Bell seeks back pay she has lost, other damages, and other relief.im).

30. "Relief"

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

1. I believe that I am entitled to the following relief: WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff prays that this honorable Court: Issue judgment for damages; Compensatory; General; Punitive, special damages, statutory and treble damages, that Defendant's actions, policies and procedures, Embodied in Florida thus violated Plaintiffs' rights secured under the _____________ United States Constitution; The free speech clause of the First Amendment; Privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; 1st Amendment to The U.S. Constitution freedom of speech, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 4^th Amendment, right of the people to be secure in their persons; 5th Amendment Plaintiff forced into a case against herself, using FHP policies to violate; 6th Amendment Plaintiffs, right to a witness during investigations, 8th Amendment cruel and unusual Punishment; 13th Amendment, Slavery and Involuntary Servitude. Plaintiffs Federal Claims; Discrimination/Racial; charge of Retaliation; Intentional Emotional Distress; FMLA/Federal Medical Leave Act charges; Hostile work Environment; ADA/American Disabilities Act Charges, and for State claims; Assault; Intentional infliction of emotional distress; Libel; False Imprisonment; Invasion of privacy; Wrongful discharge from employment; Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; Negligence; Fraud; Negligence; Title 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 And Article I, Section I paragraphs 1 (life, liberty, and property) 2 (protection to Person and property; equal protection), and 5 (freedom of speech) of the Florida Constitution; Title VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 Sect: 703; 704.4; Title VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1991; Title 42 USC Sec: 1983, Color of State law; Bivens federal Law; Title 42 1985(1); Title 28 1367(a) only; Title 42 USC 2000e-2(a)(1)(b). Title 18 242; Title IX; Title 29 USC chapter 18; Title 29USC2615; Title 42, USC 12101; and Title 42 USC 12102(2)(A); Title 42 USC2000e-2(a)(1); Title 42 USC2000e-2(K)(1)(A)(i).

Punitive damages are recoverable in § 1983 suit where defendant's conduct is motivated by an evil motive or intent, or where it involves reck-less or callous indifference to plaintiff's federally protected rights). Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 50-51 (1983); Clark v. Taylor, 710 F.2d 4, 14 (1st Cir. 1983). Miga v. Holvoke, 398 Mass. 343, 355 (1986).

enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant, its officers, Agents, successors, employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert with it, from Enforcing with respect to individuals who engage in any other protected activity Restrained by the code section" this injunction will prohibit racial Discrimination.

Order Defendants to issue a public apology to Plaintiff; Includes plaintiffs daughter and mother who suffered because of the negligence of the employer. Daughter suffered severe repetitive stress disorders, resulting in hospital Care. Currently mother very III, has a terminal illness; forced to be without her daughter Renee D. Bell by her side due to denial leave; mother is now deceased, occurred Sunday May 17^th 2009; @ 22:00hrs.

Grant to plaintiff's judgment, Compensatory; General; Punitive, Special damages, Statutory, and treble damages against Defendants in an amount reasonable and Commensurate with the losses imposed upon her by the Defendant's unlawful acts; the plaintiff Is requesting amount of three Million Dollars. Grant to Plaintiffs a jury trial on all issues so triable; Award to Plaintiffs the cost of the action and reasonable attorney's fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. section and federal and state law; Grant any and all additional relief as this Court deems proper and just.

CONT:

A. Back Pay: Given a finding of unlawful Discrimination. B. Elements of Back Pay:

C. RETROACTIVE SENIORITY

1. Back pay should reflect total earnings lost by the victim due to the Discriminatory act.

a. Compensation: [Raises, bonuses, cost-of-living increases, tips, medical and life insurance, pensions, overtime pay, etc].

Seniority as an Element of Make Whole Relief: Seniority is often a critical component of relief. Without seniority an individual who is hired or promoted as a remedy for past discrimination may not have protection against layoff or demotion. If he/she had been hired or promoted at the time the discriminatory act occurred, he/she would have had additional years of seniority and would be less vulnerable to layoff as a result. Therefore, requiring hiring or promotion as a remedy without also requiring an adjustment of seniority does not really make the victim whole. Similarly, in many situations, promotions are awarded in whole or in part based upon the bidder's seniority. Merely placing a victim in the workforce without the seniority to which he/she is entitled will delay his/her attainment of his/her rightful place. Victims must receive all relevant seniority, such as job seniority where relevant in addition to plant seniority.

a. Correction to the Florida Retirement System:

To correct the Error in placement years; Indicating the Correct accrual Information.

a. General Principles: Make whole relief means simply that the victim of discrimination is restored to the position, both economically and in terms of status, that he/she would have occupied had the discrimination never taken place. This usually involves placing the person in his/her rightful place — that is, the job the person would have occupied with the seniority he/she would have had but for the discrimination. In addition to rightful place, make whole relief includes all economic benefits the victim would have received had the discrimination not taken place. This would normal-ly include things such as back pay with interest, retirement contributions, vacation credits, sick leave credits, payment for medical expenses that would have been paid by the employer's medical plan, missed training, and any other employment benefits denied the victim.

Case Law Precedent: follows Title VII principles.

The plaintiff in a disparate treatment case need only prove that membership in a protected class was a motivating factor in the employment decision. The court may still grant the plaintiff declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. 42 U.S.C.? 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)(i).

A declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated the plaintiff [Renee D. Bell] rights to be free from Discrimination in the workplace pursuant to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights.

If reinstatement is impossible under the circumstances, The Florida Highway patrol be ordered to grant Plaintiff front pay until the Plaintiff reaches age sixty-five (65); Full and fair monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial to compensate Plaintiff for the mental anguish, humiliation, pain and suffering and such other damages as resulted from the improper conduct of Defendants Larry Costanzo; Defendant Florida Highway Patrol; And Plaintiffs costs of this action including reasonable attorneys' f

RDB

Renee D. Bell

12/09/2009.

RESPECTFULLY, SUBMITTED;

DATE; 12/09/09 pro se plaintiff, Renee D. Bell

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements of fact, including all continuation pages are true and correct.

On 9th Day December 2009, by Regular US Mail.

Representing: FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL; LARRY COSTANZO; KATHY JIMENEZ MORALES

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 EAST KENNEDY BLVD. STE. 1100

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602