View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
THE WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING?1
Who are these wolves? 2 They are members of the legal profession
who have sworn a duty to follow the law but??? They are prosecutors
who fail to investigate (it happens all the time.) They are judges who
may be lazy or prejudiced. They may be lawyers who know that they
cannot do their job but are terrified to say anything. They are political
figures who started out as lawyers. The list goes on and on.
I thought I would attack the Florida Bar first for failing to do their
job or doing their job selectively. At one point, I used an analogy about
a pregnant woman and a lie. The pregnant woman is 100 percent
pregnant. Once a lawyer or the bar fails to do their job and police their
profession, they do so at a 100 percent rate.
Currently, to my information and belief, the Florida Bar is failing to
perform their duties responsibly and they are allowed to do this by the
members of the Florida Supreme Court who have granted the power to
manage and control the behavior of attorneys. The Rules governing the
Florida Bar allow a significant amount of leeway.
Government organizations at all levels have limited budgets so they
are very selective about the actions that they take on. It does not matter
if it is the FBI, the IRS, or any other State or Federal group. However,
what do you do to those who instead of not doing their job, abuse their
1 This is the second note related to the improper way that the Florida Bar reviews
complaints against lawyers. The first was a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of
the Florida Supreme Court. It is at
https://www.academia.edu/23714510/The_Florida_Bar_review_of_attorney_ethics
_is_a_joke_A_letter_to_Chief_Justice_Jorge_Labarga_of_the_Florida_Supreme_
Court
2 The views expressed in this note are those of the author and he is sure that others
would disagree with them. To his knowledge and belief, the information is correct.
2
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
power and authority? Is that official misconduct? The Florida Bar
Ethics panels are given a duty to evaluate and prosecute lawyers who act
improperly and violate rules of professional conduct. They are not a
government agency – so any official misconduct may not apply to
people from the bar who fail to act appropriately.
I am going to raise just one or two instances where the Florida Bar,
and members of the legal profession have knowingly violated their
duties without any consequences. Why does this happen? Most likely it
happens because they know that there are no consequences. They
were volunteering or employees and may be getting credit or getting
paid to act improperly. In my actions, there were prosecutors who acted
improperly. There were several judges who acted improperly. There
were at least ten lawyers who acted improperly.
Let me tell my stories that can be backed up by a transcript and also
by these lawyers who should know better. Questions that have to be
asked include:
How much power and discretion should be given to judges,
lawyers and prosecutors?
Why are ethics complaints against judges or lawyers confidential?
(In some states ethics complaints are not confidential; In other
states it is at the discretion of a court or courts; and in some, they
are confidential while they are being investigated.
o After years of reviewing the reasons given by members of the
legal profession, it is my conclusion that:
confidentiality is not to protect those who follow the
law
Confidentiality is to protect the legal system and those
who fail to follow the law
Confidentiality is to protect other members of the legal
system who hide cover-ups
Confidentiality is a power play that appears to bypass
both federal and state constitutions
3
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
The most recent activities that I was involved in was based upon a
witch hunt, a kangaroo court,3 or star chamber.
This is a true story and an attack against the Florida Bar and the
Florida Supreme Court.4 It is not just an attack against the Florida bar
but the attacks can be applied to the majority of bars and courts in the 3 A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly
disregards recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
This article is about the court. For other uses, see Star Chamber
(disambiguation).
The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of
law which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century
to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy
Councillors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of
the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters. The Star
Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against
socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts
would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings
and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or
poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast
doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. 'Star Chamber' can also be
used in its original meaning, for instance when a politician uses
parliamentary privilege to attack a powerful organisation or person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber 4 The Author already has several complaints online questioning the way that the
Florida Supreme Court functions, or fails to function. See
https://www.academia.edu/23714510/A_letter_to_Chief_Justice_Jorge_Labarga_o
f_the_Florida_Supreme_Court
4
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
country. It can be an attack on elected officials who take bribes
(campaign contributions- and sell out the public.) It can be high level
political leaders who have acted improperly (look at Hillary, Cuomo, of
New York, and many others who may have been bought.
The story began when the author decided to go to law school about twelve years
ago. He started when he was 60 years old. The story takes and took lots of turns
down steep slopes and sharp curves. However, after my past experiences with the
legal profession, the author believed that a fresh start would be required.
Evidently, there is no such thing as a fresh start when a person continues to
question the ethics, character and fitness of members of the legal profession.
