Anda di halaman 1dari 102

Fraud on the Court

The Ordeal of Edna Jane Favreau in the hands of The Florida Judiciary Prologue: Who will listen?

Each and every one of us supposedly has a natural sense of justice whether it is realized in action or not. Socrates repeated the myth that Zeus destroyed all those unable to make a distinction between right and wrong, therefore godly societies should follow suit and execute or exile all those persons without a sense of justice.

Fraud on the Court

Prologue: Who will listen? Historians have said that the advance of civilizations can be measured by the treatment of their weakest members, the largest category being the female or weaker sex, and then of course poor, disabled, juvenile, and elderly persons, that they receive the same justice as the stronger members of society. Each and every one of us supposedly has a natural sense of justice whether it is realized in action or not. Socrates repeated the myth that Zeus destroyed all those unable to make a distinction between right and wrong, therefore godly societies should follow suit and execute or exile all those persons without a sense of justice. Now we believe that the United States, the worlds sole superpower, is the leader of the Western Civilization, and there we find many laws enacted to protect women, children, and the disabled, to ensure that they are not wronged. Whether those laws are adequately applied or not is another story. Alas for our advanced civilization, that Janes story will sound all too familiar to far too many women in our advanced civilization. Jane is an elderly grandmother who was disabled by her murderous husband and then impoverished by the Florida judiciary. She has pled for justice in Florida courts for nearly fifteen years, but her pleas fell on deaf ears. How could that be? Her voice has been a voice crying in the wilderness because nobody would listen. Jane Stewart started working as a real estate agent for Century 21 in Athens, Ohio in December 1979. On March 24, 1980, the Messenger identified her as an award-winning salesperson. She moved to Florida August 1980, and in 1981 she met Walter Favreau, her future husband. Walter was a coder for the Air Force. He had no property of his own other than his clothes and his pension rights, not even a car, when Jane met him, because his first wife had gotten everything. And Jane was doing very well at Century 21 in Florida at the time. The local newspaper announced that she was the agencys Top Producer in 1985, and Top Salesperson in the Daytona Beach area in 1984. She owned a homestead and several rental properties. Walter helped her with the business, but witnesses testified that she was clearly in charge. The domestic violence eventually began and went on and on, case after case, once with a police officer witnessing Walter bashing Janes head against a wall. On July 26, 1992 Walter was finally found guilty of battery after almost strangling her to death. He was sentenced to a mere years probation. The judge ordered Walter to pay restitution, with liquidated damages to be determined. Since the state attorney failed to perfect her right to restitution, Jane filed a lien with the clerk of the court for $18,250, plus interest, on two real estate properties that Walter had bought with her funds but had neglected to put her name on the titles as intended. She was unaware that her damages would be far more than that sum, or that the court would manage to put the rest of her property in Walters hands, or that the attorneys would persuade
2|P a ge

Fraud on the Court judges that her lien was no good because she filed it on her own behalf - the statute did not expressly prohibit that procedure but rather supported it. A divorce action was filed, briefly put on hold, and reopened in 1993. Incidentally, Jane once again charged Walter with domestic violence in 1994. Since funds had been commingled in the marriage, Janes property was considered jointly owned by husband and wife. A judge ordered that an accounting of the property be submitted by both parties. And the judge ordered that the marital property, consisting of the homestead, the rental property, and three mortgages and notes, would be partitioned and shared equally. None of that was done. Walter remarried. Walter died. Janes property wound up in Walters hands and then in his estate, from which Jane got nothing. How could that be? Jane pled that the divorce case was never closed because there had been neither an accounting nor distribution to her of her share. She argued that there had been a fraud on the court, that the Florida judiciary itself had violated the laws and denied her civil rights, including rights afforded by the Disabilities Act. But nobody listened. Her pleas were dismissed and eventually adjudged frivolous she was ordered not to make any further pleadings. The court would dismiss any appeals. She might be held in contempt of court and jailed if she tried to get the justice she deserved. We have heard prominent members of the judiciary brag that the statutes they have sponsored require findings of fact to support the equitable distribution of marital property, that equitable distribution of marital assets is now a statutory reality, but the statute was obviously not applied in Janes case, nor was she afforded the protection of laws enacted prior to the implementation of that statute. In sum, her civil rights were violated in many respects, and the marriage and the judicial system in Brevard and Volusia counties had rendered her a severely impoverished and disabled elderly woman unable to obtain legal aid and forced to represent herself. How could that be? She pled for representation but her pleas fell on deaf ears. Neither the judiciary nor legal aid nor the attorney general was willing to lift a finger in her defense. As for legal aid and the state attorney general and the federal justice department, they did not see a pattern of judicial abuse sufficient to champion her cause, which is in fact the cause of numerous women in similar circumstances. They did not see the pattern or forest because they would not look at the trees, one exemplary tree being Edna Jane Favreau. How could that be? We shall eventually see the dirty details of gender bias and contempt and callous disregard for the weaker sex, especially when they try to defend themselves without a license to practice law, when we examine what Jane calls the tricks that were played on her, along with the deplorable records of the lawyers - records tolerated all too long by The Florida Bar - that played those dirty tricks. I thought Edna Jane Favreau was hopelessly neurotic or perhaps even mad when I took my first look at the pro se briefs, pleadings, motions, and affidavits she sent down to me from Brevard County. The documents were just a small sample of the thousands of pages of evidence from her struggle with the courts for over a decade.
3|P a ge

Fraud on the Court At first glance, her work seemed verbose, incoherent, and compulsive. I suppose I should add hysterical (womb) because she is a woman. I surmised that her efforts were an attempt to overcome the panic attacks she said she suffers after her former husband tried to murder her by strangulation. One of her pleadings averred that she suffered from a certified disability called abductor spasmodic dysphonia (Ad-SD) as the direct result of oxygen deprivation and extreme stress from that attempt to kill her, which makes it very difficult for her to speak when under stress. However, she can write up a storm, a syndrome related to Ad-SD, called hypergraphia. I had erroneously concluded after my first divorce experience many years ago that it is the man who is always at a disadvantage in divorce proceedings not only is he expected to pay but she gets the kids so I was not inclined at first to pay much attention to Janes pleas. It was the hypergraphia that got me interested enough to study her work and actually listen to what the elderly woman was saying. My elderly father often complained before he died that nobody listens to old folks, but that they should if they want to be wise. I adhere to the controversial hypothesis that many forms of mental illness are exaggerations of normal behavior. The being of the human being is its ability to think, and that helps the otherwise largely defenseless creature to survive the omnipotent god does not have to think at all. Although I do not suffer from Ad-SD, I must have at least a mild case of hypergraphia because I am a prolific writer, and I write to avoid so-called reality. People ask me who I am, and I refer them to my work. My entire estate at this point is in writing, and I am compelled to give it away. So if the opinions about hypergraphia are correct, I share with Jane what we have in common with the likes of Shakespeare, Vincent Van Gogh, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Lewis Carroll, though I may never produce a diary filling 81 boxes with 38 million words, as did Reverend Robert Shields, or outdo Henry Dargers The Story of the Vivian Girls, the longest known novel extant. The point of all of Janes work was there had been a fraud on the court that had deprived her of her civil rights and defrauded her of her property, a point that she reiterated time and time again by the use of that very phrase, sometimes in capital letters, FRAUD ON THE COURT, in hopes that someone was listening. Hello out there! Can anyone hear me? But nobody was really listening. The lawyers certainly were not inclined to bend their ears much to her claims that they were wrong, that they were frauds, that they were unethical and unprofessional. The officers of the court who heard her, who glanced at her affidavits and pleadings, simply laughed at her and her allegation of fraud on the court. After all, how in the world could she even know what fraud on the court meant since she was not an attorney? But she knew, just as Socrates knew that every normal human being has a sense of justice, a sense of right and wrong, the cause and effect of conscience. We can only hope to see that they were fools not to listen, for how can any professional profess anything at all for anyone else unless s/he carefully listens to their pleas? The lay person feels offended, and comes in with a mess of a story because of the emotional involvement at the root of the injustice, and the professional had better listen if success is wanted.
4|P a ge

Fraud on the Court Jane kept saying, over and over, that if someone would only read what she was writing, they would see that there had been a fraud on the court. Besides being blinded by their gender bias, feelings of superiority, and contempt for the downtrodden, the lawyers involved were deaf to anything said that was not in the proper procedural form. In fine, they were emotionally and mentally disabled. Jane had been strangled and thrown to the wolves, had been tossed into a den of vipers, had come up against the dragon. Jane is advanced in age, and her case is virtually hopeless at this late stage, but perhaps it is not too late for her champion to step forward and win the cause before she passes away. That champion will of course be a lawyer, and she or he will make mincemeat out of lawyers who do not listen. And what does Jane want besides some vindication for herself and for women likewise situated? She wants enough recovery of her hard-earned property sufficient to visit her grandchild, for one thing. A woman in a coma or adjudged mentally incompetent would have gotten better legal representation in Brevard and Volusia counties than Jane. You see, Jane had run out of cash for lawyers, who had run away with her cash, and she was forced to represent herself in complex court proceedings, and she was cheated out of her property. Again, she pled for legal counsel and accommodation of her disability to no avail. She was opposed by a ruthless and intimidating Rambo or Bomber Tactic lawyer. To wit: the abuse Jane had suffered at the hands of her husband was virtually continued by officers of the court. To be understanding, some of that abuse was no doubt unwitting, due to the ignorance that men have in regards to abused women. Just as a young child will call every man Dada, an abused woman may think every man is her abuser and react in a way that contributes further to the vicious cycle that has been called the battle of the sexes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we cannot say that Jane has been an altogether incompetent unlicensed lawyer. If we do as we are asked, if we actually listen to what she has said time and time again, all too many times because nobody would listen, we shall find that her arguments do have an inner coherence and are persuasive. Although she needs a licensed champion to narrow down the facts and issues in order to properly deal with the courts, she was not mentally incompetent when it came to writing down her grievances and demanding remedies. Remember that she was intelligent and mentally sharp enough to be a tip-top real estate sales person. She knows the law as it should have been applied to her. Her arguments if concisely presented in the right form would be persuasive. Her motions simply lack the organization required by procedural law. Furthermore, Jane has in fact had some success taking the miscreant lawyers to task with the Florida Supreme Courts disciplinary arm, The Florida Bar. In another part of our series, entitled Tricks of the Trade, we shall see, however, that the Bar dragged its feet for a long time. Talk about the slow grinding of the wheel of justice! And how many people like Jane are ground to dust before justice is done.

5|P a ge

Fraud on the Court

XYX

David Arthur Walters 2010 Miami Beach

6|P a ge

A Plea For Legal Aid

HELP WANTED
Good Lawyer and Good Judge

A Plea for Legal Aid Edna Jane Favreau was already an award-winning sales agent for Century 21 in Ohio when she moved to Florida in 1980, where she soon met the man she would marry, Walter Favreau. She thrived in Daytona Beach, where she became Century 21s Top Salesperson in 1984 and Top Producer in 1985, and began accumulating real property of her own. Walter had no property when they met except for rights to his Air Force retirement plan his previous wife had gotten everything. He helped Jane with her business, and managed to get his name on her properties. He proceeded to severely abuse her. She made multiple complaints against him with the authorities. Fortunately for her, a police officer arrived on one occasion and interceded when Walter was bashing her head against a wall. Unfortunately, Walter would also try to strangle her to death; the lack of oxygen and traumatic stress left Jane permanently disabled.

