judicial rulint - kruidbos v corey
DESCRIPTION
The story of Ben Kruidbos (pronounced “Cried-Boss”) is a story of what happens when a man of integrity stands up against a legal authority built on corruption and political self-interest. A Florida Judge delivered a ruling, with extreme prejudice, against his former boss, State Attorney Angela Corey – thereby allowing a lawsuit filed by Ben to continue.Those of you who followed the trial of George Zimmerman may remember Ben; those of you who are not familiar with the specifics might find a parallel to the current headlines of what is happening in Baltimore Maryland in the office of State Attorney Marilyn Mosby.Ben Kruidbos was the Information Technology Director, the technology expert, within the office of the Jacksonville State Attorney Angela Corey ~Full Backstory~. In his position he was charged with retrieving and reviewing the phone data contained in the cell phone of Trayvon Martin.The office of Angela Corey held a vested interest in the content of Trayvon’s cell phone because, as we would later discover, the content therein showed how Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, and his father, Tracy Martin, lied to state investigators about the details surrounding Trayvon’s activities prior to his encounter with George Zimmerman.Conversely, George Zimmerman’s defense team also held a vested interest in the cell phone content because much of the public discussion therein was fraught with intentional deception on behalf of the Martin Family attorneys Daryl Parks and Benjamin Crump.During the trials discovery phase, the FBI and various technological experts extracted data from the phone. In addition the State Attorney’s office also extracted data – some very alarming data, some very controversial data, and much of that data the State did not want to hand over to the defense team.Consequently, Angela Corey, and state prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda, tried to hide much of the phone data from the Zimmerman defense team.Enter Ben Kruidbos, who was charged with extracting and analyzing the data and documenting the content therein. Ben noted he was, and had, extracted far more data than was turned over to the defense during discovery. Angela Corey was intentionally trying to hide explosive information from the Zimmerman defense team.Ben was stuck in an ethical conundrum. He knew data was being hidden by his boss, and yet simultaneously he would be putting his job in jeopardy if he questioned them about it. Ben tried unsuccessfully to discuss the issue with lead prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda, who wanted nothing to do with it because De La Rionda knew the inherent risks within the conversation.Ben made the decision to reach out to another person for advice and counsel; a former prosecutor in the office named Wes White.During the pre-trial ‘discovery phase’, Wes White was called to the witness stand by the defense and asked about the total of the phone content. Eventually this led to Ben Kruidbos also taking the stand, and the Corey ruse to manipulate evidence was exposed.None of the details ever came out in trial, or in front of the jury. Judge Debra Nelson told both the State and Defense teams she was going to address the unethical conduct and possibility for sanctions after the trial. However, on the day the jury handed the not guilty verdict in the Zimmerman trial, Ben Kruidbos was fired by Angela Corey.Several months later Ben filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, seeking whistleblower protection, against State Attorney Angela Corey.In response Corey filed a counterclaim against Ben Kruidbos, essentially trying to put him into the legal grinder and wear him down.A Florida judge ruled that Corey’s 2-count counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice (written order ).The judges Order dismissing the counterclaim is now entered; Ben Kruidbos’s suit is “at issue”, which means the pleadings are closed and there will then be a trial order issued setting various dates for comTRANSCRIPT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FORDUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 16-2013-CA-7407 XXXX MADIVISION: CV-F
BERNARD ALBERT KRUIDBOS,Plaintiff,
vs.
ANGELA B. COREY, in her official capacity asSTATE ATTORNEYF OR THE FOURTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
Florida.______________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISSAMENDED COUNTERCLAIM WITH PREJUDICE
This cause came on to be heard upon the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Amended Counterclaim. The Defendant/Counterplaintiff has attempted to state a cause of action
for a tort known as “breach of duty of loyalty.” Every case of which this Court is aware
regarding such tort concerns former employees obtaining an unfair competitive advantage over
their former employer. Sub judice, the Counterplaintiff urges the Court to expand the tort of
“breach of duty of loyalty” to include additional matters. The Counterplaintiff advised the Court
that she is not seeking to state a cause of action for “breach of duty of loyalty” based on any
competitive advantage that could be obtained by the Counterdefendant against the
Counterplaintiff. This Court is unwilling, without authority, to broaden the tort to include the
plaintiff’s additional theory.
Count II of the Amended Counterclaim relies on proof of the allegations in Count I. The
parties agreed that if Count I is dismissed, Count II should likewise be dismissed. The Court
finds that because of the facts to which the parties have agreed, the problems existing in the
Amended Counterclaim cannot be cured by filing a Second Amended Counterclaim.
Prior to the hearing, the Court became concerned that the Counterplaintiff, in her
capacity as State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, may not have standing to
bring a civil lawsuit/civil counterclaim for civil damages. See State v. General Development
Corporation, 469 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 1985) (affirming State v. General Development Corp., 448
So.2d 1074 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984)); State ex rel. Smith v. Jorandby, 498 So.2d 948 (Fla. 1986),
and State ex rel Smith v. Brummer, 426 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1982). Although Florida Statutes
specifically grant the Counterplaintiff the authority to bring foreclosure actions in civil court, the
Court can find no similar grant of authority by statute or otherwise to bring the counterclaim in
the instant case. Accordingly, the Court requested that the parties provide memoranda of law
regarding the issue of standing.
The Plaintiff, however, has not challenged the Counterdefendant’s standing to file the
counterclaim and the Court declines to go forward on that issue on its own motion. In any event,
this order may render that issue moot.
The Court having benefit of memoranda of law, research, argument of counsel and being
otherwise advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Counts I and II of the Amended Counterclaim are
hereby dismissed with prejudice because the Counterplaintiff has failed to state a cause of action
for “breach of duty of loyalty” and she will be unable to state such a cause of action if allowed to
file a Second Amended Counterclaim; and, according to both parties, Count II cannot stand
without Count I.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida this 22nd
day of June, 2015.
s/ Tyrie W. Boyer_______________________CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies to:Wesley F. White, Esq. – [email protected] G. Riegel, Jr., Esq. – [email protected]