The Florida courts and legal profession follow the dictates of the highest court in
the state. What is interesting is that when that Court fails to follow its own rules,
we have anarchy not only in the court system but in the legal profession. The
Florida Supreme Court has failed to follow rulings of the United States Supreme
Court. Very little is done about these transgressions because the legal system is
broken and is not capable of policing its own.
In some instances, I will draw on my own experiences. At other
times, I have to draw on the experiences of others who have criticized
our system and how it no longer works. The question is did it every
work?
Recently, a judge pulled the stare decisis trick out of his bag of
tricks. When I tried to object, he cut me off almost immediately. I tried
to point out just several of the instances where stare decisis was
disastrous. (Dred Scott led to the civil war. Plessey v Ferguson led to
segregated schools that were anything but equal. Bower v Hardwick was
about private consensual sex at home and how the Court reversed itself
in under twenty years (Lawrence v. Texas.)
Why did the judge take this Stare Decisis trick out of his bag? I
cannot answer that but he may have been upset when I strongly
questioned several of his rulings. Judges are human and get angry and
violate their oaths. These judges have been given almost absolute
5
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
immunity by guess whom? OTHER JUDGES. Is this the type of judge
that should be ruling on cases?
I was thinking about several books that attacked the legal profession
based upon policies and procedures that have not worked in the past and
still do not work. Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results.
How can the public expect sanity when members of the legal
profession fail to police their own rules and requirements? How can the
public believe in rules when courts do not follow rules from higher
authorities? What happens when “a rule of law is not based upon
reality but legal and judicial lies? I was looking at some of those
situations from the past. When judges establish “rulings” that they
expect to follow, they call it stare decisis.
I was looking at the instructions for filing a complaint against a
lawyer on the Florida Bar web site. They mimic the same basic
doctrine that Einstein proposed.
The Bar said that they do not get involved in criminal or civil actions
that are ongoing.5 What is important is not what the bar tells you about
5
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/AB230E7DCCC3B75385256
B29004BD6DC/$FILE/Inquiry%20Complaint%20Form.pdf filing a bar
complaint. In these instructions and forms, the bar tells you that you’re not going
to get help from them in a civil or criminal action.
Finally, they say: PART FIVE – Signature. You must sign the form and certify
under penalty of perjury that your allegations are true. Unsworn complaints are not
considered. Submit the original inquiry/complaint form to our office via U.S. Mail.
Photocopies of your signature are not accepted.
The only problem with your sworn statement is that it may be the only one
submitted under penalty of perjury. The bar does not swear to investigate
completely, or properly. They take the easy way out and should not be functioning
6
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
filing your complaint but what they do not tell you. They do not tell you
that:
They do not save records when a party complains about a lawyer –
they save them for a year and then electronically destroy them.
Why? Courts may archive records for decades.
I filed a complaint against a lawyer, my second complaint against
the same lawyer in a three year period. (Guess what? ) The
Florida bar did not have any records related to the first complaint!
What did they do? They asked me to send them the records that I
retained but that they threw out. The Lawyer was the General
Counsel of the FBBE. I believe the complaint was dismissed
without any investigation. I cannot determine this because the
process is secret.
If you go to almost any court today, the court retains records for
years and years. They frequently retain records electronically and
have archives of older records. If lawyers want to hold records,
they do so by archiving them. This requirement has been pushed
by natural disasters and manmade disasters.
In many instances, one cannot question the ethics of members of the
judiciary or the bar without consequences. Members of both groups
knowingly cover up the truth and fail to follow rules and laws. With that
as a starting position, how can the people or newly minted lawyers or
judges accept what they are doing and not criticize their profession when
they are required to do so by their very oath of office?
A SIMPLE STORY – I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPTS TO PROVE
IT
to evaluate complaints against lawyers. To my knowledge, they are not
functioning to protect the public.
7
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
When my application to the Florida Bar was rejected, and before, I
filed a complaint with the Florida Bar. The Florida Bar said they did not
have the authority to investigate. That was either a lie, a misstatement,
or a failure to do their due diligence (they were lazy and did not want to
make waives). The correct answer was that they refused to investigate.
Most likely, they do not have the budget or authority to go after lawyers
based on citizen’s complaints. It would have taken too much time, and
they would have had to go after other lawyers, prosecutors and judges.
In any case, I am going to use selective parts from transcripts to show
that the Florida Bar discourages people from taking actions and stalls
any review process.