1|P a g e

A Plea For Legal Aid

Walter was found guilty of battery in 1992, put on probation, and ordered to pay restitution for the damages he had caused her. She filed a lien with the court for the damages herself because the State Attorneys office was not doing its job. She proceeded with the divorce. Walter got control of everything, thanks to Janes incapacity and the tricks of the trade pulled by certain pettifogging lawyers and careless judges in Brevard County. Walter died. Janes property wound up in his estate, controlled by his new wife. Jane was told the lien was no good because she had filed it herself. Her own lawyers took what little cash she had on hand, and abandoned her. The court denied her legal counsel when she argued that the American Disabilities Act entitled her to it. Jane was therefore forced to represent herself as a pro se litigant, something that happens to many pauperized litigants. That in itself dooms the most of them to defeat, despite the occasional success of the best jailhouse lawyers, in courts operated by a monopoly that helps provide us with our freedoms but is still largely exploitative, overpaid, reactionary, arrogant, obstructive, pompous, jargon-laden, under-regulated, and impervious to market forces hence unaccountable to the public. Although Jane did not fare well appearing in court on her own behalf, she took lawyers to task with The Florida Bar and helped get them disciplined. Yet she expresses no malice towards the legal profession at large. All she has asked for is a good lawyer and a good judge. She knew her legal rights and cited cases to support her pleas, but she had not been to law school, she was not familiar with the complicated procedures, and she was mentally and physically disabled: her briefs, affidavits, and pleas were virtually ignored. She filed so many of them that she was ordered to desist from filing anything, including appeals, lest she be held in contempt. Therefore, the court is deaf as far as she is concerned; she has no legal rights unless she can pay a licensed lawyer to obtain them for her or find one to represent her pro bono. Yes, she went to Legal Aid, but Legal Aid was unwilling to help her with her case. Although she was financially eligible for legal assistance, stated Susan L. Christmas, Executive Director of Brevard County Legal Aid, in a formal letter of rejection to Jane, she should pay private counsel because BCLA had limited resources and her case did not fall within the case type guidelines set at that time. In other words, Legal Aid simply does not have the funds to pay lawyers even poorly to handle relatively typical cases
2|P a g e

A Plea For Legal Aid

what could be more typical than a woman beat up and thrown to the sharks by someone she loved, to have her injuries compounded in the courts? Jane is sorely impoverished and elderly, but she is a diehard. She has been deeply offended and is not about to lie down and roll over. Maybe she will file an inappropriate appeal somewhere and go to jail for trying to help herself to her rights again. She clutches the last straw, the slim chance that someone will finally listen to her case and do justice, not only for her but for everyone like her. The only complaint she makes about her abject poverty is that it keeps her from her great grandchild. Janes case is a tangled mess of perseverated motions made over many years, yet one that any competent lawyer could get to the bottom of in a few frustrating hours of wading through the redundancies in fine, the case is rather simple: the woman was royally screwed by everyone involved. The difficulty is in getting it reopened, which appears nearly impossible at this late date. But there are precedents where fraud on the court is evident. And if her case were reopened, even if it were not won in the end, that alone would do a world of good, for not only for poor women and children and disabled people, but for the reputation of the legal profession as well. And winning a seemingly hopeless case is sure to give people hope for a better future. Do you know of anyone who may be willing to help? Then please contact the author at the email address below:

September 28, 2010 David Arthur Walters Miami Beach, Florida davidarthurwalters@gmail.com

3|P a g e

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT


By Edna Jane Favreau

PREFACE: Edna Jane Favreau nee Stewart was a successful real estate salesperson who accumulated some property on her own account. She married a charming conman without any means other than his clothes and Air Force retirement income. He kept her books of account, and regularly abused her shortly after the ink had dried on the marriage license. Finally, he nearly killed her by strangulation. He was convicted of battery and given a light sentence for the strangulation incident: one years probation. The judge also ordered him to make restitution to Jane, with liquidated damages to be determined. The State Attorneys office in Brevard County was negligent and failed to follow up on the restitution order, so Jane filed her own lien with the clerk of the court. Her husband had already taken all her cash out of the bank accounts, and she was forced to go into hiding due to his continual threats. The persistent abuse and the oxygen deprivation to her brain as well as back injuries sustained in the attacks had left her physically and mentally disabled. Her former husband remarried, and died. Janes marital assets wound up under his control, thanks to his misconduct and that of his attorneys; when he died, his new wife took them over. Jane wound up in several courts in two counties; she did not obtain just settlement in divorce court, and she was instructed to file a tort action in another court; and then she was in probate court. Not only were multiple cases involved, the Brevard County judges rotated as if they were playing musical chairs, so no one judge really had a full grasp on her situation; but she was clearly a female, disabled victim and was roundly abused in that unwanted role some authorities may kick a dog when it is down to demonstrate their own power, for fear of being powerless and abused themselves; the dog winds up in a kennel with obvious symptoms of distress and may have to be put out of its misery. Compounding Janes
Page1of7

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT

confusion was the fact that she would have several strokes in the process, a process whereby she was forced to represent herself on a pro se (for oneself) basis approximately 80% of family law cases in Florida have one person on either side representing his or her own self. Rendered indigent and impaired by her husband and by fraud on the court, she has fought the good fight for eighteen years, all the while seeking an attorney to take up her righteous cause, trying to rectify the injustice done to her by way of the fraud on the court. It is not surprising that the initial errors were compounded in the process. She is not an attorney, and her disabilities were aggravated by the abusive courts. Her PTS (post traumatic stress syndrome), for instance, was worsened by the constant bulling by members of the Bar hence she has LAS (legal abuse syndrome) to boot. She chokes up when under pressure to speak; women and children are often beaten for something I said, and continued abuse renders them intimidated and fearful in the physical presence of persons with authority. Jane cannot speak up well extemporaneously, but she can sit down and write at length when alone. She suffers from hypergraphia as well; hypergraphia is a term of art for an obsessive-compulsive urge to write, a characteristic observed in manic-depressive persons. Jane filed so many motions, briefs, affidavits, and pleadings with the court that eventually she was ordered to shut up, to file nothing more except through a licensed attorney. A judge ordered her future filings to be shredded. She literally could not shut up, and, appealing to the court, pleaded that shutting her up violated her Constitutional rights. She has pointed out that judges often have contempt for pro se litigants, even when they are competent, and abuse them accordingly, not bothering to read their filings. Although her pleadings are many in number and prolix, and their content naturally demonstrates her confusion, and are sometimes not on point in the particular context of the legal procedure, they have moral and jurisprudential merit. After all, she is only trying, in the best way she can given her disabilities, to obtain the justice that someone with wealth would normally get through an attorney-at-law and a court that is duly respectful of the law because it is dealing with wealthy and powerful individuals. What follows is an edited and condensed version of one of her many filings, originally entitled Exhibit in Support of Motion For Remand. The words and grammar are mainly hers; redundancies are omitted along with case and rule citations; certain paragraphs have been shifted to put the document in a more coherent order. The compulsion to write characteristic of hypergraphia, by the way, is considered abnormal because it is not regulated by the organizing or editing lobe of the brain. David Arthur Walters, Ed.

ExhibitinSupportofMotionforRemand
I did not expect the court to grant me an attorneys help at the beginning of my court cases, so I hired an attorney named Pam Huddleston to take the case to trial. She was paid to take the case to trial, and she agreed to request additional attorney fees from the advantaged side as allowed by Florida law. Instead, she sold out to the other side and canceled that important hearing for interim fees, and then she went skiing. I was eventually stripped of all my assets by unethical lawyers and judges, and was left indigent i.e. without the means to hire attorneys, and public legal aid
Page2of7

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT

was denied to me, allegedly due to a lack of resources and because my case was not unusual. I first came to court expecting fairness and justice, rules to be validated, and laws upheld. I knew the officers of the court had taken an oath to uphold the laws, to go by the rules of court, and to abide by the Constitution. But then I discovered that even though citizens are put under oath to tell the truth, and even though the officers of the court have already taken an oath, somehow the court overlooks the lies that are told. No, the attorneys did not seem to be under an oath to tell the truth in court. I questioned The Florida Bar about this, and I was told, Yes, its a dirty business; they say and do anything to win or confuse the issues. While I was medically certified as impaired and disabled, the Brevard County Court illegally sold my homestead; my children had to go into debt to buy back my homestead. The Brevard Court also illegally sold my property in Volusia County. The Court never accounted for the proceeds. I had placed a restitution lien on the property, as I was entitled by Florida law to do as a victim of my former husbands foul crime against me, for which he was convicted. The Court in Volusia County, without any lawful authority, lifted those liens for restitution and the debt still owed me, thus thwarting the legislative intent of the statutes and violating established law. The Court clearly was in excess of its jurisdiction when it turned the proceeds of that sale, as well as all the other assets I had invested in, over to my abusive former husband, never accounting for any of them. The Court did not follow the laws, and the acts it committed should be investigated by a grand jury. No judge in his or her right mind would ever give a wifes assets over to a criminal husband, convicted of severe spouse abuse and sentenced to a year in jail, for him to hold and control after a divorce due to severe spouse abuse. The misconduct in Brevard and Volusia County does not pass the smell test. The courts reek of malfeasance and need to be investigated. Just saying all is well does not make it so. The Judge should answer, for example, for selling my property when no testimony was taken under oath nor certified evidence allowed to be presented at a hearing, which was scheduled and then fraudulently canceled; the judge prematurely lifted allowable liens and cancelled the hearing. The transcript in that case reveals how the judge was so unconcerned about what to do about the certified exhibits he was given to look at before he made a
Page3of7

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT

ruling in the case; he just started mentioning, in an apathetic way, that the appeals court would read the records in the matter and come to its own conclusion if I were to appeal his ruling. Yes, he had a conspicuous lack of concern about his ruling; that fact alone would cause a reasonable person to conclude that he was being indifferent to the debt still owed to me, a victim of domestic violence. I was clearly tricked by the devious Brevard County officers of the court in my cases. For example, in one instance the Brevard County Clerk shredded my motions for insolvency to appeal, and failed to send the rest of the paper work to the appeals court, so the case was dismissed without going before a panel of judges because the paper work and fee were not provided, Brevard County Court Judge Rouse, for example, did not care about the early lifting of the liens, which caused me great harm. The debt still owed to me is clearly relevant to my cases; I worked for those assets in the first place, and those liens were to protect the debt owed under the law. He said his decision could be appealed if I faulted his ruling, and the 5th District Court of Appeals could decide if he ruled incorrectly. There already was an evidentiary hearing scheduled to present evidence on why I had a right, as a victim of a crime, to legally place the lien on the property, but the judge canceled that important hearing; unknown to me, the property was sold that very same afternoon. That is, the judge went ahead and ruled prematurely before a scheduled evidentiary hearing could be held for the purpose of giving sworn testimony and evidence under oath. The judge used a bushwhacking approach against me. Why? Why was he so impatient? By lifting the lien, the judge let my assets go. By what statute law or precedent case did he do this awful thing? Judge Rouse said that, if I could show him case laws, he would consider them. So why did he quickly make his ruling before the evidentiary hearing? I immediately appealed his premature ruling. And then, because the judge would not abide by the applicable Rule of Appellate Procedure, I had to voluntary withdraw the appeal so the lower court could reconsider the evidence. But reconsideration did not happen. Supposedly to correct the court mistakes, a new evidentiary hearing was given, but still the judge refused to listen or look at things by the standard of law so he gave the same results. The hearing was a sham, mere pretence. No one was put under oath. The evidence was not even considered. The so-called evidence filed by my former husbands attorney was false, clearly contradicted by the certified copy of the restitution order supporting my complaint. The documents I filed with the clerk of the court, for the judge to review, were based on specific facts, and not mere allegations, and should not have
Page4of7

