The incumbent Sheriff has refused to serve the people of Lee County by failing to follow the law and by failing to be a model-citizen. Additionally, the incumbent Sheriff has hired a powerhouse law firm in order to have the wrongs committed by him dismissed in Court. More specifically, Mr. Scott has attempted to "eliminate" Meister from the Court's docket by means of using procedural tactics against Christian Meister in an attempt to have the wrongs committed by the Sheriff dismissed in court. The Sheriff, however, was unsuccessful in his attempts. Christian Meister, since 2005, has devoted himself to the study of procedural and substantive law and has drafted legal and binding memoranda of law in order to address the wrongs committed by Sheriff Scott. The incumbant Sheriff--via his "dream team"--has attempted on at least four separate occasions to dismiss the Sheriff's violations - but Mr. Scott was unsuccessful thus far.

Sheriff Scott, by his conduct, has demonstrated that he is not willing to uphold the law: Sheriff Scott is employing at least one deputy Sheriff who has a criminal conviction of battery, he has falsified employee performance, and he has terminated at least one employee on the basis of national origin.

Additionally, Sheriff Scott has argued in court that a party who cannot afford an attorney--such as Meister--has no right to a trial by jury or otherwise.

Sheriff Scott, by his conduct, has demonstrated that he is not committed to honor the protections of the United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Sheriff Scott, by his conduct, has demonstrated that he is not capable to uphold standards, and, in light of the constitutional provisions violated by Mr. Scott, he has demonstrated that he lacks the knowledge of the law, that area of law which is necessary to successfully lead a law enforcement agency. Foremost, he has failed to be a good public servant.

In order to explain procedural law, let's take a look, first, at substantive law. Substantive law deals with that area of law the public is more likely familiar with. For example, if a person were to commit a theft, the prosecutor would need to prove up the elements of law of theft. In order to get a conviction, the person would have to be found guilty by a showing of evidence of the actual taking of the good and, secondly, an intent of taking the good. Both the "taking" and the "intent" are the elements of the law which would need to be present in order to convict.

While substantive law deals with the actual elements of a particular law, procedural law deals with the various rules, be they federal, local, or "local local" rules, that a party to an action of law must follow. These procedural laws and rules are complex and, unfortunately for those who cannot afford to pay for an attorney, they are a deterrent component of the law.

See Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Response to All Defendant(s)' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 163) [click here]
See Judge's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. # 165) [click here]

In order to bring a lawsuit, a party must not only be thoroughly familiar with substantive law for each deprivation caused by a defendant (the party being sued), but the plaintiff (the party suing) must also know the rules by which to move the case from the beginning of the lawsuit (the drafting of the legal complaint) to the "middle" of the lawsuit (the discovery phase) to the very end (a trial by jury or a bench trial by the judge). The Plaintiff will need to know how to respond to the various legal documents that are presented to him by his or her opponent defendant throughout the course of the litigation, including but not limited to, a response to a motion to dismiss, motion to strike, motion for summary judgment, motion to compel, and more.

Additionally, a plaintiff needs to follow all procedural rules that govern how and when such documents are to be produced and within which frame of time. To illustrate this, think of the procedural rules as having to take a trip from California to Florida. Imagine that a party leaves California and, indeed, arrives in Florida. Procedurally, this would be excellent because the plaintiff now and ONLY THEN gets to argue the wrongs committed by another and only then can the plaintiff be compensated for his or her losses. However, if the party leaves California and, by mistake, arrives, say, in New York, regardless of whether the party has a good case, that case is "automatically" dismissed because the party did not "follow the rules" he or she was supposed to follow and because the party did not arrive in Florida.