In this little story, the author first applied to the Florida Bar and was
reviewed by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (FBBE). An agency
given its authority by the Florida Supreme Court.
There were at least six lawyers present at this hearing. They
included the Prosecutor who is also the General Counsel of the FBBE.
Robert G. Blythe, Esq. is the General Counsel of the Florida Board of Bar
Examiners (FBBE). One of my concerns is that the General Counsel
(hereinafter GC) is involved in and is responsible for hundreds of
actions each year.
During this hearing, I believe he knowingly misrepresented
information without any consequences. He has been a Florida Attorney
for more than 25 years.
The other members of the panel were, I believe, also lawyers. During
the hearing, the General Counsel of the FBBE accused me of practicing
law without a license.
On page 2 of my 22 page complaint against the General Counsel, I
wrote:
At my formal hearing, the GC said that he follows rules (See
T379, ln2-5). Then later, the GC criticized me when he said, “Why
don’t we try to follow the rules all of the time?” See T406, L8-11.
8
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
The GC did not follow his own advice. This complaint
identifies areas where the GC’s statements are not true and the GC
did not follow the rules. To properly review this complaint, the
Ethics Panel will be required to review at least 2,000 pages. These
papers are maintained by the FBBE. If assistance is needed, I can
supply some of the documents electronically.6
On page 5 of the complaint, I said:
. Even after he received and reviewed the [Request for Reconsideration]
the GC did nothing. To my knowledge, this violates RPC 4-3.3, 4-3.4. 7
6 This complaint is available upon request but is at this time confidential. To my
knowledge and belief, bar complaints against lawyers that are not done with malice
should be open to the public. Alternatively, the person making the complaint
should be able to speak about it. See R.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Supreme Court
of New Jersey, District XIII Ethics Committee and Office of Attorney Ethics, 185
N.J. 208 (2005). This case determined that the Complainant may discuss his
complaint and is not restricted. This case is persuasive but not controlling. 7 RPC 4-3.3 - Candor Toward The Tribunal requires self-reporting of errors even
after a hearing. It is alleged that the GC violated several subsections of this rule.
My hearing and the transcript that appeared to be doctored was replete with errors,
omissions and false statements made by the GC. (When he read from a
certification made by a judge, he knowingly failed to tell the forum that a transcript
and my responses questioned the judge’s veracity [was in his possession].) The
GC knew, or should have known, that the judge’s certification misstated
information. However, the GC ignored other information that contradicted a
judge. ) [F]or example, the transcript reported that there was only one piece of
papers. One piece of paper fell while it was being handed to the Bailiff.
4-3.3 (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact
or law to a tribunal; (The GC used a judge’s certification even though it
disagreed with a transcript, other documents and my sworn statement. The GC
failed to enter into evidence a transcript of my children but at the hearing – he
filled in his own words for those of my daughter even though it contradicted both
children’s statements in other parts of the very same transcript. )
9
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
On pages 6-7 of my bar complaint, I included the following statements
because the General Counsel of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners appears to
have violated Rules of Professional conduct before at least 5 other attorneys
who accepted his conduct and never filed any complaints against him.
Additionally, this same lawyer misstated facts before the Florida Supreme
Court, and they did nothing (Actually, they increased my penalty from 2 to 5
years for complaining about one of their fair haired (agency Counsels).
I also sent a copy of my “Confidential” Bar complaint to the Chief
Justice of the Florida Supreme Court because he and the other justices have
relinquished their responsibilities and have failed to monitor the Florida
Bar’s functioning to protect the public.8 During my hearing before the
dispute Resolution panel, the Prosecutor, Melvia Green accused me of the
Unauthorized Practice of Law. This was done before about 5 lawyers and
one judge. Ms. Green is a retired Florida Appellate judge and knows, or
should know, that this type of testimony is improper and violates RPC. This
matter is now before the Florida Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. The
The GC violated 4-3.3 (a)(2) - After the fact, the GC failed to inform the
evaluating committee of his errors and thus assisted in a criminal and/or
fraudulent act. The GC violated 4-3.3 (b) Extent of Lawyer's Duties. The duties
stated in subdivision (a) continue beyond the conclusion of the proceeding and
apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by
rule 4-1.6. (The GC misrepresented and omitted information at the hearing and
failed to correct his statements afterward. The GC’s papers to the FLSC also
contained misstatements that were inconsistent with other GC submissions. He
failed to correct or admit his own conflicting statements. 8 See The Florida Bar review of attorney ethics is a joke! A letter to Chief
Justice Jorge Labarga of the Florida Supreme Court
https://www.academia.edu/23714510/The_Florida_Bar_review_of_attorney_ethics
_is_a_joke_A_letter_to_Chief_Justice_Jorge_Labarga_of_the_Florida_Supreme_
Court
10
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
question that I want to raise is if the Supreme Court does not enforce RPC
and the Florida Bar does not believe it is relevant; why not eliminate useless
Rules of Professional conduct that are not enforced?