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT

been ignored, or shredded to cover up malfeasance. The summary judgment was appealed, but the property was sold before the appeal might be heard. There were genuine issues of material fact that indeed established a prima facie case of guilt against my former husband; that alone should have barred a summary judgment. However, the Brevard Circuit Court refused to admit the truth that it was aware of, that my former husbands attorney had clearly falsified the Complaint and had disregarded the allowable evidence that I had given pro se to prove that I was owed money from the Estate of my former husband, Walter Favreau. This was discrimination against me as a female pro se litigant, favoring the man who could afford a male attorney [for example: a Puerto Rican female attorney was openly denigrated by my former husbands attorney in another case, and was disciplined for that typical Brevard County Court behavior] Ignoring good evidence and refusing to acknowledge the certified evidence was a deviation and departure from standards set down by Florida Statutes and court rules, and cruelly discriminated against me, because I am a woman, in favor of a man, because he is male. The Court can and should correct mistakes and misprisions. Indeed, legal cannons specify that the Court and its officers have a duty to turn this malfeasance over to the proper authorities when wrongs are committed. White collar crimes by officers of the court should be investigated by grand jury straight away. Covering up wrongs done by judges and their favorite lawyers is definitely improper and illegal. One expects judges to know the laws, to be unbiased and know the rules, to be fair and consistently impartial. At the very least they should find the facts and uphold Constitutional standards; indeed, nothing less should be tolerated. Those officers of the court who did not follow the Rules or Statutes in my case should be adequately sanctioned to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, in order to discourage future misprisions and misconduct by officer of the court in respect to the malfeasance and violation of laws in my case, the miscreant officers of the court should have to pay for the pain and suffering they have caused me. Obstructing justice and/or inaptly interfering in justice is plainly wrong and against the rule of law. Blocking a person from court, as I have been blocked from filing pleas, which are shredded, and from making calls to court officials, from appearing in person at the Clerks office or judges chambers, and from the case scheduling process should not be an option. And, just pretending that no problem exists does not solve a problem.
Page5of7

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT

When officers of the court harm their victim by entanglements in multiple courts and conspire to obstruct the dispensation of justice to her, she should be granted relief. When officers of the court come in sheeps clothing, pretending they can help a victim, they come as wolves in disguise. When they victimize someone, they do not fulfill their duty; they should be punished by sanctions to the fullest extent of the law. And officers of the court and judges and court administrators who put spin-control on the issues and/or cover up the obstructions that take place should be sanctioned also. Indeed, they should be ashamed of what they have done, instead of trying to hide and pretending that nothings wrong, that what they do is just business-as-usual. The judiciary would have nothing to lose if it simply allowed my case to be fully and impartially investigated, that is, if the judiciary has nothing to hide. Having full evidentiary hearing, with meaningful investigation, and redressing the wrongs would gain back respect and integrity for the judiciary, for doing the right thing. Public confidence would be restored if things that were done wrong were corrected. As it now appears, it is obvious that the intricate trap to render me homeless was intentionally set up by my former husband and his attorneys to intentionally do harm to a woman battered and nearly murdered by him, and that the Bar of Florida aggravated the damages to me, denuding me of the means and ability to obtain redress. First of all, the homestead set up to accommodate my disabilities, my sanctuary from harm, never should have been sold. Perhaps, to accomplish a fair settlement given the mix of marital properties, it could have been traded for another marital property in such a way that I would remain secure in it, but it never should have been sold out from under me. The gross malfeasance on the part of the Brevard County Court officers should be addressed. I was denied access to justice in more ways than one. I am a disabled person protected by the ADA, and the Court was fully aware of my disabilities; for instance, my speech impediments when under pressure in court, and the post-traumatic stress that causes me to write and file many long briefs. The Court should not have denied me my right to come to court for redress of my grievances and for the malfeasance of it lawyers and judges. The wealthy of our nation are not treated as I have been; they are treated well and things are done properly for them in the courts of law. Many wrongs were done with intentions to harm me, a pro se litigant only representing myself because I was deprived by the unjust judicial system of the means to obtain representation. What is done willfully, inaptly and wrongfully, with intentional and callous
Page6of7

I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT

indifference to an indigent citizens right to be in the right court of justice, and with malicious intent to cover up the past misconduct and malfeasance by fellow officers of the court, calls for redress; and that included redress under the ADA law for the failure of the court to reasonably accommodate certified disabilities. Some courts have recognized that victims of abuse like me are routinely discriminated against and denied representation, just as I have been. The remedies that justice entitles me to in the courts are obvious: 1) my cases should be consolidated; 2) the marital assets should be accounted for, clawed back and appropriate settled; 3) the unethical attorneys and judges should be sanctioned and sued for damages; 4) an independent panel or grand jury, and not the friendly Florida Bar or Judicial Qualification Commission, should investigate the potentially criminal misconduct of the lawyers and judges involved the Florida Bar and Judicial Qualification Commission have already proved that they only ignore indigent and disabled victims like me, leaving them with no genuine legal recourse to correct outrageous miscarriages of justice, including intentionally putting them in the wrong courts as I was. In my cases, a dishonorable judge allowed the opposing attorney to get away with his deception, and for that reason alone my cases must be reversed and remanded with instructions to consolidate the related cases to bring closure and justice. Fraud upon the court caused me grievous damage, and, if the courts keep ignoring the facts, I shall be even further damaged. My cases need to be consolidated somehow, and hearings held to determine how the officers of the court must replace what was lost by me, a disabled victim who was left to flounder about in the wrong courts. My former husbands and his attorneys fraudulent misrepresentations and coercion in the first trial were the biggest factors in my inability to obtain justice from the defrauded court. The appellate court should reverse the lower court judgments and instruct the lower courts to have proper hearings to consider all of the facts, for proper procedures require a full presentation of the facts.

Page7of7

The Unprofessional and Inappropriate Failure of the Department of Justice by Edna Jane Favreau
As a person who believes in equal justice for all as meant in the Pledge of Allegiance, and who believes that our government must be honest and fair, I was too nave and inexperienced to stand alone in court after my attorney abandoned me.

was

harmed should

unnecessarily have allowed

by the

the

judiciary. to

The

judge me

never

attorney

abandon

without a proper hearing. He ignored the fraud on the court perpetrated by my former husbands Rambo-lawyer. He was too inflexible and too ignorant of the law to give disabled victims any kind as of reasonable in accommodations the Americans or with

modifications, Disabilities Act. I keep seeing

stated

how

many

experts

on

international

humanitarian interventions

are doing so many things to

help foreign women of other nations while leaving American women bullied, harassed, and in need of due process, but none come to help them. For example, Susan Elizabeth

Rice, permanent United States Representative to the United Nation, spends time helping foreign women in need, those in whom she has taken a close interest. 1 If only someone would

take

closer

interest

in

Americas

domestic

violence

victims, and also make sure there is actually real help for the disabled victims in the U.S. court system. All too often impaired victims of the domestic violence crimes find that people attending domestic violence help lines do not take time to return calls or find real help for us. And people at the Department of Justice are

unfriendly, or they just answer us with nice form letters, thus proving they have not even read our complaints. They tell us they cannot help with individual cases, and they say it is doubtful whether they can do anything for us at all. I have kept records of my experience with all this, and, in Florida, I have watched Florence Paton struggle for help with all sorts of authorities to no avail. The people at the governors office treated her like she was insane

because she actually showed up to ask for justice some time after he said he would look into her case. Yes female

victims of injustice must really be crazy to expect justice from the head man! It is downright unprofessional and inappropriate for the Department of Justice to fail to look at what the problems are, to ignore the trees therefore not know what is

happening in the forest. Not only do they ignore violation of the ADA laws, they generally refuse to investigate the particular complaints we file showing them habitual fraud on the courts committed by the courts own officers! In my own case, I emphatically and repeatedly objected to the fraudulent proceedings.

Yes, I proved the fraud. It was plain for anyone to see, but the fraud was simply ignored because the officers of the court could get away with it due to my disabilities and the impoverishment resulting from the theft of my property by unscrupulous officers of the court. I objected repeatedly for years, telling the court system and federal and state prosecutors that the law provides for holding public officials and private citizens accountable under the law for denying people a fair trial and

obstructing justice. But they would not listen, not in my case and many others, because the Department of Justice is negligent in doing its duties. In a majority of cases that were prosecuted, into white collar guilty defendants in order to have been a

pressured

pleading

receive

reduced sentence in a minimum security prison camp for not applying the ADA laws. Many more cases should be prosecuted instead of ignoring the pleas of the victims. Today the Department of Justice continues to violate my due process rights by failing to conduct a thorough

investigation into the frauds on the court perpetrated by lawyers and condoned by judges in my cases. Contact Jane Favreau at: ejfavreau@gmail.com

Editors note: When I received this article yesterday, I could not help but wonder why Jane Favreau, after so many years of pleading for justice without much effect, does not give up her quest and enjoy what remains of her so-called golden years. Does she not know that she is living a myth, that what she pursues, equal justice for all, duly applied to her case, is an ideal that shall never be definitely realized for everyone? Lawyers and judges are supposed to be better than the most of us, but they certainly are not. We are their clients. Our desires are only human, and they would do our bidding to fulfill their own. We all have a sense of justice, or rather of injustice the Greeks had Zeus declare 3

that anyone without it should be banished or put to death. Yet that sense is necessarily biased to suit our needs no matter how profound our philosophy may be. We are fallible regardless of status. But we can all do better, and that is what ideals are about. Perhaps we should all take a new oath, and make our daily affirmations more explicit. Instead of pledging allegiance to flags and the nations they stand for so we may fight wars in different names for the same god, perhaps we should pledge allegiance to the application of specific ideals and struggle daily for their immediate realization at home in respect to particular individuals. No doubt many people, motivated by empathy if not love, are doing just that, including members of the legal profession. Wherever evil is found there must be found some good as well. True Dualists, for the sake of logical convenience, believe there are two gods, one good and one evil, and that the former will eventually conquer the other at the very last moment. Each shoulder put to the Wheel helps in the long run. Feb. 25, 2011, Miami Beach, David Arthur Walters

CLOSED DOORS By Edna Jane Favreau While reading the U.S. Supreme Court Reports in the Law Library, I came across a phrase in an opinion written by Justice Marshall, with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens joined in dissent: Of our societys less fortunate members, (we have) the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here. I dissent. I just sat there looking at the words on the page for a long time, and I thought, Could it be that soon the average people without large assets will be completely blocked from the justice system? I remember my grandfather telling me fifty years ago about how the local courts were getting to be below standard, and how the officers were lowering the expectations as to ethics and decency in the Courts. I did not think much about it then, but now I think he was right. I must say it was a sad afternoon for me to read about this in a Supreme Court law book. One of the justices remarked on the tradition of leaving courthouse doors open to all classes of litigants, and said: As the Court sets sail on a journey whose landing point is uncertainthe Court appears resolved to close its doors to increasing numbers of indigent litigants, and for increasingly less justifiable reasons. I fear that the Courts action today portends even more draconian restrictions on the access of indigent litigants to this court. In closing its doors today to another indigent litigant, the Court moves ever closer to the day when it leaves an indigent litigant with a meritorious claim out in the cold. And with each barrier it places in the way of indigent litigants, and with each instance in which it castigates such litigants for having abused the system only harms victims more and causes the court to lose more dignity in the eyes of the people.

About the author: Edna Jane Favreau was disabled by her husband and then forced by poverty and the Brevard County judicial system to represent herself in unsuccessful attempts to recover the property her former husband, his attorney, and the justices had tricked her out of. Her struggle against injustice has continued over the last 18 years. Editor: David Arthur Walters. Published by permission of the author.

