Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Florida Attorney Scott Mager Seems To Make A 6 Figure Job For Himself Against Rape Victim

Written by:

Published on: May 21, 2019

I have written about the story of Deanna Williams, a Florida woman who was the victim of rape back in 2009.  As things transpired, not only has she been abandoned by her attorney Gloria Allred, but that abandonment resulted in her being sued by her previous attorneys, who were to be paid by Ms. Allred, per their agreement.  Now, an attorney who neither provided one service to Ms. Williams nor did his firm provide one service to her has somehow pulled a judgment from a Lee County Judge for over $1 million against Ms. Williams.

For those who have been following the story, that attorney I’m speaking of is Scott Mager of Mager Paruas.

In a court recording obtained by The Washington Standard dated 11-16-2017, Mager can be heard pleading with the court about how “we” have been waiting to be paid since 2014, but the reality is that Mager didn’t even enter the picture until a judge who was busted in a prostitute sting admitted him into the case in August of 2017, per court records.

It seems that the fees that Mager presents to the court during the hearing in November 2017 have absolutely nothing to do with Williams’ underlying rape case, but with fees he wants to tabulate for services he never rendered her.  In other words, it appears that he got involved in the case to simply make work for himself that he believes he should be able to bill her that total over $400,000!

Trending: Virginia: Cops Shoot & Kill Beloved Mother In Her Own Home While “Checking On Her Welfare”

Furthermore, he pushed this in light of the fact that her attorney demonstrated his incompetence and criminal activity by intercepting (stealing) $200,000 of her money, which she alleges he told her he had promised to Mr. Mager, and he states so on the record of the court.

While Mager claimed in a motion that he should be allowed to be “substituted” in the place of Michael Dolce, an attorney that did render Ms. Williams services in her initial rape case, the “substitution” of Mager is questionable as a party of interest.

Mager claimed that Mager Paruas “is a successor in interest to Docle Plaintiffs,” that is not a reality.

In fact, Michael Dolce was not working for Mager Paruas when he offered his services to Ms. Williams, which he ultimately walked away from and admitted in court records that he never filed a lien for fees she owed.

To make matters even more in Ms. Williams favor, a higher court ruled that Dolce and plaintiffs against Ms.  Williams, as well as the court, had not presented any evidence of her owing any money.  The judge in that case wrote:

Appellees did not file a charging lien in the personal injury lawsuit.3 Instead, they instituted a new action against appellants. Pursuing a quantum meruit theory of recovery, they claim entitlement to some portion of the settlement proceeds for their efforts on Ms. Williams’ behalf. To forestall the further disbursement of settlement funds held by the Heller law firm, appellees filed a motion to preserve assets. They submitted no verified pleadings or affidavits in support of the motion. The trial court referred the motion to a magistrate who heard argument on the motion. No party presented evidence. Appellees feared that, absent a freeze of the funds, they might be unable to secure any meaningful relief if they succeeded on their quantum meruit claim. Appellees argued that appellants had a duty to disgorge any fees and to return any disbursed funds because they had been on notice of a charging lien. Appellants noted that appellees never filed a charging lien. Appellants also maintained that appellees were asking for the entry of a temporary injunction without an evidentiary hearing or bond.

That’s not all.  The judge in the case went on to state,

“Neither the order nor the magistrate’s report and recommendation recite sufficient factual findings to show us that appellees satisfied each element needed for entry of a temporary injunction,” the judge stated.  “On this basis, alone, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Randolph, 903 So.2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). It appears to us that there were disputed issues of fact between the parties. Yet, to our knowledge, neither the magistrate nor the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Thus, substantial, competent evidence was not provided to establish entitlement to a temporary injunction.”

“We must also note that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) requires that a bond be set for the issuance of a temporary injunction,” the judge added.  “The trial court did not require a bond. This, too, was error.  Because the trial court committed legal error in granting the motion to preserve assets, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

So, the judge ruled they could not seize her assets.

But the criminal judge, Judge Jay B. Rosman, in the case somehow allowed Mager to go ahead and pursue what was already ruled against after he allowed him into the case.

How did Mager and Mager Paruas get in the case?  Without a fight.

Ms. Williams did not have competent representation.  He voice has yet to be heard.  Instead, Mager pointed to the Schmidt v. Mueller as a reason to why he should be allowed to be substituted into the case after allegedly purchasing the rights to sue Ms. Williams from Mr. Dolce, which Dolce denies.