In the formal hearing the GC said:
The Applicant has testified and some of his witnesses have
testified about some pro bono work that he has done. Although I
would submit to you that some of it may be somewhat questionable
because it sounds like he's doing legal research for pro se litigants
who are not lawyers. … and they're using that legal research in
filing papers in court . . and so on, I don't claim to be an expert on
UPL, but that seems to be pretty pretty close to that….
. .
In my RR[Request for Reconsideration], I argued in support of my rights and positions based upon several U.S. Supreme Court cases. In the GC's response to my RR, the GC said that the new issue of unauthorized practice of law was not important. On 02/01/13, the GC submitted “RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION.” On page 10 of this document, the GC first summarized part of what I said and then said it was not important.
The GC said:
Assuming arguendo these issues were of concern in the
applicant's case (they are not), and the arguments made by the
applicant on these issues had any merit (they do not), they are
not appropriately addressed in a Petition for Reconsideration.
During the formal hearing, the GC charged me with UPL, a
criminal act during a civil action. Then after I responded to his
malicious, false charges in my RR, he said that my responses “do
not “have any merit. The GC attacked my character and fitness in
the formal hearing charging me criminally. He did this at the same
time that he said “I don't claim to be an expert …” Then, in a
11
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
written response to my RR, the GC wrote this issue was not
important.
. The GC accused me of UPL but failed to report this activity
to any authority. The failure to report improper behavior would
result in complicity in a criminal activity. The actions of the GC
were to gain an advantage in a civil action. This violates RPC 4-3.4
(g)-(h). The GC made these serious allegations against a party
without first doing the appropriate research.9
The conclusion to the Florida Bar Complaint says:
STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
The GC has acted in an arbitrarily and capricious manner. As such,
his actions violated my constitutional rights under color of law. The
GC should be sanctioned and suspended at the very least. See RPC 4-
3.4.10
The Florida Bar dismissed my complaint.
9 RULE 4-3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL- A
lawyer must not: (g) present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present
criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter; or (h) present,
participate in presenting, or threaten to present disciplinary charges under these
rules solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. 10
The GC violated the following during and after my hearing.
RPC 4-3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL - (a) obstruct
access to evidence, (b) fabricate evidence, (d) in pretrial procedure, make a
frivolous discovery request, (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does
not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible
evidence, (g) present, participate or threaten to present criminal charges solely to
obtain an advantage in a civil matter [The GC charged me with UPL. In his
response to my request for reconsideration, the GC then said it is not relevant in a
request for reconsideration]
12
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
THE FOLLOWING PART OF THIS NOTE MAKES
REFERENCE TO ACTIONS THAT ARE NOW BEFORE THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
The next part of this letter addresses similar actions taken by the
Prosecutor at my dispute resolution witch-hunt. I am including parts of
the transcript that are relevant. (The entire transcripts are available and
are online.11
Here, too, there were more than 5 lawyers who heard the
prosecutor Meliva Green accuse the mediator of criminal actions before
a civil forum. To my knowledge and belief, none of the lawyers or the
Judge, Rodney Smith, took any actions against this prosecutor.
The drafter of this note does not want to waste additional time by filing
a complaint with the Florida Bar who will then dismiss the complaint
without reviewing the allegations.
11
The transcripts are available online. The first transcript is of the initial motion
hearing prior to any “trial”-witch-hunt.
A transcript of a telephonic Motion hearing before Judge Rodney Smith
https://www.academia.edu/23983800/A_transcript_of_a_telephonic_Motion_heari
ng_before_Judge_Rodney_Smith
See Witch Hunt -A Transcript (Page 37) about 36 pages of notes before transcript
https://www.academia.edu/24348471/Witch_Hunt_-
A_Transcript_Page_37_about_36_pages_of_notes_before_transcript
The transcript of the actual hearing where a judge appeared to make up his own
rules. Realize that the Florida Supreme Court expects parties to mediate. There
certainly are advantages to mediation, but there are also many drawbacks.