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST


TheVictimandtheImpotentLawyer

By David Arthur Walters


10/14/2010

Lawiswhatpowerfulpeopledo,andtheydoittolegalizetheircrimesagainsthumanity.

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

Edna Jane Favreaus case is familiar to many public officials although they would rather not hearaboutit.Shewasdisabledbyherformerhusbandsmurderousattack,forwhichhewas convictedfordomesticviolenceandletoffeasywithprobation.Thejudgeinthecriminalcourt ordered restitution to be paid to the victim for liquidated damages, but Floridas States AttorneyneglectedtofollowupdespiteJanespleasandcomplaint,soshefiledalienwiththe courtherself.Shewasentitledaswelltohalfthemaritalproperty.Shehadexpectedjusticein theBrevardandVolusiaCountyCourts,includingaccommodationforherdisabilities,butwhat she received was revictimization by attorneys on both sides and by the judges. Her former husbandhadalreadygrabbedthecash,andthenshewasstrippedofwhatlittlecashshecould borrowfromherkidstoretainattorneys,soshehadtorepresentherselfprose,asnearly80% of one party in family law proceedings have to do in Florida. She was told her selffiled lien againstthepropertywasnotgood.Thecourtwiththehelpofitsabusiveofficersturnedover controlofherpropertytoherformerhusband,andthen,whenhedied,tohisnewwife.Jane was left with her disabilities, now including LAS (legal abuse syndrome), and thoroughly pauperized by the court. The Florida Bar disciplined attorneys on both sides, but the judges continuedthelegalabusewiththeviolationofhercivilrightsincludingherrightsasadisabled victimundertheAmericansWithDisabilitiesAct.HercomplaintstotheJudicialQualifications Commission fell on deaf ears one of her complaints about judicial abuse of power was returnedtohertheverysamedayshemadeit,denyingitsresponsibilityandstatingthatthe Commissiondidnothavethebudgetorsupporttohandlesuchcomplaints. FloridaGovernorCharlieCristreceivedacopyofJanesstory,FraudontheCourtWhoWill Listen on 28 August 2010, with the advice that being independent has it virtues. Governor Crist is an independent candidate for United States Senator because he abandoned the RepublicanPartyshortlyafterswearinghewasfaithfultoit;apollhadindicatedthathemight wintheelectionasanindependent.TheGovernoraskedhisassistantDustinFusillotorespond toJanespredicament,andhedidsoon31August: ThankyouforcontactingGovernorCharlieCristonbehalfofEdnaJaneFavreau.TheGovernor askedmetorespondonhisbehalf.TheFloridaConstitutionlimitstheGovernor'sintervention in matters that should be resolved through the court system. Questions about guilt or innocence, or the procedural fairness of convictions must be addressed in the courts. Those whowishtocontestjudicialrulingsmaywishtospeakwithanattorneyaboutwhatappellate proceduresmaybeavailable.IencourageMs.Favreautocontinueworkingwithherattorney's toaddressherconcerns.PleaseunderstandtheGovernor'sinabilitytointerveneisduetoalack ofjurisdiction,notalackofconcern.ThankyouagainforcontactingtheGovernor'soffice.We hopethisinformationishelpful. The information Governor Crist received made it clear that one of Janes main complaints is thatshehadbeenstrippedofhermeansofsupportanddeprivedofrepresentationinFloridas courts,soshecouldhardlycontinueworkingwithherattorneys.Irespondedtothegovernor on1September2010:
Page|2

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

Thankyouforyourresponse.Asyoucansee,Iamcurrentlyreviewingevidenceofapatternof judicialabuseofwomenandchildrenintheStateofFlorida,andwillmentionyourletterinmy coverage. Of course, citizens have naturally thought that that subject would be of pressing concern to the heads of their state, and were chagrined to learn that governors have their hands tied by policy hence the governor's office is good for nothing when it comes to that subject. Again, the governor stated an inability to intervene; this time he said that he may not lack concern,towhichthisresponsewasmade: I have alerted Jane to your statement that Governor Crist may not lack concern for her predicament, which is, unfortunately, the predicament of many similarly situated women. Perhaps candidate RickScott or Alex Sink will be able to effectively contradict the judiciary if s/hebecomesheadofyourexecutivebranch.IamattachingforGovernorCrist'sperusalaone pagearticleJanejustwrote,abouthowthedoortojusticeisclosedtomanypoorpeople.Since heisanattorney,Iamcertainthatheisfullyawareofthatfact,andmaybeconcernedbyit, perhapsifhebecomesaU.S.Senator. The message to Governor Crist also referred to another woman, Florence Berger nee Paton, whohadhadsimilarexperienceswiththeBrevardCountyCourt,andhadpersonallyappealed tothenGovernorGeorgeBush: Shesaidshepersonallydeliveredsomeofher documentstoGovernorBushsometimeago, andheexpressedhisconcernandpromisedtolookintothematter,butwhensheappearedat hisofficetofollowupandseeifhehonoredhiscommitment,andaskedtoseehim,shewas presumed to be mentally ill for showing up, and was escorted out of the office by personnel whoinsinuatedthatshewascrazythesamesortofbehaviorsheandotherlitigantsbecame awareofinBrevardCountycourtrooms,themostegregiouspersonbeingthelateRambotactic lawyerHenryMartocci,whowasdisbarredalltoolate. When Jane was shown the correspondence with Governor Crist, she responded simply: Floridas Constitution requires the governor to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed, sheinsisted. Ofcoursethebranchesofgovernmentarepurportedlyindependent,andtheexecutivebranch maynotdirectlyinterferewiththejudiciarysexerciseofitsinherentpowers;theexecutive branchs function is to enforce the laws enacted by the legislative branch, and, when appropriate,topursueviolationsinthecourts.Thatisnottosay,forexample,thatthepolice maynotarrestajudgeforviolationsoflaw. Thedownsideofconstitutionalindependenceofbranchesandthedepartmentalizationwithin government is that is allows for a great deal of hypocrisy, as one branch or department can blame others, over which the chief executive officer may preside as a sort of president of hypocrisy. The truth of the matter is that the branches do not actually function as

Page|3

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

independentlyasconstitutionallyconceived.Thelegalprofessiondominatesallthreebranches, andthatprofessionislargelybeholdentothepowereliteattheapexofthepowerpyramid. Governor Crist could have referred Jane to his Office of Civil Rights. In fact, she had already gonedownthatpathwhenitwasheadedbyAttorneyGeneralCharlieCrist.Janeaddressedthe Office of Civil Rights about the persistent violation of her rights by the judges, lawyers, and staff,averringthatshewasadisabledwomanbeingdiscriminatedagainstitisobviousfrom thecasefilesthatthediscriminationalsoappertainedtohergenderandpoverty.OnJuly14, 2003 Mary Ann Clark responded impertinently, on behalf of Attorney General Charlie Crist, advisinghertoconsultaprivateattorneybecauseTheOfficeofCivilRightsisdedicatedto prosecutingcivilrightsviolationsthatoccurinthisstate.Weareempoweredwiththeabilityto bringlawsuitswhenthereisevidenceofapatternandpracticeofdiscriminationorwhenthe issue of great public interest. By law, we are not allowed to represent individuals in their personallegalmatters;thereforeweareunabletoassistyouatthistime. OneofJanesforemostcomplaintsisthatshewasbeingdeprivedofrepresentation.Andthe factofthematteristhattheAttorneyGeneralsOfficehadampletime,forexample,tohound formerattorneyMarkAdamsallthewayuptotheSupremeCourt,tryingtohavehimjailedon apretext,accordingtoMr.Adams,becauseheallegedjudicialcorruptiontheStateultimately losttheindirectcriminalcontemptcaseagainsthim,onatechnicality,toridtheexecutiveand judiciaryofapersistentthornintheirside.MarkAdamswasatmostdueforawristslapping and strong warning. Indeed, his misbehavior was trivial in comparison to the longstanding pattern of misconduct of several attorneys evident in Brevard County and elsewhere. But he wouldnotbecowered,andwaspermanentdisbarred.TheAttorneyGeneraloftheexecutive branch relished working together with The Florida Bar, an arm of the judicial branch the monopolistic Florida Bar, responsible for disciplining lawyers as well as representing the professionsinterests,ishierarchicallyorganizedlikemostofsociety;attorneysdependonthe good will of its most influential members for their livelihoods; the bulk of the Bar will stand monolithic when confronted by errant knights. The general public may be ignored by The FloridaBar,whichispartandparceloftheFloridaSupremeCourt,withimpunitygiventheself conceivedinherentpowersoftheconceitedcourt.Mayheavenforbidifanattorneygoestoo hardagainstthegrains/hewillbehoundedtothegatesofhellandbeyond.Remember,the powerofthelegislativeandexecutivebranchisinthehandsofattorneysbeholdentotheBar for their fortunes. The most that can be hoped is to slightly change its course by finding independentspiritedattorneyswillingtousejujitsutechnique,employingtheBarsownweight toalteritsgrindingcourse. The fact of the matter is that Attorney General Charlie Crists office had received numerous complaintsaboutthejusticesysteminBrevardCounty.Andthemorecurrentfactofthematter is that Charlie Crist as Governor of Florida has been well advised by the press about the allegations of incompetence, neglect, abuses, and corruption in Brevard and other Florida counties.

Page|4

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

CharlieCristsresponseshavebeensuperficialandconditionedbyhisflightyperceptionoftheir effect on the polls during his run for the U.S. Senate. Journalist Glenn Garvins independent opinionatedinvestigationofGovernorCristsbehaviorconcludesthatCharliesonlyfirmlyheld beliefisthatheshouldbeaU.S.Senator.TheGovernor,whoiscalledSenorChancleta(Mister FlipFlop)inHialeah,isnotoriousforchanginghismindaccordingtohowthepoliticalwindis blowing at any given hour we might think that an attorney should have some principles consistently abided by. The Orlando Sentinel reported that, on one morning, Mr. Crist demandedaninvestigationofwrongfulfelonyconvictionsinBrevardCounty,butreversedhis demandintheafternoon. ItappearsthatCharlieCrististhe sortofsophistPlatodisparaged,onewhowouldmakethe worst cause look like the better one if it were to his own advantage to do so. Even so, he appearstobeabettercandidatethanhisRepublicanopponent,whosumsuptheideological faultsoftheantiintellectualneoconservativeswhobroughtthenationtothebrinkofruin,and who are now capitalizing on the American electorates normal desire for instant success to replacerightwithwrong.AsmanyofusobservedofPresidentRichardNixon,hypocrisycanbe agoodthingifthewindblowsyourwayjustkeepyourofficewellsecured. Judges are normally elected in Florida, but given certain conditions of vacancy, governors of Florida have a Constitutional hand in appointing them to the courts, as well as appointing electors to the Judicial Nominating Commission Governor Crist, for example, appointed his professional colleague and political funder, the now notorious fraudster, attorney Scott Rothstein,totheJudicialNominatingCommission. WomenoftencomplainedaboutthemisconductofBrevardCountyCourtJudgeBruceJacobus, whose peers elevated him to Chief Justice of that Court. Ironically, given the allegations of misconduct and gender bias against Bruce Jacobus, Governor Chris was careful to kick him upstairstotheappellatecourtovertheobjectionsoftheCentralFloridaAssociationforWomen Lawyers;alas,thelawyers,alwaysloathtocriticizejudgesforfearoflosingtheirlicenses,did not mention Judge Jacobus gender bias. The story was covered on 7 August 2010 by Florida Today,anewssourcethathasbeendiligentlyexposingofficialmisconductinBrevardCounty forseveralyears. For all his righteous indignation about the lack of diversity among judicial nominees, Gov. Charlie Crist passed up an excellent opportunity this week to repair that problem with his appointment to the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach. But perhaps in the governor's mind, diversity isn't a gender thing. How else to explain Mr. Crist passing up two women who were among the six nominated for the post? Instead, Mr. Crist chose Bruce Jacobus, a 65yearold circuit judge from Brevard County. Keep in mind that this is the same judicial appointment that Mr. Crist was willing to go to war over to make a point about diversity.Eventhoughhedidn'thavealegallegtostandon,thegovernorrejectedthatlistof nomineeslatelastyearbecauseitdidn'tincludeanyblackcandidates.Onetroublingdetail:Mr. Crist doesn't have the authority to reject such a list, which is compiled by a nominating commission. The commission correctly refused to produce a new list of candidates more
Page|5

