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.