Case

Hypocrisy of The Florida Bar – A Case Study

In 1 on January 23, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Download now or preview on posterous

Schuyler_Bar_Letter.pdf (1154 KB)

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises;
 
for never intending to go beyond promises; it cost nothing.
 
Edmund Burke
 
1729-1797
 
Magnificent indeed are promises of the Florida Bar. Published
standards for imposing attorney sanctions decrees in part:
 
6.11 Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer:
with the intent to deceive the court, knowingly makes a false
statement or submits a false document; or
improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or
potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.
 
An arm of the Florida Supreme Court, the bar promises to discipline
attorneys that violate rules of professional conduct. In return for
this grand promise the bar is permitted to self regulate without audit
or oversight by elected officials.
 
Does the Bar back its magnificent words with action? Not even close.
When faced with overwhelming and indisputable proof of multiple acts
of misconduct, the bar turns a blind eye. Measure for yourself the
depth of deceit by following a pattern of attorney misconduct as it
was submitted to the abyss of the bar. Contrast the inert acquiescence
with the magnificent promise.
 
Make crime pay.
 
Become a Lawyer
 
Will Rogers
 
1879-1935
 
With the assistance of a former Florida Prosecutor and a former United
States Attorney, a fully documented complaint was submitted to the
Florida Bar detailing clear, compelling, and indisputable evidence
that three Florida attorneys, “with intent to deceive the court”
knowingly made or elicited multiple false statements and withheld
material information. Three bar files were opened. The attorneys were
provided a copy of the complaint and required to respond. Three
documented rebuttals to the responses were submitted to the bar.
 
 
Oh What a tangled web we weave,
 
Once we practice to deceive.
 
Sir Walter Scott
 
1771-1832
 
Once false statements to a federal court were documented in the
complaint, options narrowed for the respondents. Follow the scenario
by reading their responses and see how the rebuttals evidence each web
of deceit. Decide if you concur with the opinion offered herein that
the three identified attorneys repeatedly and blatantly violated rules
of conduct calling for disbarment and continued to weave their webs in
the documents submitted to the bar.
 
Frederick Dyer Page, Bar file 2008-00,042 (4D)
 
Arrogance and self-righteous condescension punctuate the response of
attorney Page. No defense was offered to the undisputed fact that he
knowingly made no less than five false statements to a federal
tribunal. Stating that he was proud of his conduct, Mr. Page made no
apologies and seemed annoyed that he should be bothered with such
mundane matters as truth and ethics. He went so far as to include an
exhibit not identified in the original complaint that was fabricated
and tampered with during the trial. This opened the door for rebuttal
to Page to document the reprehensible slight of hand employed by Mr.
Page and his co-counsel in deploying this artifice.
 
Richard Roemheld Thames, Bar file 2008-00,041 (4B)
 
Thames response lacked the hubris of Pompous Page but one does wonder
if he consumed cheese with his whine. He offered no defense or denial
to the allegation that he elicited false testimony from his client in
federal court and that he personally offered contradicting sworn
testimony. The rebuttal to Thames also documented that he made an
additional false statement in his response to the bar, an arm of the
Florida Supreme Court.
 
Bradley Robert Markey, Bar file 2008-00,043 (4B)
 
The inept and marijuana mellow response of Markey admitted that he and
his co-counsel had no regard for authenticity or source of evidence as
long as it served their purpose. This cavalier disregard for the law,
the facts, and the rules of discovery exhibited by these attorneys is
detailed and documented in the rebuttal to Markey.
 
Crime is contagious.
 
If the government becomes the law breaker,
 
It breeds contempt for the law.
 
Louis D Brandeis
 
Supreme Court justice 1916-1939
 
Did the bar approve this pattern of misconduct? Absolutely. The duty
of keeping the promise fell to Bar Counsel, Shanell M. Schuyler.
Perfectly suited for this job, she did exactly what her collogues
expected her to do. She betrayed the public trust and closed all three
files. Her letter closing the three bar files rained rhetoric about
not second-guessing the court and not retrying the underlying civil
case but failed to offer any analysis of the facts or to justify her
decision.
 
Conspicuously missing from Ms. Schuyler’s letter is any comment
regarding the undisputed evidence that Mr. Page, a partner in the
politically potent Holland and Knight law firm, offered multiple false
statements to the Federal Court of Appeals. No comment on the proven
fact that Mr. Thames offered contradicting sworn statements. No
comment on the false statement made to the bar in Mr. Thames’
response. No comment on the fact that Mr. Thames did not deny that he
allowed his client to offer false testimony. No analysis of the facts.
Simply close the file and move on. Hear no evil; see no evil.
 
Convenient for the corrupt, a decision of bar counsel to close any
file is not subject to appeal. This caveat trumps truth. Catch 22; get
out of jail free; a cheap bar trick.
 
There is however an appeal to the court of public opinion. Decide for
yourself if the bar is a protector of public integrity or a purveyor
of perversion? Is the bar a trustworthy arm of the Florida Supreme
Court or a fraternity of fraud? Visitors to this site are encouraged
to read the complaint, the responses, and the rebuttals and decide if
the bar ignored the truth and encouraged false statements in Federal
Court.
 
 
During times of universal deceit,
 
telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
 
George Orwell
 
1903-1950
 
Why do attorneys violate rules of conduct that call for disbarment?
They lie and deceive because it is expected. This is business as usual
for the Florida Bar. One could certainly argue that rule of law has
been supplanted with conduct of universal deceit in Florida Courtrooms
and that the Florida Bar is a breeding ground for universal deceit.
 
As our country spans the globe spending national treasure and spilling
American blood in an attempt to impose concepts of the rule of law on
others, we fail to hold accountable those subversive individuals and
institutions that undermine the judicial process in this country.
Ignoring imminent danger paves the path to a place where differences
are settled with IEDs and RPGs rather than in a court of law. First we
slide down the slippery slope to tyranny where corrupt judges and
amoral attorneys distort and ignore the law. Then we continue the
downward spiral to anarchy. Where are we on this continuum and how
much further can we afford to slide?
 
It is not the 81,000 attorneys that comprise the Florida Bar that
perpetuate universal deceit. It is the institution. If the courts and
the Bar are held accountable and made to keep the promise the
individual attorneys will follow deserving leaders. Radical change
needs to take place in the courts and at the bar.
 
Source: http://lyinglawyers-flordia.com/

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: