I received documentation a few days ago concerning   a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem for me Mary Jean Ziska by the HOA lawyers for Cypress Cove.  I was shocked and dismayed to see that within the document they referred to many disputable points concerning my ability to rectify the HOA Fees that were blatantly untrue. I am going to go through the point #7 and all the lies that were in the motion that need to be addressed.  

1. ( no employment lie: )  I am still the assistant director of A Tender Loving Care Service and when season starts again I have many clients with whom I normally sit for on a regular basis.     As for finances I have a friend who moved in yesterday and will be helping with expenses.  He will be providing $600.00 that will pay for current and upcoming HOA fees and we will be splitting the electric and any other financial expenses we share.   I have been working these past few weeks to rectify an identity theft that happened in 2002 and seriously affected my credit report. I just recently found out all the particulars and have been contacting the credit companies of the problem and have already increased my credit score.   I have applied for the medical disability insurance and my friend may even have additional leads for promising additional job if needed.    

1. (Uncooperative with prior guardian lie I only met with pat weber once when he came to my home and we sat at my kitchen table and he introduced himself to me.   I was never contacted by him again concerning any of the annual reports, the responsibilities or the criteria  that needed t be met by an appointed guardian set froth in the Florida Statutes  # 744.  I had only one person that I recall come by that identified herself as someone checking on my residence, and I was completely compliant with her requests.    She came into my clean and organized   home, saw my full refrigerator,    and asked about my employment and my personal care.  I answered her questions and she even took pictures of my residence.   I do not have anyone on list at my gate so if pat or anyone else needed to come by they would have to have me put them on the daily list but I never even got a request for a visit.  I have dealt with a ton of calls from bullies and have changed phone services and even numbers  but my mother has always had a phone number  and an email address or even  US Postal service, UPS or Fed EX  mail  are viable methods   be contacted for questions and  to contact me. 

1. ( uncooperative with the  attorney lie: ) As per our last conversation in the courthouse with Judge Murphy I knew you were going on vacation and that we would be in contact concerning the case.  I emailed you when I had signed up for medical disability and requested a copy of al the information from the previous years and I received that in the mail.  I called and spoke with Sheri (your assistant) at one point when I had a bully harassing me and trying to cut off my cable and my website and blog for www. Mysearchforjustice but since then I have not been able to reach you (239- 774-2229- the phone number listed in under your membership number for the Florida Bar Association website.   Is there another number to reach you?   Perhaps a cell number or an alternative number?   Please let me know as I am not trying to be uncooperative at all, I have just not heard from you concerning anything.  I know you are just getting back today from your vacation  and I would really like to meet or discuss the  progress of this case  so that you are aware  of my wishes and so we can  take steps to  facilitate the outcome I desire for my life and for my condo.   I have been living in this same condo since 1999 and have made my life her in Naples and plan on staying here and owning this property for a long time.   What has been done to me and my life is really unforgivable in so many respects and I am trying to put solve each and every problem as they arise.   The HOA handled everything completely wrong in this matter and they are still not handling this matter in the proper fashion or by the rules and regulations and ethical behavior of the Florida Bar Association.  What a travesty!   

1. (Not medical compliant lie  To be perfectly honest, I do not need any medication for being suicidal due to bullies, harassment and people harming my life.  But according to the patients bill of rights a patient can refuse medication due to many reasons even religion.  Also according to the Florida guidelines stating the requirement s for a guardian, three separate evaluations must be completed that will determine the guardianship status and will determine the type of guardianship required in each case.   Since no evaluations have been done in years, we should ask for a continuance until such tests and the experts have done their evaluation.    

1.  (applying for  medical disability lie: )  I actually applied and emailed you once I had applied for medical disability benefits.  I was told they take a few months to process.  I even emailed you and wrote in my blog (www.mysearchforjustice.com) the reason for the disability is listed as #12 /anxiety disorder.  