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

palatable to the governor. The standoff prompted Robert Pleus of Windermere, the judge whose resignation created the opening, to file a lawsuit that would force the governor to choose.Alongtheway,theCentralFloridaAssociationforWomenLawyersfiledalegalbrief, whichmadetheinterestingobservationthatthelastwomanappointedtothe5thDistrictCourt ofAppealwasnearly20yearsago.The12appointmentstothecourtsincethenhaveallbeen men, the brief said, one of whom was AfricanAmerican. The dearth of female appointees to thatcourtstandsinsharpcontrasteventotheU.S.SupremeCourt,whoseultraexclusiveranks will include two women following Thursday's Senate confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor. The association's brief also noted that Mr. Crist himself had declared early on that the nominees "should reflect the racial, gender and geographic diversity of the people they serve." The governorwasonlypartiallycorrectincontendingthatthelisthelaterreceiveddidn'thavethat diversity. It lacked racial diversity, yes, but it cleared the gender bar. Last month, the Florida SupremeCourtsidedwithMr.Pleusandorderedthegovernortodohisdutyandpickajudge. Did Mr. Crist choose diversity? No. He chose Mr. Jacobus, a longtime circuitcourt judge. In doingso,hebypassedBelleSchumann,aVolusiaCountyjudgeandformerassistantattorney general;andAngelaFlowersofOcala,aboardcertifiedappellatelawyer. Judge Bruce Jacobus and his colleague, a Rambo attorney named Henry Martocci, are described by Florence Paton, formerly Florence Berger, in a book she is writing about her experienceintheBrevardCountycourts: Judge Jacobus was jolly as he entered the courtroom for the first time on this case. Good morning,Henry,hegreetedhiscolleagueHenryMartocci,attorneyformyestrangedhusband FrancisBerger.Howareyou?Nicetoseeyou,heremarkedashesippedhismugofcoffee. And then Judge Jacobus allowed Martocci to proceed with his lies and submit false documentationtothecourt.JacobusrefusedtoenforcetheordersofJudgeWarrenBurke,and allowedmyhusbandtocontinuetodisregardchildsupportordersIwassurprised;Ididntknow courtswerelikethis. Due to my husbands failure to pay support, I was forced to sell my home. Judge Jacobus orderedhalftheproceedstogotohimalthoughthemoneybelongedtomyparentsasahome loan. Jacobus then continued to allow perjury, false documentation, and the frivolous and fraudulentproceedingsinitiatedbyMartocci.Andthejudgecontinuedtoallowtheoutrageous, intimidating,vulgarandabusivebehaviorofmyhusbandandhisattorneytoproceed. Judge Jacobus did not follow the laws; he denied me and my children due process and protection.OnmanyoccasionshelaughedloudlywhenMartocciscreamedinopencourtthatI wasanutcaseandnothingmorethanavindictivewoman.Healsodemonstratedhumorin the fact that my husband Francis Berger was being proceeded against in another court on chargesofgrandtheft,violationofaninjunctionforprotection,andothercharges.Thejudge was well aware that his good friend presiding over that case, Judge Tonya Rainwater, would quicklydisposeofthecharges.

Page|6

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

AndJudgeRainwaterdisposedofthecharges,FrancisBergerandhisattorneyHenryMartocci acted witha vengeance, battering me in the courts and abusing the children while informing thecommunitythatIwasanutcase.Theyscreamedatmeinthecourtshallways,threatened measIapproachedthecourtroomordepositionroom. NotonlyJudgeJacobus,butthebailiffsandclerksfoundhumorintheawfulbehavior.Rather thaninterveneandendtheabuse,theywouldsimplystandbyandlaugh.TheycouldseethatI wasfrightenedbyitall;however,theirresponsewastosay,forexample,Oh,thatsjustHenry Martocci. Dont worry about it. It was unbelievable to me that the judges would run a courthousethisway,allowingsuch unethical,obnoxiousandviolentbehaviortobeexhibited within.Onebailiff,Wilson,enjoyedtheshowsomuchthathewouldsometimespatMartocci on the back while they laughed together... My attorney said Martoccis behavior could be reportedtoTheFloridaBar,butadvisedmethatIshouldnotdothatuntilthecasewasover. Edna Jane Favreau was also continually battered by the crude bomber tactics of Walter FavreausattorneyHenryMartocci,behaviorthatwasallowed,condonedandencouragedby Judge Bruce Jacobus we shall report the full extent of this abuse elsewhere, including disparagingremarkstargetingafemalePuertoRicanattorney.NotonlydidJanesuffermental and physical disabilities of her husbands abuse culminating in his attempt to murder her by strangulation, she was revictimized by the legal system she thought she could rely on for protection;shewasabusedbythejudgesandbytheattorneysonbothsides,whostrippedher ofhercash,maritalpropertyandcivilrights,pauperizingherandleavinghertofendforherself prosewhileshewasfurtherincapacitatedbytheirmaliciousmisbehavior.Inaddition,then,to her original posttraumatic stress, she suffers to this very day from Legal Abuse Syndrome, a syndromethatmanylegalsystempatriarchsfindlaughablealthoughtheyhavelearnedtolaugh in private. Karin D. Huffer, in Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), chronicledtwentyyearsofresearchandclinicalworkwithLAS,aformofposttraumaticstress disorder(PTSD).LASisapsychicinjury,notamentalillness.Itisapersonalinjurythatdevelops inindividualsassaultedbyethicalviolations,legalabuses,betrayals,andfraud.Abuseofpower and authority and a profound lack of accountability in our courts have become rampant, compoundinganalreadystressfulexperience. Janealwayswantedagoodattorney,andshestillwantsone,butshecannotfindonetostand upagainstthejudges,toassertherclaimthattherehasbeenafraudonthecourtbytheBar hencehercasesshouldbereopened.Whilehavingseveralstrokes,shefoundherselfinvolved indivorce,tort,andprobatecourt,withjudgesplayingmusicalchairs.Itisnowonderthatshe wasthoroughlyconfused,butshestillputupquiteafightforoveradecade.Nowsheisleftto nurseherwoundsanddothebestshecantowarnothersofwhatisreallygoingoninthecourt system. Nolocalattorneywaswillingtohelpmewiththetortcaseagainstmyformerhusband,Jane stated,allowingJudgeJacobustodomanythingsthatwereclearlywrong.Thegoodattorneys intownsaidtheyweretoobusytotakemycase.Theywereafraidtodealwiththeattorneyon the other side in Judge Jacobus court, and the paper had published my account of how the
Page|7

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

courtwasmistreatingcrimevictims.Iwantedandneededagoodattorney.ExceptforEdward Tietig,whoreallytriedtohelpmebutwhomJudgeJacobuswouldnotlistento,theattorneysI didgettookmymoneyandabandonedme,finallyforcingmetorepresentmyself.Icanpoint out on the transcript where the opposing attorney laughed at me, a woman impaired by her formerhusbandsviolentcrime.Theattorneyemphasizedtheifwhensaying,IFshecanget anattorneytorepresenther,andthenchuckledknowingly,knowingabouttheexposeinthe newspaper. JudgeJacobusviolatedmyrightsasavictimofdomesticviolenceinthedomesticviolencetort casewhenherefusedtoallowmyattorney,Mr.Tietig,toshowthatanordertodisclosethe valueofthefamilyassetshadnotbeengiventomeandtheorderhadnotbeencompliedwith. JudgeJacobusjustignoredmyattorney!Infact,thedissolutionofmarriagecasewasstillnot finishedlawfullybecausetheassetswerenevervaluedordispersedtotheparties. Judge Jacobus signed deficient orders leaving me vulnerable and unprotected against the whim of my abusive former husband and the unethical attorney, Henry Martocci,leaving me withoutmyhalfofmaritalproperty.AndhemetexpartewithAttorneyMartocci;togetherthey allowedmyformerhusbandtowalkawaywithmoneythatshouldhavebeengiventome. JudgeJacobussaidhewasallowedmediatemycasewhilehewasstillmyjudgeinthecase.He saidhewouldgivemeanorderofprotection.Iwantedthatprotectionmadepermanentand perpetual,butthatnevercame!JudgeJacobushelpedmyformerhusbandsattorneytrickme. Hepromisedanorderforprotectionwouldbeissuedafterthehearing.Theorderissuedand writtenforthejudgebytheopposingattorneydidnotreflectwhatwassaidinthehearing. AtranscriptoftheProceedingsofthecourtverifiesJanesaccountinrespecttothejudgeacting asmediator: THECOURT[JudgeJacobus]:SowhatweredoingherewerejusttryingImbeingamediator insteadofacircuitjudge.LikeIsaid,youstillhaveotheroptions.Youcanhaveotheroptions. Weregoingtodoittoday.Imean,weregoingtobedonewiththatpart. MS.KALBAC:Shesgoingtobringupsomethingelse. MS.FAVREAU:Yourlastordersaidmyoptiontorecoverwhatwasreallyminewastobringa tort. MS.KALBAC[laughingEd.]:IFshecanandanattorneytorepresenther. THECOURT:Wewanttodissolvethedivorce,period. MS.FAVREAU:CanIhavetheorderofprotectionthatIveaskedfor? MS.KALBAC:Youcanhaveit. THECOURT:Tellmewhatyouwant.
Page|8

