Filing # 32487832 E-Filed 09/25/2015 10:54:24 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
REF NO.: 99-007430-CI-8
UCN: 521999CA007430XXCICI

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG

SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.,
Petitioner,
vs.
LISA MCPHERSON TRUST INC., a
Florida for-profit corporation,
JESSE PRINCE, GRADY WARD,
ROBERT S. MINTON, JR., STACY BROOKS,
JEFF JACOBSON, PATRICIA GREENWAY,
PETER ALEXANDER, MARK BUNKER, AND
TROY BEZAZIAN,
Respondents.
_____________________________________________/
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND
MOTION TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Intervenor Alex Hageli (Intervenor), pursuant to Rule 1.230 of the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure and 86.011, Florida Statutes, files this Motion to Intervene and Motion to Dissolve
Permanent Injunction, and in support thereof respectfully shows the Court as follows:
BACKGROUND
1.

Intervenor, an Illinois resident and Pinellas County property owner, visits the

Clearwater area approximately three to four times a year. While visiting Intervenor frequently
protests Petitioner Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. (FSO).
2.

This Court entered a permanent injunction (LMT Injunction) in this matter on

July 27, 2001. (Exhibit A.)

3.

On May 10, 2014, Petitioner FSO had Intervenor served with a copy of the LMT

Injunction.

4.

Subsequent to service, Petitioner FSO has asserted to various Clearwater Police

Department (CPD) officers on numerous occasions the applicability of the LMT Injunction to
Intervenor in an attempt to hinder his free movement and exercise of free speech. Intervenor, in
turn, has had to explain to CPD officers on numerous occasions that the LMT Inunction does not
apply to him.
5.

On information and belief, Petitioner FSO maintains that Intervenor acts in concert

with, or as an agent thereof, of one of the named parties to the LMT Injunction, Mark Bunker, and
is thereby subject to the terms of the injunction. Intervenor denies acting in concert with, or as an
agent of, Mr. Bunker with regards to matters covered by the injunction.
6.

On March 8, 2015, Petitioner FSO placed a service call to CPD regarding

Intervenors protest activities. Upon arrival, Petitioner FSO asserted to responding CPD Officer
Raniel Heredia that the LMT Injunction applied to Intervenor. Officer Heredia subsequently
arrested Intervenor for trespassing, relying on the map affixed to the injunction to determine
property lines. The arrest was later determined to be improper, and Officer Heredia was
reprimanded.
7.

On May 15, 2015, at the request of Petitioner FSO, CPD filed an incident report

regarding an alleged violation of the LMT Injunction by Intervenor.

8.

On August 14, 2015, at the request of Petitioner FSO, CPD filed an incident report

regarding an alleged violation of the LMT Injunction by Intervenor. In the report, the reporting
officer expresses uncertainty regarding its applicability to Intervenor, but states that if the
injunction does apply to him his violation of the injunction could result in further criminal
sanctions. (Exhibit B.)
9.

On information and belief, Petitioner FSO intends to continue to assert the

applicability of the LMT Injunction to Intervenor to CPD officers and request the taking of incident
reports each time Intervenor allegedly violates the injunction.
2

10.

On information and belief, CPD intends to continue to file incident reports

regarding Intervenors alleged violation of the injunction at the request of Petitioner FSO.
11.

Intervenor is not a named party to the LMT Injunction, and has never acted in

concert with, or as an agent of, any of the named parties with regards to matters covered by the
injunction.
MOTION TO INTERVENE
12.

Pursuant to Rule 1.230 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor moves

to intervene in this action as he is adversely affected by the LMT Injunction. Petitioner FSOs
assertion that the LMT Injunction applies to Intervenor, as well as requests for incident reports
regarding his alleged violation of the injunction, adversely affect Intervenors constitutional right
of free speech. Each time Intervenor has to explain to CPD officers that the LMT Injunction does
not apply to him, or a report is taken for his alleged violation thereof and he has to provide an
officer with personal information, Intervenor is prevented from protesting.
13.

Despite Petitioner FSOs assertions that Intervenor is subject to the LMT

Injunction, Petitioner FSO has made no attempt to properly enforce the injunction against him by
filing a claim for damages. Indeed, more than one year after having Intervenor served with a copy
of the LMT Injunction, Petitioner FSO has yet to even file an affidavit of such service with this
Court.
14.