However, Ms. Williams alleges that not only do numerous attorneys know about Dolce and Mager’s deal, but that her former attorney John Clune, the attorney for the victim in the Kobe Bryant case, affirmed this to her as well, saying that Dolce took out a loan based on winning her case and needed to settle that case to pay that loan, which is why he pushed her for a monetary settlement rather than pursue criminal justice.  Ms. Williams has also alleged that on numerous occasions Dolce and other attorneys, including Mager’s witness on the recording I obtain from Lee County, Jeff Garvin, admitted that Docle had obtained a video confession from the defendant in the rape case but didn’t make it known in order to pursue money.

However, the entire reason that Mager was even allowed into the case smell rotten.  Anyone can read the ruling of Schmidt v. Mueller and what was involved.  A simple internet search will give you the basis of the ruling.

I’ll break it down very simply.

Paul Schmidt sued defendants Muellers claiming they were liable to him for a real estate commission and that the defendant Gram interfered with his contractual relationship with the Muellers.  This was a nonjury trial.

Schmidt then said he had incorporated his real estate business into his business assets to Paul Schmidt, Inc., of which he was the president.

Though the Muellers attempted to dismiss the case, the judge dismissed the action writing, “. . . that the corporation had not been substituted as party Plaintiff; that the real party in interest was, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of this Court and the action should be dismissed.” In its order of dismissal, the trial judge noted the plaintiff had made an oral motion to substitute the newly-formed corporation as plaintiff but the court found “. . . that the Motion is too late.”

According to Case Text:

Rule 1.260(c), RCP, provides:

“(c) Transfer of Interest. In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. Service of the motion shall be made as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule.”

The Rule is explicit. And once the trial judge concluded the plaintiff had transferred his cause of action to his newly-formed corporation two alternatives were available to the court: (1) to allow the action to be continued in the name of the plaintiff Schmidt; or (2) to allow Paul Schmidt, Inc. to be either substituted for or joined with the original party-plaintiff. See Miami Airlines, Inc. v. Webb, Fla. App.3d 1959, 114 So.2d 361.

Notice the result, the corporation and the person who was involved were the same entity.  One was simply a corporation and the other the individual behind the corporation.

Mager and Mager Paruas are neither.  They neither provided services, were harmed in any way and Dolce claims he didn’t receive a dime from Mager to turn over what was feasibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in his lawsuit.

Are we really to believe that Michale Dolce didn’t receive any money in this?  Does this sound like justice to anyone else paying attention by allowing an attorney to sue a woman for profit?

Furthermore, the recording obtained from Lee County also demonstrates that Mager claims that he is owed money since 2014, but he wasn’t even involved until late 2017 when the criminal judge allowed him into the case.

Therefore, it is my opinion, that Mr. Mager and Mager Paruas created a job for themselves whereby they seek to take Ms. Williams for over $1 million for services they never rendered to her.  And in this particular recording, Mager indicates that he spent over 600 hours himself alone on her case, some of that even the day after Hurricane Irma, which is questionable given the circumstances of the hurricane.

Mager also pressed the court for the arrest of Ms. Williams after he would not schedule a time for her deposition before the court deadline of March 27 of this year.

Additionally, I have in my possession an email between Mager and Ms. Williams prior attorney who “errored” her out of $200,000 that indicates that the bigger goal in all of this is what Mager calls a “multi-million dollar” lawsuit against Gloria Allred, in which he would get his hands on money out of that lawsuit.

The Florida Bar continues to drag its feet on a complaint Ms. Williams has been trying to file against a previous attorney, Ware Cornell, for theft of $200,000 of her money and Scott Mager for unethical practices against her and weaponizing the court against her.

Several attorneys I have spoken to are actually shocked the Mager would put his reputation on the to sue a victim of rape with multiple sclerosis and in the midst of a high risk pregnancy.  More than half a dozen calls to Mager Paruas have gone unreturned in a similar manner to those made by Ms. Williams to set up a deposition.

Williams has already lost her child.  What is next Florida?  Governor DeSantis, will you continue to allow the injustices against this woman?  Attorney General Ashley Moody, will you continue to allow them?  State Attorney Amira Fox Dijani, will you continue to look the other way as you have in her criminal complaint of grand theft?  Florida Bar, are you OK with just lazily going along and allowing this abuse of the courts and attorneys against this woman, dropping the ball through your investigators?

Ms. Williams desperately needs an attorney and unfortunately, they require a huge retainer fee of nearly $15,000.  She is on the verge of losing what little bit she has in this world and Mr. Mager continues to push the court for her arrest for money for services he never rendered her.

If you are able to aid Ms. Williams in any way, please click here to contribute to her GoFundMe account.

For previous articles in this series:

Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Send this to a friend