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

MS.FAVREAU:Theonethatsinthefilethatspermanentandperpetual,forever,thatIputin before. Ms. Kalbac was Melanie M. KalbacMcMannis, Walter Favreaus attorney prior to Henry Martocci.AccordingtoJane,Ms.KalbacalteredwhattheJudgeFrankPoundhadorderedinthe divorce case, in reference to the division of marital properties: the Transcript of the Proceedings reads, Now as to the joint property which consists if the home place down in Melbourne,astotherentalproperty,thethreemortgagesandnotesfromMr.Ingram,thatsall jointpropertyanditwillbepartitionedandthePartieswillshareequallyintheproceeds;which isnotasatisfactorymethodtodisposeofit,Iunderstand,butthatsthewayitis.Theordered division was not satisfactory because a trade between two of the properties would have left everyonebetteroff;ultimatelyJanewouldbecheatedinthatregard. Whenhisattorneywrotethejudge'sorders,Janesaid,shechangedthatandwroteinthat myhalfwouldgotoherclient,Mr.WaltFavreau.Ineveragreedtothatatall.Never;infact, therewasneveranysettlementdone,notevenstarted.Therewasnohearingaboutthisbeing changedandnocopycametomysideortome. I discovered the judge was mistaken about mediation. Judges are not supposed to be a mediatorfromthebench,fortheFloridaSupremeCourtsaidtheycantdothat.Butthejudge diditanyway.Herejudgesseemtomaketheirownlawsfromthebench.WhenIinformedthe JudicialQualificationCommission,theyjustignoredmyletterastheyhaddoneinthepast,and sent me a form letter saying they would not be investigating anything I mentioned. The JQC failedtoevenaddressthefactthejudgesaidhewasgoingtotakeoffhisblackrobeandbea mediatorfromthebench.SeethetranscriptandyouwillseehowJudgeJacobusmisleadme intothinkinghewouldbeamediatorandprotectme.Ifjudgesarenotallowedtotakemediate fromthebenchwhydidmyjudgedothat?Hedidharmtomycasethatday.Healsosentaway thecourtreporterIhiredtotakenotesofwhatwentonintheroom.Ihadtopayherforjust showingupbuthebannedherfromtheroom.ThatwaswrongbuttheJQCfailedtolookatthe evidenceIsenttothem. JudgeJacobusdeniedmereasonableaccommodationformydisabilities.Heevenrefusedto lookatorconsidertheAmericanWithDisabilitiesActof1990.IsuedJudgeJacobus,butJudge TonyaRainwaterjustdismissedthecasewithoutahearing. SinceJanewasconfrontedwithmanyBrevardCountyjudgesplayingmusicalchairsinhercases, Iaskedhertoidentifytheworstjudgeofall.Shesaidthat,tobefair,shecouldnotsaywhich one was the worst, as the judicial culture at the courthouse had rendered them all bad. For example,shementionedJudgeEdwardM.Jacksonsfeebleattempttomaintainanappearance of propriety in his court. The courts certainly have authority to directly discipline errant attorneys on the spot. Judge Edward M. Jackson, sitting in Janes tort action against Walter Favreau,didfindthatMartoccihadviolatedapreviousCourtordernottopersonallydisparage Jane:

Page|9

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

The court finds from the greater weight of the evidence that Attorney Martocci expressed during the Deposition of his client in the presence of Plaintiff that either the Plaintiff was conductingthe proceeding in acrazy manner, or that the Plaintiff was herself crazy. Either context results in the Court finding a patent violation of the previous nondisparagement admonitiontheCourtgavetoMr.MartocciaswellastothePlaintiffandDefendant.OnJuly9, 1998Martocciwasorderedtopost$200suretywiththecourttobeforfeitedtothePlaintiffif hedisparagedheragain.Ifhehadtoforfeit,thatwouldofcoursebeasmallpricetopayfor rippingoffEdnaJaneFavreau. JudgeJacksonwassupposedtoreportMr.MartoccitoTheFloridaBar,Janesaid,buthedid notdoso.Mr.Martoccicontinuedtoharassme,andhebraggedthathewasnotafraidofThe FloridaBar.IreportedthistoJudgeJacksonandhedidnothing. Furthermore, JudgeJackson denied my right to a fair trial. For example, he denied my good evidencewhichwasallowable.Theopposingattorneywasgiventhatevidence,buthestoodup andtoldthejudgehecouldnottakeitintotherecord,andthejurywasnotallowedseethe evidence.ItwasofferedunderFloridaStatute775.089(8)butthejudgetookadvantageofme beingillanddeniedmemydueprocessandviolatedmycivilrighttoafairtrial. Statute775.089(8)appertainstoacrimevictimsrighttorestitution,andreads:Theconviction ofadefendantforanoffenseinvolvingtheactgivingrisetorestitutionunderthissectionshall estopthedefendantfromdenyingtheessentialallegationsofthatoffenseinanysubsequent civilproceeding.Anorderofrestitutionhereunderwillnotbaranysubsequentcivilremedyor recovery, but the amount of such restitution shall be set off against any subsequent independentcivilrecovery. JanedeservescreditforlodgingcomplaintsagainstseveralattorneyswithTheFloridaBar,and the Bar deserves credit for disciplining several attorneys on both sides. Yet those complaints madeiteverthemoreimpossibleforhertoobtainjusticefromthebrethreninthecourtroom. Although one of her damning complaints against Attorney Martocci was dismissed and all recordofitsexistencewasdestroyedbytheBar,anothercomplaintwasinstrumentalingetting himdisciplinedifnotdisbarred. Although the Bar is to be congratulated for taking attorneys to task, its failings must also be pointed out: As a matter of fact, multiple complaints had been lodged with The Florida Bar againstHenryMartocciovertheyears.Manycomplaintsandinquiriesagainstvariousattorneys wereignoredordisciplinewasdeemedunwarranted,soinvestigationswerenotopenedatall or the investigative files were destroyed along with all records of the existence of the complaints, pursuant to a Supreme Court policy that allows its arm, The Florida Bar, to conceal an apparent pattern of misbehavior, and, especially, to protect the practices of powerful attorneys by saying they have no history of disciplinary action. Nonetheless, some complaintsagainstHenryMartocci,whowas,afterall,notoriousthroughoutBrevardCountys legalcommunityforhisatrociousbehavior,resultedinmilddisciplinaryactionovertheyears, until the Bar had had enough, and Martocci was disbarred even though one investigating lawyerhadsaidhewasagoodattorney.
Page|10

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

Icametocourtexpectingfairness,justice,rulestobevalidatedandlawsupheld,Janewrote. Iknewtheofficersofthecourttookanoathtoupholdthelaws,gobytherulesofcourt,and abide by the Constitution; I found that, even though citizens are put under oath to tell the truth, and the officersof the court already took an oath to tell the truth, thecourt seems to havesomehowoverlookedtheseofficersoaths.Theattorneysdonotseemtobeunderoath to tell the truth in court. They can say and do anything to win or confuse the issues. When I askedTheFloridaBaraboutthis,Iwastold,Yes,itsadirtybusiness.Afterbeinginthecourt systemforovereighteenyearsnowIampersuadedthattheproblemwiththesystemisthat the judges do not do the things that should be done to their professional brethren, because theytooaremembersofthesameBar.AndthisaffectsthepoorofthestateofFlorida. AttorneyCharlieCrist,eitherinhiscapacityasGovernor,couldhavereferredJanetohisJudicial Qualifications Commission instead of attorneys she did not have and could not afford becauseofthestatessystematicdiscriminationagainstpooranddisabledpersons,especially defenselesswomenandchildren.Butshehadalreadygonedownthatroadseveraltimes,and shegottheusualformletterinresponseifonlythemedievalchurchhadtaughtpeoplehow tothinkandthereforereadandwriteforthemselvesinsteadofinventingformletterstocover theirincapacity! NowtheJudicialQualificationsCommissionisapurportedlyindependentagency,stackedwith judges and other lawyers, created by the Florida Constitution solely to investigate alleged misconductbyFloridastatejudges.ItisnotapartoftheFloridaSupremeCourtorthestate courtsandoperatesunderrulesitestablishesforitself.NeithertheSupremeCourtnoritsChief Justicehasanyauthoritytoinvestigateallegedmisconductbystatejudgesortoinvestigatethe JudicialQualificationsCommission. WeunderstandtheLegislatureszealtocreateyetanotherindependententitytocurbabuses ofpower,butweruethefactthatitsindependencehasrendereditarroganttosuchanextent thatitcancallouslyignoreapoorelderlyladysclaimsthatsheisbeinggrievouslyabusedby judgesandjudicialstaffwhoarenotprovidingherwithdueprocessaccordingtothelawsand court rules. Thus the deliberately underfunded Judicial Qualification Commission amounts to merelipservicetothecauseofjustice. For example, on September 17, 2004, Brook S. Kennedy, Executive Director of the Judicial Qualifications Commission responded to one of Janes complaints as follows: Your recent correspondence is being returned to you with this letter. As we have advised on earlier occasions, your concerns relate to the legal and procedural aspects of court cases. Unfortunately the Commission also lacks the budget or support staff necessary to continuing correspondenceaboutmatterswhichareoutsideitsjurisdiction. ShedidnotreadwhatIsent,statedJane,foritwasbackinthemailthenextdayatmymail box.IamsorryIcannotwritewellbutIdotryhard.Itriedtoexplaintoheritwasmisconduct ofthejudgesbuttheypretendnottounderstandthings.

Page|11

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

No, the unjust conditions of Brevard Countys justice system are nothing new to former AttorneyGeneralandnowGovernorCharlieChris.On24November2008FloridaTodaycalled forinvestigationintoBrevardCounty:OnSunday,theeditorialboardofFloridaTodaycalled for Governor Crist to look into the actions of the Brevard County District Attorneys office, which reek of misconduct and corruption. They called for: A state probe ordered by Gov. Charlie Crist into possible repeated miscarriages of justice at the State Attorneys Office, includinginthecasesofDillonandWiltonDedge,convictedofrapein1981butfreedin2004 afterDNAevidenceprovedthePortSt.JohnmansinnocenceAndofJuanRamos,whowas tried and sentenced to death for rape and murder in 1983 in Brevard, although no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Ramos was acquitted in 1987. The editors added: Prosecutorsmishandlingofthecasesfollowsanuglypatternofincompetenceandimpropriety thatcriesoutforinvestigation.FloridaTodaycorrectly observesthatthereisoverwhelming justification for a probe. But the evidence goes beyond justification to the creation of an imperative:ItwouldbenegligentatthispointfortheGovernortoignorehisdutytothepublic to make sure that the laws and the Constitution are faithfully enforced. Today, reasonable peoplearemakingtheconclusionthatBrevardCountysystemicallyengagesincorruptionand collusion. We previously called for an investigation when Dillon was granted a new trial. GovernorCristoughttostepupandcallforathoroughinvestigationofthosepracticesthatput Dillonandotherinnocentpeoplebehindbars.Justicedemandsit. Experienced Attorney Charlie Chris could have referred Edna Jane Favreau to a court administrator,orevenwrittenaletterhimselfrecommendingthattheadministratorseetoit thatdisabledpersonssuchasEdnaJaneFavreauareaccommodated.Butshehadalreadybeen downthatroad:HerdaughterElizabethcontactedMarkVanBever,CourtAdministratorforthe EighteenthJudicialCircuit,andhepromisedhewouldgetbacktoherheneverdid.Janehad beenimpressedbyMr.Beverspublishedarticleonjudicialethics,andthoughtthathemight have something done about the fact that she was being abused by judges and lawyers in his courts and denied her civil rights including rights under the ADA. We see that Mr. Bever has also had published in June 2002 an article on accommodating disabled persons, entitled, ImplementingtheAmericansWithDisabilitiesAct. Courts achieve equity, Mr. Bever wrote, by providing reasonable accommodations to disabledpeopleinordertoleveltheplayingfield.HestatesthattheActsignificantlyaffects thestatecourts,andthatthepurposeofhispaperistodiscussaccesstopublicservices.The act provides, he says, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability,beexcludedfromparticipationinorbedeniedthebenefitsoftheservices,programs, oractivitiesofapublicentity,orbesubjecttodiscriminationbyanysuchentity. He points out that one in five people have disabilities, and that the ratio will increase as the populationenjoyslongerlives.Hegoesontodescribetheprovisionofwheelchairs,accessible telephones,ramps,counterheights,lapboardsforwriting,Brailleetc,waterfountains,disposal bins,diabeticscantsitlong.HeclaimsthattheEighteenthCircuitgoestheextramileinthat regard.Yet,Nomatterhowdiligentacourtisinitscomplianceefforts,acustomermayhavea grievance.Tohandlecomplaints,acourtneedsawrittengrievanceprocedure.
Page|12