Their conclusion that I have no reasonable expectation of being able to satisfy the debt at issue is absolutely false as well.   The HOA handled every part of the foreclosure and auction process unjustly and improperly even unlawfully!  First, they are not allowed to serve papers to an incompetent person.  They knew that I had a guardian because the letters/envelopes were addressed in care of Patrick Webber so as lawyers they must have known the laws pertaining to guardian ship and foreclosures!  They must have known that a guardian must sign the papers and that there are certain criteria that must be followed when even choosing a guardian! Especially to handle legal and financial matters!  

As we have not spoken since the day I saw you at court I am uncertain why the HOA lawyers are assuming that they can name you as my guardian.   The matter of even needing a guardian had not been settled let alone the appointment of a guardian who meets all the criteria necessary for this case and for fulfilling the requirements in the Florida Statutes.   

What the heck Is going on?… this is my life! .. MY REAL LIFE! These have been the worst years of my life and I have been through more harm  than anyone who should ever have to go through! …This is concerning no tony my life but my real home where  I have lived since 1999!

I really need to reach you and cannot reach you via my magic jack. I have been calling the telephone number listed under your member number of 649457.   Your membership address in the Florida Bar Website  ( 239-774-2229) is this still the correct telephone number?  Is there another number you would  prefer I call?   (Please contact me( 561-283-7505-phone)  , email( whatabtmary@yahoo.com)

(maryjeanziska@mysearchforjustice.com) /  or even if you want to meet in person! But I would really like to go over everything  before going  in  front of the  judge on  Sept 12^th @2:00pm. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter  and to this email! Sincerely Mary Jean  Ziska    

To whom it may concern,                                                          August 30th 2011@6:07pm

I received harassing phone calls and emails from(xxxxxxxxxxxx@aol.com ) /telephone239-xxx-xxxx)   or239-xxx-xxxx  or 239-xxx-xxxx .  This person tried to  have my comcast service stopped because she /he did not like the information contained on my website.  I filed a  police report this morning case # 1100021944. 

Comcast did not approve of her complaint and allowed my website to remain.  They also found no merit to cancel my service based on one person’s  opinion of my website.  They also told me that  I should contact Go Daddy and its policy’s and inform you of the ill intention’s of this person or persons. I own two websites and blogs with Go Daddy.  the first website is:  www.mysearchforjustice.com and the second site i purchased is www.mygingerbreadman.com

 I looked up the  legal department information on my website and I assert my  rights to continue my websites with Go daddy as I do not fall in the category of  “transmitting or otherwise connected with any spam or other unsolicited bulk which carries the penalties for immediate termination. ”

As far as the person harassing me and threatening to close my websites based on her opinion of my sites,I feel it would be a violation of my 1st Amendment rights, and a clear injustice based on my right for freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, The freedom of speech is according to wikipedia the freedom to speak freely without censorship.The freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking receiving and imparting information ideas regardless of e medium used. 

The world summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the “information Society” in stating:

“WE REAFFIRM, AS AN ESSENTIAL FOUNDATION OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY AND AS OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THAT EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION, THAT THIS RIGHT INCLUDES FREEDOM TO HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE AND TO SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION AND IDEAS THROUGH ANY MEDIA AND REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS.  COMMUNICATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL PROCESS, A BASIC HUMAN NEED, AND THE FOUNDATION OF ALL SOCIAL ORGANISATION.  IT IS CENTRAL TO THE INFORMATION SOCIETY.  EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE AND NO ONE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE INFORMATION SOCIETY OFFERS”

Internet Censorship:  “The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship,monitoring and surveillance of eh Internet.  Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. 