13
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
What follows are segments of papers submitted to the Chief Justice of
the Florida Supreme Court or his designee. The Appellate brief can be
found on the web.12
Even if it is suggested that the dispute resolution hearing is an open
hearing, it is not. The judge determines what information is made
available and may limits any opposition. This was not a fair or open
forum where a court or hearing relied upon false statements before other
courts.
In the transcript at P201,L3 The Prosecutor said:
So when he says Melvia Green at the DRC hasn't looked
at my -- It's because it's stare decisis
Based upon information and belief, the [Prosecutor] did not read
any of the Pet'r's submissions refuting the DRC charges.13
The
transcript says that the Pros. was acting contrary to those functions
suggested for Prosecutors. The Florida Supreme Court in Florida
Bar v. Cox, 794 So.2d 1278 (2001) said:
12
See Appeal to the Chief Justice of Florida's Supreme Court questioning The
Dispute Resolutions violations One can google Irwin ironstone academia.edu
appeal to the chief justice.
13 The Pet'r requested that the court allow him to question the Pros. under
the crime fraud exception noted in Zolin(United States v. Zolin 491 U.S. 554
(1989)). This request was denied before the trial and in a reconsideration
request to the court. The Pros. ignored Pet'r's responses to the charges.
14
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
The tenor of the case law discussing the role of prosecutors
makes clear that prosecutors are held to the highest standard
because of their unique powers and responsibilities. The
[U.S.] Supreme Court observed over sixty years ago that a
prosecutor has responsibilities beyond that of an advocate, and
has a higher duty to assure that justice is served:...[Whose]
interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall
win a case, but that justice shall be done. He may prosecute
with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while
he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul
ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use
every legitimate means to bring about a just one. Berger v.
United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, ... (1935)….., but also
“properly functions in a quasi-judicial capacity with reference
to the accused ..․ to see that the accused is accorded a fair and
impartial trial.” Pendarvis v. State, 752 So.2d 75, 77 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2000)... By the nature of their position, prosecutors
direct the power of the government against an accused person.
The complaints against one prosecutors were dismissed in the past
by the Florida Supreme Court. The complaints against the second
prosecutor are currently before the Florida Supreme Court. Even
though the Florida Supreme Court does not receive the full record from
lower forums, they rule on actions. When the FBBE sent the record to
the Florida Supreme Court, they never sent me notification of the
documents that were submitted. They denied my request for
reconsideration so that was not submitted to the Florida Supreme Court.
The complaint against the General Counsel that was 23 pages was
submitted and denied by the Florida bar saying the issues were raised
15
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
before the Florida Supreme Court. That is not true or correct. However,
if one does not investigate that may very well be one of the conclusions.
As an example, the Fl. Board of Bar Examiners lost papers and then
accused me of not submitting papers. When I found and resubmitted the
same papers that they lost, they said I should have submitted them
before hand.
There were charges against two prosecutors who in my opinion
violated RPC (rules of professional conduct) without any consequences.
One failed to read responses and used the same misinformation that was
reported by Other Florida Supreme Court agencies. As an example, the
Prosecutor before the FBBE misstated information and when he received
my responses to his omissions he had a duty to report them to the panel
who drafted my bar denial. He did not. He failed to submit his papers
before the hearing as rules require. He knowingly accused me of the
unauthorized Practice of law in violation of RPC.
In the dispute resolution trial- the Prosecutor also accused me of
UPL against the rules. The Prosecutor failed to read my responses to the
charges. So she submitted and defended false statements by others and
asserted stare decisis based upon secret hearings that were not widely
published. She failed to follow the dictates of the Florida Supreme
Court. She knowingly used hearsay and repeated misstatements (lies)
that could have been discovered if she used due diligence and properly
investigated. She did not.
16
The Wolves in Sheeps Clothings998.docx
Based on my experiences, prosecutors violated RPC and the Florida
Bar and Supreme Court did nothing to sanction them for these
violations. At this time, if one wants to review my request to the Florida
Bar – send me an email and I will forward the complaint and the appeal
to the Florida Supreme Court.
Recently, there have been several attacks against prosecutors for
either prosecuting or failing to prosecute based upon political motives.
In the future the author hopes to write about some of the problems based
upon prosecutorial misconduct and/or judicial misconduct. Both judges
and prosecutors almost always have qualified or absolute immunity.
Recommended