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

And,Courtsshoulddeliberatelyplantoprovidefordisabledpersonsthesameaccessthatis availabletopersonswithoutdisabilities.Itisourresponsibilitytorespondwithexperthelpand humanity.Remember,aproactiveapproachispreferabletoonethatisreactive. He has suggestions: Here are a few suggestions to help your court begin a successful complianceeffort.Taketimetoplan.Invitealltheappropriatecourthouseplayerstogetherto discuss concerns and uncertainties. Participants should include individuals from court administration, the local Bar Association, the state prosecutors office, the public defenders office,theclerksoffice,thelawlibrary,andthesheriffsoffice. Hisplandoesnotincludereceivingtheadviceofdisabledpersonsoutsideofthelegalsystem, disabled litigants, expert advocates for disabled people, psychiatrists, psychologists, and the like.ButMr.Beversaidthecourtwasluckytogettheadviceofadisabledlawyer:Inaddition toasurveybycourtstaff,theEighteenthJudicialCircuitwasfortunatetoreceivetheassistance ofalocalattorneywhoisdisabledandknowledgeableabouttheADA.Hisprobonoreviewof our facilities and services was very beneficial. The attorneys expertise and firsthand knowledgeofthebarrierspeoplewithdisabilitiesencounterprovidedavaluableperspective. Mr.Beversconceptofdisabilityisapparentlylimitedtoobviousphysicaldisabilities.Hedoes not mention dealing with the various psychological symptoms of disabilities associated with posttraumaticstresssyndromesufferedbybatteredwomen,whohavebeendeemedcrazy and nutcases and hysterics in his court; i.e. those psychological disabilities, which often have physical causes, are not real, thus the victims, given the inherent power of the court, maywithimpunitybediscriminatedagainstandrevictimizedbythecourt,aswasEdnaJane Favreau, who was stripped of her assets, pauperized and thus deprived of counsel, left to represent herself, and, ultimately, told that her filings with the court would by order of the courtbeshreddedonreceiptasadamnnuisance. Theonlymentionofapsychologicalcondition,sometimesevidentinpersistentlybatteredand thereforeterrifiedwomen,inthecourtadministratorsreportisagoraphobia:TheEighteenth Circuithasassistedindividualswhosufferedfromagoraphobiaandwereafraidtoleavetheir homes. Their unique needs were met by sending a court official to their homes, where they weredulyswornandallowedtoparticipateincourtproceedingsviatelephone. Such is the physical extent of the extra mile paved in 2002 by the Brevard County Court Administrator, the court official who failed to respond to Janes grievances as promised, and whodidnotrespondtoourrequestforhissideofthestory. Such is the arrogance of the powerful in the State of Florida, where the most respected and trustedlawyersandlawfirmsinthestaterunroughshodoverthelaws,deprivingtheweakand poor of justice, providing a pittance for legal aid, while defrauding many wealthy people of hundredsofmillionsofdollarstoboot. Inthefinalanalysis,lawyersarenobetterthanthepeopletheyrepresent,sothereisplentyof blame to spread around, especially in this reign of greed. And there are many conscientious
Page|13

EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST

lawyers who do fight for the underdogs and win from time to time. Yes, there are improvements.Nevertheless,itcanstillbesaidbythepositivists,that,Lawiswhatpowerful peopledo.Andtheystilldoittolegalizetheircrimesagainsthumanity.

Page|14

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

THEFLORIDABAR
EdnaJaneFavreausOrdeal IntheDenofVipers

THE BROOD OF VIPERS


by DavidArthurWalters

You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. Mathew 12:34 Holy Bible - New International Version

Receipt signed by Billy Thomas, Esq.

How much justice would a $500 retainer buy in Brevard County, Florida for a hapless victim disabled by domestic violence, sorely in want of protection and a divorce with fair property settlement? Not much in 1995, for Justice was purblind to injustice in the courts of law.
~1~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

Edna Jane Stewart had a thriving real estate business going when she met her charming beau, Walter Favreau, who had nothing more than the clothes on his back and his Air Force retirement. The marriage certificate had barely dried when the domestic violence proceeded. He liked to smash her head into walls. The violence ramped up: he nearly murdered her by strangulation on one occasion, cutting off oxygen to her brain and leaving her disabled. Walter was charged and convicted, and let off easy on probation. He cleaned out the bank accounts. Jane ran for her life, and hid until she believed she would obtain justice from the legal system. But the legal system, namely the judges, her husbands lawyers, and, worse of all, her own shysters, made matters worse, cheating her out of the legal fees she paid and her marital assets, rendering her pauperized and without legal counsel or aid. Literally toothless, she was forced to represent herself pro se the best she could. In fine, the victim was re-victimized; legal abuse syndrome was added to her post-traumatic distress. JANES FIRST LAWYER Jane borrowed money from her kids to hire Pam Huddleston to protect her interests. The contract fee was $1,500, and Jane expected she would get something substantial; to wit, what she paid for, i.e. justice. I did not expect the court to grant me an attorneys help at the beginning of my court cases, so I hired an attorney named Pam Huddleston to take the case to trial. She was paid to take the case to trial, and she agreed to request additional attorney fees from the advantaged side as allowed by Florida law. Instead, she sold out to the other side and canceled that important hearing for interim fees, and then she went skiing. Jane had confidence in Ms. Huddleston when she retained her; the lawyer had advertised that she was a Former State Prosecutor and a Former Law Enforcement Officer. Jane was terribly disappointed. She filed a complaint with The Florida Bar. In 10 September 1998 correspondence with Patricia A. Savitz at the Florida Bar referencing Florida Bar Case No. 1999-30,325(18C), Jane stated that Mary Pamela Huddleston, contrary to her statement to the Bar, did not represent her for a brief time in 1994: She did not even show up at the pre-trial on February 2, 1994. And it was noticed to her. She took my money and told me she would help me get a divorce for 1,500.00 dollars and represented to me that she could do that for this amount, and according to the contract that we had and was signed by Ms. Huddleston she agreed to ask the judge to have my former husband pay attorney fees if that amount ran out. Completely unknown to me she went in secret to the court house Dec. 22, 1993 and withdrew without a hearing - the rule says I must be noticed of a hearing so I can be present. Jane alleged that that Ms. Huddleston had been known to consort with her husbands attorney, Melanie M. Kalbac-McMannis: In my last letter I told you the case number where Ms Huddleston and Ms. Kalbac were accused of working together while on opposite sides in the same time period. Jane alleged that the two attorneys had colluded in her case to trick her into thinking a settlement had been made. She had no memory of signing any document other than a settlement: Ms Huddleston and Ms Kalbac under false pretenses brought me to their office, claiming they had
~2~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

worked out an out of court settlement, which turned out to not be true as the record proves, Clearly and emphatically and beyond any doubt that document was signed under circumstances of severe distress and coercion. Brevard County judges had attorneys involved in cases write out orders for them, giving devious attorneys the opportunity to alter orders to favor their clients: according to Jane, Ms. Kalbac altered what the Judge Frank Pound had ordered in the divorce case, particularly in regards to the equal division of marital properties. Jane objected to Ms. Huddlestons statement to the Bar that her withdrawal had not hurt Jane: In the last line of the Aug. 31, 1998 letter, Ms Huddleston claims her withdrawal would not affect the clients rights. Ms. Huddleston had in her possession the doctors letters stating my severe condition pertaining to spouse abuse and the aftermath, of being impaired and subject to post trauma stress disorder; she clearly had first-hand knowledge of my trauma and my poor emotional condition. It is absurd to even attempt to make a statement that her withdrawal would not put me jeopardy. The lawyer apparently did not bother to keep a copy of the services contract: Surely, she was required to keep a copy of our contract as I still have my copy. Ms Huddleston misrepresents what really took place. She did not zealously represent me for the amount of money paid. This is obvious, and on top of that she did grave harm to the disabled clients case by canceling an important hearing. There is no excuse for this outrageous treatment to her client. As an attorney Ms. Huddleston knew or should have known it was against the rules to try and withdraw without a hearing being held, and at the same time to cancel an important case hearing was outrageous in her actions as it caused the case to clearly appear that she was selling out to the other side. Jane summed up the events for The Miami Mirror: I was told there was going to be an out of court settlement and to come to Pam Huddleston, but when I got there my attorney tricked me and canceled my hearing, which had been scheduled way back but was piggy-backed with a hearing from Ms Kalbac. Huddleston picked up the phone and called the Nancy, assistant to Judge Pound, and cancelled the hearing. But, no out of court [settlement] papers were signed. It was a trick plain and simple. They were afraid I would be able to get a message to the judge in writing about what tricks they were playing on a disabled impaired woman who needed the laws of ADA to protect her. So, they canceled the hearing so I would not be able to get to the judge. I sent Notice to the judge in writing but Nancy said she was not going to show it to the judge, so I filed it with the clerk of court for the records but no one reads pro se documents. We asked Ms. Huddleston for her side of the story. On 26 September 2010 she said she did not remember the complaint against her. Sorry, I don't know or remember any such complaint. I am in good standing with the Florida Bar. Good luck on helping this lady!! When shown the advertisement that had attracted Jane to her because Jane thought someone who had prosecuted domestic violence cases would surely do a good job for her, Ms. Huddleston asked, Whats the point? She was informed that the point was to get her side of the story, and to see if she might be able to help Jane get justice, she replied: Nope not interested!! !! I no longer live in FL AND I WOULD NEVER EVER GET BACK INVOLVED WITH THAT CLIENT!! Please cease and decease from contacting me past this email!!!! Therefore we do not send her copies of articles about her conduct in the matter.
~3~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

So much for Janes first attorney; Jane floundered around on her own until she found her second attorney and gave him a retainer of $500 to defend her against her husband and his new attorney, the notoriously bombastic, Rambo-style attorney, the late Henry Martocci. We checked with The Florida Bar and found no formal record of complaints made against Ms. Huddleston and Ms. Kalbac. The public record complaint file on Ms. Huddleston, including any public record that there had ever been a complaint, had been destroyed because complaints upon which there are no public disciplinary actions are utterly destroyed one year after the file is closed. In other words, there may have been dozens or even hundreds of complaints made against an officer of the court, but the attorneys record is wiped clean, purportedly to protect her integrity from allegedly unproven accusations. JANES SECOND LAWYER Billy Thomas is another matter, as the Bar did take public disciplinary action against him for multiple offenses against various clients. Billy Thomas was my second attorney, Jane recounted. He sold out to Henry Martocci, and talked about that in front of me. Billy Thomas said he would consolidate the cases and bring closure. My son Joe Stewart gave an affidavit to Mr. Billy Thomas but he did not file it with the court. It looks like Martocci paid him not to help me like he said he was going to do. The 1998 affidavit was her sons testimony about events he had observed. He urged that Henry Martocci be punished by the court for unethical and despicable conduct that shamed the legal profession: If Henry Martocci is any example of how attorneys work in Brevard County Florida, it is a shame I urge the court to sanction the attorney Martocci for his frequent deviations from ethical practices, and not overlook his tactics in this matter; including changing Judge's orders in his favor when he writes them. Why attorneys in your State are allowed to write Judge's orders themselves is beyond me, Mr. Stewart stated. Among other reprehensible things, Mr. Stewart objected to Martoccis racist use of the pejorative term gook when referencing Mr. Stewarts jacket. (We reserve discussion of the late Henry Martoccis bomber tactics and immoral and unethical conduct to a separate article in this series). The relatively transparent, integrated Florida Bar, the disciplinary arm of the Florida Supreme Court which also serves in a representative capacity for all Florida lawyers, produced records of a set of Florida Bar cases under Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC021-2125, which happened to include on the public record of a guilty decision certain cases for which Billy Thomas was found not guilty: In Case 2001-32,017(18B), the Bars Amended Complaint alleged that Billy Thomas had taken a $500 deposit from Albert E. Gibson to inquire into what could be done about a $40,000 judgment against him for child support in Texas. The client called Thomas law office to ascertain what progress had been made, but the attorney did not respond. The clients wife called and asked that her husband be responded to. Billy Thomas then made an angry call to the client, ordering him not to call his office but to wait for a call. Eventually the client, dissatisfied with the lack of progress and Billy Thomas angry demeanor, asked for a refund. Bill Thomas refused to make a refund, said he would invent charges amounting to $500, and threatened to bill the
~4~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