Judge Stewart R. Dalzell one of three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional in his opinion stated the following:”  the Internet is a far more speech -enhancing medium than print , the village green, or the mails.  Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium.  This is a constitutionally intolerable result.  Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished,and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit and vulgar-in a word “indecent” in many communities.  But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice.  We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates” 

 he continues later to say: ” Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that  strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech of the First Amendment protects”   

As with respect to user content:  I believe that my site maintains adherence to: 

  #4. General Rules of Conduct:  

* My site: “does not impersonate another user or any other  person or entity or submit content on behalf of another user or any other person or entity without their express prior consent.”

* My site:  ” does not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest any user content as defined below) or  collect or harvest any nonpublic or personally identifiable information  about another user without their express written consent.

*4.  My websites 

a.  ” are not used in an illegal or promoting  or encouraging illegal activity”

b.  “do not promote or encourage or engages in defamatory, harassing, abusive, or otherwise objectionable behavior”

c.  do not promote or encourage or engages in child pornography or the exploitation of children

d.  do not promotes, encourage or engage  in hate speech, hate crime, terrorism,violence against people, animals or property or intolerance against any protected class

e.  do not encourage or engages in any spam or other unsolicited bulk email or computer or network hacking or cracking

f.  does not violate the Ryan Haight on line pharmacy consumer Protection Act of 2008 or similar legislation, or promotes encourages or engages in the sale or distribution of prescription medication without a valid prescription

g.  does not infringe on the intellectual property rights of another user or any other person or entity

h.  does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of another user or any other person entity or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another user or any other person or entity.

i. does not interfere with the  operation of the go daddy site or the services found at the go daddy site.

j.  does not contain or installs any viruses, worms, bugs Trojan horses or other code, files or programs designed to,or  capable of disrupting damaging, limiting the functionality of any software or hardware.

Also  as for user content: My belief is that go daddy will uphold the rules of user content which will allow users to view, post, publish, share, store,or manage (a) ideas, opinions, recommendations, or advice( “User Submissions” or (b) literary, artistic,musical, or other content, including but not limited to  photos and videos (together with user submissions “user content” )  By posting or publishing User Content to this site or to the services found at this  site, you represent and warrant to Go Daddy that (i) you have all necessary rights to distribute user content via this Site or via the Servic
es found at this Site, either because you are the author or the User content and have the right to distribute the same or because you have the appropriate distribution rights licenses, consents, and /or permissions to use in writing from the copyright or other owners of the user content and (ii) you do not violate the rights of any third party.

The person who is/ was trying to close down my websites today must have  a personal vendetta and  they are bent on limiting my ability to bring justice to a very horrid 8 -9 year period in my life.  I am trying to provide information  that may be helpful so that no one has to endure: bulling, identity theft,  fraud, theft, and many other unfortunate incidents I have had to endure.

 I have never received any bad comments for the blog entries.. ever, (some weird ones… ) but no one has complained before today.  I believe this person who is trying to shut down my website may have a personal relationship  with  the girl who bullied me, or the man who threatened to kill my mother, who caused me to lose 30 pounds, caused me to have a nervous breakdown, and may possibly be involved in the entire identity theft and stealing of three businesses I have owned or worked as partners.  they may even be  involved with additional  criminal activity.  I trust that one person’s personal opinion will  not infringe on my freedom of speech, and my first Amendment rights  because  she or he did not like me, or if I used a curse word, or that I identified my bully, or mentioned my sisters or family in my blog entries.  (these were the complaints she used  to comcast and comcast did not honor her request. 

“the right to produce a thought- or refuse to do so- is as important as the right protected in Roe v. Wade (to give birth or abort..) The First Amendment protects the communication of ideas.  That  protected right of communication presupposes a capacity to produce ideas.  As a practical matter, therefore, the power to produce ideas is fundamental to our cherished right to communicate and is entitled to comparable constitutional protection.”   

Please keep this letter in my file so that she/he or their “group” will not be able to try to  harm  me or my websites again.  Please, contact me  immediately if anyone  does try to violate my rights and  shut down my website. 

Could you have someone from your legal team look at my websites( www.mysearchforjustice.com  and www.mygingerbreadman.com and analyze the sites  based on following  your own terms  and conditions?   Please, contact me with your findings.  

