ONE YEAR LATER: THE Pinkerton et al. v. Reinhardt et al. CASE STILL STANDS

September 11, 2026, marks one year since we filed Pinkerton et al. v. Reinhardt et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

We began on September 11, 2025, as six self-represented plaintiffs carrying a record we believed could no longer be ignored. We alleged a civil RICO enterprise involving condominium governance, property management, legal influence, financial injury, retaliation, and the institutional systems that permitted the alleged conduct to continue.

Those allegations remain disputed. No final determination of liability has been made. But one year later, the case has not disappeared.

It survived three motions to dismiss.

On June 24, 2026, the District of Columbia court denied those motions. The court also denied our request for emergency injunctive relief without prejudice and transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the Middle District of Florida.

The transfer was not a dismissal on the merits. It moved the battlefield.

The case became Pinkerton et al. v. Reinhardt et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-02021-WFJ-CPT, in the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida.

Since that transfer, progress has come with resistance at nearly every procedural step.

On July 20, the court entered several endorsed orders. Motions to strike were denied or found moot, but our request to modify the filing restrictions was denied without prejudice. The court directed that nothing further be filed until the parties conferred, filed the Uniform Case Management Report, and completed the disclosures required by Rule 26.

We began the difficult process of coordinating six self-represented plaintiffs, multiple defendants, changing defense counsel, Rule 26 disclosures, scheduling obligations, and a joint case-management report.

That process has not been simple.

Counsel entered, withdrew, and substituted. Conference dates had to be negotiated across several states and time zones. Some communications received prompt answers. Others required repeated follow-up. Medical emergencies interrupted the schedule. Meanwhile, the case continued moving toward the phase where formal deadlines, discovery obligations, and court-ordered dates would control every step.

Then came the electronic-filing dispute.

Before transfer, the District of Columbia court granted me permission to use CM/ECF in this same action. I used that access for approximately nine and one-half months. It was never suspended or revoked. I was never sanctioned for misusing CM/ECF, and no filing was stricken for misuse of the system.

That access ended when the case was transferred.

On August 24, 2026, I filed Document 77, requesting permission to file electronically in the Middle District of Florida and to receive electronic service.

The following day, Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite denied the request. The order concluded that I had not established an exception to the general paper-filing rule and characterized the request as seeking efficiency and quicker dispatch and receipt.

The court instead directed me to its electronic-notice program.

I followed that direction and enrolled.

But electronic notice is not electronic filing.

It allows me to receive filings immediately by email. It does not permit me to submit anything electronically. Because Rule 6(d) no longer adds three days after electronic service, my response period begins immediately. Yet my paper response is not filed when I place it in the mail. It is filed only when it physically reaches the Clerk’s Office in Florida before closing.

I now reside in Scott County, Kansas, more than 1,200 miles from every Clerk’s Office in the Middle District of Florida.

That means electronic notice starts the clock immediately, while paper transit consumes several days at the other end. Lawyers filing electronically retain the entire permitted period and can file until midnight. I must surrender part of that same period to interstate mail delivery.

That is not a request for convenience.

It is a request to use the full period the Federal Rules already provide.

The August 25 denial was also entered before the defendants’ positions were available. Later that same day, counsel for Debra Reinhardt, Resource Property Management, Inc., and CEOMC, FL. Inc. stated in writing that those defendants did not oppose the relief requested in Document 77.

Today, on the first anniversary of this case, I am renewing the request on a materially different record.

The renewed motion does not accuse the court of lacking authority. It does not claim that every self-represented litigant has an absolute right to CM/ECF. It does not merely repeat Document 77.

It accepts the court’s discretion and presents the facts that discretion should now consider:

I previously received judicial authorization to use CM/ECF in this same action.

I used that access for approximately nine and one-half months without suspension, revocation, sanction, or a filing being stricken for misuse.

I did not choose this distant forum; the case arrived in Florida by transfer.

I now live more than 1,200 miles from the Clerk.

I complied with the court’s direction to enroll in electronic notice, but that program does not permit filing.

Three defendants expressly did not oppose the original request.

The renewed motion also offers strict safeguards: access limited to this case, filing only for myself, mandatory PACER registration and training, compliance with page limits and formatting rules, restrictions on unsolicited filings and supplements, properly labeled and searchable exhibits, and immediate suspension or revocation for noncompliance.

If the court remains concerned, I have requested a ninety-day probationary period.

That is how far we have come in one year.

We began with allegations that powerful institutions expected would never survive the courthouse door. We endured motions to dismiss, an emergency-relief denial, a transfer across the country, filing restrictions, changing counsel, difficult scheduling, medical emergencies, and the loss of the electronic access I had already used successfully.

Still, the case stands.

The defendants have not been adjudged liable, and we will not pretend otherwise. But neither have the allegations been erased. The record remains. The plaintiffs remain. The obligation to answer the evidence remains.

Dan and Beth Foss remain.

Robin Devine remains.

Timothy and Danielle Jenkins remain.

And I remain.

One year ago, we filed a case.

Today, we continue building a record.

Not through rumor.

Not through blind allegiance.

Not through personal attacks.

Through documents, dates, testimony, financial records, sworn declarations, and the Federal Rules themselves.

We have faced resistance.

We have also made progress that many said self-represented plaintiffs could never make.

One year later, we are still here.

Evidence before allegiance.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders Senator Josh Hawley Senator John Kennedy The Lincoln Project U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren The Florida Bar Senator Rick Scott Governor Ron DeSantis Adam Walser I-TeamAdam Walser Jay CollinsSenator Sheldon WhitehouseSenator Adam Schiff AG James Uthmeier Marcia De Almeida

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18cyKBrQkp/