Intervenor suffered substantial injury as a result of the continued existence of the

LMT Injunction when Officer Heredia relied on the map affixed to the injunction in order to
determine Petitioner FSOs property lines for the purposes of arresting Intervenor for trespassing.
15.

Intervenor is adversely affected by the LMT Injunction through the hindrance of

his free speech that accompanies having to repeatedly explain to CPD officers that the injunction
does not apply to him and/or he has to provide personal information for incident reports, reports
which serve no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, given CPD officers confusion over its
3

applicability to him, Intervenor is at risk of suffering further criminal sanctions should an CPD
officer erroneously determine the LMT Injunction applies to him. Finally, the continued existence
of the LMT Injunction creates the potential for confusion regarding matters incidental to its terms
that may also further adversely affect Intervenor, as demonstrated by Officer Heredias reliance
on a map affixed to the injunction to determine Petitioner FSOs property lines, which lead to the
improper arrest of Intervenor for trespassing.
MOTION TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION
16.

Permanent injunctions are only permanent for as long as the circumstances

surrounding the issuance of the injunction remain the same or substantially similar.
17.

A court may modify or dissolve a permanent injunction at any time where the

circumstances, and circumstances of the parties, are shown to have so changed as to make it just
and equitable to do so, and especially where the decree itself reserves the right. Jackson Grain
Co. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So.2d 143, 146 (1942).
18.

This Court specifically reserved the right to modify the LMT Injunction by further

order. (Exhibit A, 16.)

19.

The original circumstances surrounding the issuance of the LMT Injunction 14

years ago no longer exist. Of the named parties to the LMT Injunction, the Lisa McPherson Trust,
Inc. no longer exists. Upon information and belief, named parties Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy
Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander and Troy [sic] Bezazian no longer live
in the Clearwater area. Only Mark Bunker currently resides in the Clearwater area. Robert S.
Minton, Jr., the founder and primary financier of the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., is deceased.
20.

A defendant may move to dissolve an injunction if it injuriously affects his

interests, although the order is not issued against him. MHS v. Halifax Hospice, 689 So.2d 373,
375 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1997).

21.

Intervenors interests are injuriously affected by the LMT Injunction through the

hindrance of his free speech that accompanies having to repeatedly explain to CPD officers that
the injunction does not apply to him and/or he has to provide personal information for incident
reports, reports which serve no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, given CPD officers confusion
over its applicability to him, Intervenor is at risk of suffering further criminal sanctions should
an officer erroneously determine the LMT Injunction applies to him. Finally, the continued
existence of the LMT Injunction creates the potential for confusion regarding matters incidental to
its terms that may also further injuriously affect Intervenor, as demonstrated by Officer Heredias
reliance on a map affixed to the injunction to determine Petitioner FSOs property lines, which
lead to the improper arrest of Intervenor for trespassing.
22.

The LMT Injunction no longer serves any valid purpose and should be dissolved.

Its continued existence, long after all named parties but one have moved away from the area, serves
only to create confusion regarding its applicability to Intervenor and others who may wish to
protest Petitioner FSO but who may have had de minimus contact with one or more of the named
parties to the injunction, confusion which Petitioner FSO seeks to take advantage of to rid itself of
protesters. The interests of justice demand its dissolution at this late date.
WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Intervenor, Alex Hageli, respectfully requests that
this Court grant his Motion to Intervene and Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction, and
that this Court provide all other further relief to which he may be entitled.

DATED: September 25, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Alex Hageli
Alex Hageli
435 South Cleveland Avenue, Apt. 306
Arlington Heights, IL 60005
(847) 630-5710
ahageli@yahoo.com
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY, on this 25th day of September, 2015, I caused the foregoing Motion to
Intervene and Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction, to be filed electronically, and served
same, by electronic service, upon the following counsel of record:

F. Wallace Pope, Jr.,

Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns LLP
911 Chestnut Street
Clearwater, Florida 33756
wallyp@jpfirm.com
Denis M. DeVlaming
deVlaming, Romine & Rivellini, LLP
1101 Turner Street
Clearwater, Florida 33756
denis@drrlawfirm.com
s/ Alex Hageli

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B