I love having  websites with go-daddy and  I have really enjoyed blogging information and opinions.  From some of the comments I have received over the past  months…. people are very receptive of the content and honestly I have never had anyone  have a problem with my blog until now.  I told the person who was harassing me on the phone that they did not have to read the blog if they did not like it. This is America and that allows us freedom of choice for viewing  websites or blogs.  I also asked for a list of what was so damaging.. she/he replied “all of it”  she /he wanted the entire blog and website shut down.  I don’t think that is a reasonable request.  Bullies who threaten should  not be allowed to make up rules for all of us to live by based on their own personal beliefs and desires.  I also don’t think that because bullies have more financial  resources than their victims they should  be favored by any of the authorities but should adhere to the same rules and laws  that govern America.  i do not like criminals or others who are allowed to continue to harm people.  I think that is   totally unacceptable.  Moreover,  in this insistence, it violates my constitutional  rights.  

Thank you for  your kind attention to this letter/email!

Sincerely

Mary Jean Ziska       

My name is Mary Jean Ziska.  I am writing today to dispute charges on my credit report concerning a     Capital One Master Card Account.   I have reports from all three credit agencies.  I found two capitol one credit cards with almost the exact account numbers started at the exact same time. (See details below)

Capitol one credit card: #1:  529107263924xxxx opened:   12/2006 balance of $3003.00.  Fraudulent account I only had one account and it was supposed to have been paid in full in 2006 as noted in the other capitol one credit card.  Police report for identity theft # T1000181/state attorney reference report number:  11-00021030.                                                                                                                                                                              

 Capitol one credit card: #2:  5291072272237xxxx opened:  12/2006 balance of $0.   I believe this was the accurate account.  I only had one account and it was supposed to have been paid in full in 2006 as noted in the Capitol one credit card report.  Police report for identity theft# T1000181/ State Attorney Reference incident report number:  11-00021030.  

 My personal information as reference for my account:   My residence is:  5632 Whisperwood Blvd.   #1601 Naples Florida.   I opened the account in 2002 and had a credit limit of $1000.00. When I recently went online and was able to obtain a credit report from Experian,   the interest on the account created a balance of $3003.00.  During that time frame refinancing for my home was completed through a corrupt lawyer David J. Stern and a corrupt broker, Ian Stein.   The broker, Ian stein was in charge of paying the $1000.00 debt.   I believe that he paid the balance to the account:  (52910722722237xxxx).   He did not repay a personal loan I made to him from the refinancing and may have even been involved in the additional fraudulent accounts that were opened at that time period.   There were additional bills he did not take care of before he disappeared, with his office closed, the phones disconnected and leaving no forwarding address to contact him or his company for the purpose of collecting funds or information concerning his fraudulent activities.    

When I first checked one of my credit reports,   I was shocked to see that interest had been accruing on a capitol one account and a total of $3,003.00 was still showing on the credit report.  I was even more shocked to see that interest was past as of July 2011, when I believed the account had been paid in full in 2006. In fact, when I first received my first Experian credit report,   I thought that there had to have been fraud involved, because i had been informed mine account had been paid off in 2006.

 The man who was my broker, Ian Stein was found to be a con-artist and worked for a lawyer David J Stern who was also convicted of being a criminal.  Ian stein stole $3,000.00 from me personally.   I filed police reports for additional fraudulent accounts I found on my credit report occurring within the same time fame.  The police report for additional fraudulent accounts that I believe may have been started by the same group of con-artists is: (#11-21030)/state attorney reference incident report number: 11-00021030.    Until recently I was under the assumption that all my bills (in good faith) had been paid, and accounting for such would be reflected on my credit report.   I trust with this additional information the necessary adjustments will be made to my account and credit report and the fraudulent account will be removed allowing for just one capitol one account that was paid in full in 2006.                             

On August 22nd 2011@ I called the capitol one telephone number of:  800-955-7070 was listed on my Experian dispute form and reached Katrina @ 3:58pm id# ALM290.  I gave her the account number that showed on my Experian account for my Capitol One Master Card of (#  529107263924…)The address  listed is P.O. BOX 30281 Salt Lake City UT 84130 then there were some additional numbers under the account (0344157357).  She asked to access my account by wanting to know the various information I listed in the first paragraph of this letter. The information I gave her was:    my full name, date of birth, address, account number, and the actual number on the actual credit card.   She even wanted to know my social security number but I never give that out…. (Especially over the phone).    She said she couldn’t see my account information so she transferred me to William (id# 32L5) who is supposed to be an account manager in the recovery department.   I began speaking with him at 4:15pm and spoke to him until 4:19pm. (He said he had to hang up due to an earthquake in Virginia? And he had to evacuate the area? I ‘m not sure if that was the correct information or not but he told me to call back tomorrow morning 8 am to discuss the situation with another representative.  He also told me to fax my information to fax number # 888-259-3021 or mail it to P.O. box 30285 Salt Lake City UT 84130 telephone number 800-955-7070.  It is a different address than the one on the Experian account information sheet.  I want to verify which address is correct? 

 I explained  the entire  situation,  but I don’t  think he understood the  legal implications  and  liability  for the balance of the account after 2006.  He mentioned that the account was signed in 2002 and maintained good standing until 2006-2007 which is true.   The situation in 2006 changed.  In 2006 as per the court of collier county (clerk’s case number # 0600117GA:  July 05 2006 a petition for appointment of guardian was issued and to date, the case has still not been resolved.      

 I am putting back together my credit and my life and as of today I am still going through court cases based on this horrid time period of my life!  I am attempting to rectify this situation with Capitol one master Card company, and the credit bureaus by having this fraudulent account removed.  

I still suffer from severe anxiety caused by events as far back as 2003 and am making sure that those responsible are brought to justice; however I am still left with a mess to clean up in my own life, my credit, and in business and personal relationships.  Due to these extenuating circumstances,   I expect all charges to be justly removed from all my credit reports and credit history.  My credit history should reflect only the time period for account #5291072272237.   As for my Capitol One Master Card Account this would be the time period of:  2002- 2006.

I am writing today to rectify the situation and clear my credit of all the injustice that occurred in 2006-2007!

Thank you for your kind attention in this matter,

Sincerely,

Mary Jean Ziska                                                                                                                                      5632whisperwood Blvd. #1601                                                                                                                              Naples Florida  34110

Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that “the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech”.^[43] International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.^[7] The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court partially overturned the law.^{[citation needed]} Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following:^[44]

“The Internet is a far more speech-enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails. Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium. This is a constitutionally intolerable result. Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar – in a word, “indecent” in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. [. . .] My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication. The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography. [. . .] As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well. In my view, our action today should only mean that Government’s permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech. [. . .] The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff’s experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: “What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is. The strength of the Internet is chaos.” Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects.”^[44]

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the “Information Society” in stating:

“We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.”^[45]

According to Bernt Hugenholtz and Lucie Guibault the public domain is under pressure from the “commodification of information” as item of information that previously had little or no economic value, have acquired independent economic value in the information age, such as factual data, personal data, genetic information and pure ideas. The commodification of information is taking place through intellectual property law, contract law, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications law.^[46]

Freedom of information

Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.^[47] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.^[48]

Freedom of information is also explicitly protected by acts such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Ontario, in Canada.^{[citation needed]}

Internet censorship

The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.^[49] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium claims to remove blocks to the “free flow of information” for what they term “closed societies”.^[50] According to the Reporters without Borders (RS “internet enemy list” the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.^[51]

A widely publicized example of internet censorship is the “Great Firewall of China” (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.^[52] Internet censorship in the People’s Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.^[53][54]

See also