client for staff time answering the telephone. A complaint about the fee was made to the Bar, and the matter was set for mediation; however, the attorney was unresponsive, and did not attend the mediation hearing. The Referee found that no meaningful services had been provided other than reviewing the documents and answering the telephone inquiries. In fact, the Referee found evidence that Billy Thomas lacked professionalism; nonetheless, the Referee said he was unable to prove that he violated the Rules of the Bar. He recommended a not guilty finding. Incredibly, the Supreme Court of Florida approved of this not guilty finding on August 21, 2003. In Case 2002-30,199((18B), the Bars Amended Complaint alleged that Billy Thomas was retained by Thomas L. McGehee, who advanced him a fee of $1,000 to look after his interests in marital dissolution cases in Nevada and Florida. The client had been personally served in the Florida action brought against him by his wife, but he was wrongly advised by Billy Thomas that Florida did not have jurisdiction. Thomas said he would file a motion for lack of jurisdiction in Florida, but he failed to do so, and the attorney also failed to file a notice of appearance. A default judgment was entered against his client, who was forced to find another attorney to represent him. The Referee found that Thomas has provided no meaningful services in the case. The Bars initial attempts to contact Thomas were unfruitful; one inquiry was returned by the Post Office marked Unclaimed. Thomas finally did make an untimely response, seven and one-half weeks after the initial Bar inquiry. The Amended Complaint alleged violation of several Rules of the Bar, including failure to adequately represent, collection of an improper fee, failure to respond to a Bar inquiry, but the Referee found that Billy Thomas was guilty of some sloppy practices, but did not find that his conduct violated the Rules of the Bar. He recommended a not guilty finding. Incredibly, the Supreme Court of Florida so found on August 21, 2003. In Case 2002-31,129(18C), the Referee found that Billy Thomas had failed to respond to the Bars investigation of alleged misconduct occurring January 14, 2002, and had, in effect, thumbed his nose at the disciplinary system. The misconduct regarded his testimony at a hearing before a grievance committee in the matter of Case 2001-32,017(18B), referenced above. Mr. Thomas testified he had failed to protect his clients parental rights; he had failed to notify his client that he had to appear before the grievance committee; he had offered to refund the clients $500 if he would drop the grievance complaint against him; he failed to respond to the Bars inquiries in the matter. For all this a mere public reprimand was recommended and given, and all costs were assessed to Billy Thomas, as per the approval of the Referees report by the Supreme Court of Florida on August 21. 2003. The Referee in making his recommendation in this case noted and considered that there had been no prior disciplinary history; however, besides the not-guilty cases under the same Supreme Court heading, there may have been and probably was a history of multiple complaints for which no disciplinary action was taken for one reason or the other, most likely including the negligence of the Bar; the Referee would have had no knowledge thereof due to the Supreme Courts policy requiring the destruction of all such Florida Bar records including the records that there were records, thus covering up what may have been a pattern of misconduct. The public might have expected something harsher than a public slap on the wrist in those cases. Other attorneys have been disbarred for far less.

~5~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

The Bar produced another set of cases against Billy Thomas under Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC-03-2151, we did not obtain the particulars on each case, but we have the Referees findings as follows: In Case 2002-30,991(18B), Billy Thomas failed to adequately communicate with his client. In Case 2002-31,128(18B), Billy Thomas failed to adequately communicate with his client, and he failed to respond in a timely fashion to the Bars inquiries. In Case 2002-30,898(18B), Billy Thomas failed to provide complete trust account records as per a subpoena, and he failed to respond to the Bars inquiry in a timely fashion. The trust account records he did supply indicated technical trust account violations. In Case 2002-31,361(18B), Billy Thomas failed to adequately communicate with his client, and he failed to respond to the Bars inquiries. He represented the husband in a dissolution of marriage case while representing both husband and wife in a bankruptcy case. In Case 2002-31,724(18B), Billy Thomas failed to adequately communicate with his client, and he failed to respond completely or in a timely fashion to the Bars inquiry. In Case 2002-31,866(18B), Billy Thomas failed to adequately communicate with his client, and he failed to respond to the Bars inquiry. In Case 2003-30,745(18B), Billy Thomas failed to respond to Bar inquiries. In Case 2005-30,305(18B), Billy Thomas failed to refund $30 in costs to a client. For all the above, Billy Thomas was suspended from the practice of law for ten days, not including weekends. He was ordered to refund the $30 and to pay restitution to another client in the amount of $500 probably the $500 he cheated Albert E. Gibson out of. The penalty was absurd. The attorney is presently in good standing with the Bar, and we have no way of knowing how many complaints have been made against him since then and the records utterly destroyed by The Florida Bar because it did not see fit to punish him at all. We could resort to the court to obtain all the records of complaints against officers of the law, although they are now trying to secrete them, but officers of the court abuse the inherent or divine power of the court to protect their reputations. JANES THIRD LAWYER Lindsey Moore was my third attorney, Jane said. He took $2,000 and some office furniture from my son. He was disbarred for harming my case. The Florida Bar promptly produced the following information: In Case 96-31,284, Linsey Moore provided assistance to Edna Jane Favreau in her pro se appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals from the final judgment of the dissolution of marriage; she sought to avoid the sale of jointly owned property and obtain an injunction against her former husbands continued violence against her. Moore failed to advise her of a hearing date
~6~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

in the injunction case and failed to attend the hearing himself, resulting in the dismissal of the case. Moore also filed a suit in the wrong court, the United States District Court, averring that the circuit court judge had failed to provide Favreau, who was indigent, with legal counsel; he withdrew from that case without notifying Favreau. He failed to respond adequately to her grievances and made false and misleading statements: he accused her of perjury, alleging that she and another client had threatened him, and said that her grievances were the result of membership in race-hatred and paramilitary organizations. In Case 96-31,293, Linsey Moore failed to inform his client Newton G. Ferguson, who had been previously representing himself, of a hearing and of his withdrawal from the case, and refused to return Fergusons files. In Case 96-31,706, Linsey Moore represented Norma Vaughn in a suit deemed improper, against a federal judge and clerk of the court, and in federal court he improperly asserted that his clients former attorney was guilty of malpractice. He failed to obey the courts order to show cause why he should not be sanctioned, and the court imposed sanctions on him for filing a frivolous complaint. In Case 96-31,739, Linsey Moore informed a court that he had a conflict of interest in an unauthorized practice of law case, but he failed to withdraw. In Case 96-31,911, Linsey Moore failed to fully respond to subpoena of his trust account records so The Florida Bar could conduct an audit of same. In Case 97-30,886, Linsey Moore, in Wanda J. Moore v. Solomon Joseph Parrish, Moore failed to respond to court orders, failed to respond to a judges telephone call, and failed to attend a hearing or to contact the court, therefore the judge asked The Florida Bar to discipline him. In Case 97-30,915, Linsey Moore took $500 from Tanya Ruffin, who was the sole beneficiary of a will, to represent her in probate, and to act as the personal representative of the estate, to evict tenants from a property held by the estate, a dual representation that constituted a conflict of interest. The eviction action was never filed. Ms. Ruffin repeatedly tried to contact him. He avoided her and withdrew from the case without notifying her. The probate case was dismissed because he did not appear at the hearing. The Florida Bar found that he had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Among other things, his behavior was unlawful and dishonest; he failed to act diligently and promptly on behalf of his clients; he failed to keep clients informed; he failed to protect his clients interests when terminating representation; he represented multiple clients creating a conflict of interest; he violated trust account rules. Incredibly, he was allowed to cop a plea. For all of the above, he received a one-year suspension from the practice of law, instead of permanent disbarment, and he was ordered to show rehabilitation before reinstated. We are not surprised to hear that Mr. Moore got into hot water again after resuming his practice. We find the following allegations in the complaints:

~7~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

In Case 97-31,218 (18C), Moore failed to account for and refund a balance of money in an inmates bank account that he was handling for the inmate, and he failed to respond to the Bars disciplinary inquiries. In Case 97-31,219 (18C), Mark S. Duhrkoff told Moore that he could not afford a $3,500 fee to represent him in a child molestation and police misconduct case he had brought against the city and the police department. Moore said he would take $1,500 down and the balance could be worked out. Duhrkoff borrowed $1,500 from his mother and gave it to Moore. The lawyer just cashed the check, not putting it in a trust account as he should have done. Duhrkoff became concerned about the status of the case and sent Moore a letter, but the client received no response, so he sent another letter demanding a refund and his file, but neither the refund nor the file was forthcoming from the lawyer. Moore did not respond to Bar inquiries. The Referee found that little or no services were performed for the $1,500. In Case 97-31,319 (18C), Moore agreed to handle, free of charge, Herbert E. Berisfords case against his employer for retirement funds. But he did not provide any services, did not respond to his clients inquiries, and he failed to return his clients documents. In Case 97-31,477 (18C), Moore mishandled cases involving malpractice claim, and a defamation claim, against his fellow attorney John J. Malone. He took an action he had not discussed with his client, and Malone found it difficult to find him, which resulted in delays. Moore drew up a motion but did not bother to file it. He demanded a $3,500 contingency fee in one of the cases, but said he would take $1,500 down. He cashed the check the same day he got it. Prior to an important hearing, he called to say he was withdrawing from that case; evidently he had intended to pocket the money and provide no services. The specific violations of Bar Rules cited in the complaint are legion. Moore did not answer the complaints or appear at the hearing the Bar action, so he was in default. The Referee recommended a guilty finding on all counts, and disbarment. Finally, after all this damage and probably more damage for which the records were destroyed had been done to victims of legal abuse, The Florida Supreme Court so held on July 9, 1998. Talk about conflict of interest: At this point we have some cause to wonder why The Florida Bar is allowed to discipline as well as represent the legal profession, to wonder why the disciplinary function has not been split off and handed over to the executive branch of government with nonlawyers in charge of consumer complaints, as has been done in the mother country of English law. JANES FOURTH LAWYER Howard Weiss was my next attorney. We met for about 45 minutes. I paid him to make a call to the opposing attorney. He just sat there after taking my money. He did not do what he promised to do. He pulled out because he would not stand up against Henry Martocci. Between attorneys from time to time, Jane was forced to fend for herself in court the best she could, albeit terrorized by the threat of future violence, disabled from mental and physical trauma of domestic violence already experienced, and suffering from multiple strokes.
~8~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

The paper had published my account of how the court was mistreating crime victims. I wanted and needed a good attorney, but then no local attorney was willing to help me with the cases against my former husband, Jane related, allowing Judge Bruce Jacobus to do many things that were clearly wrong. Oh, yes, there was an attorney by the name of Keith Williams who said he would represent me if I signed over my residence to him, which he said he would not take possession of until my death, but I was afraid to do that, because who can trust an attorney? The good attorneys in town said they were too busy to take my case. They were afraid to deal with Henry Martocci, the attorney on the other side in Judge Jacobus court. JANES FIFTH LAWYER Human nature predisposes us to easily recall offenses and to dispraise the persons offending us, neglecting to remember and praise those persons who have done us well. Highly esteemed professionals might tell us that the bad apples in their own baskets are few in number; therefore we should not blame entire professions for the misdeeds of a few practitioners. Long gone are the Revolutionary days when Kill the lawyers was a common clamor, for lawyers have had a big hand winning the liberties we enjoy, although the Law is still largely what rich and powerful people do. However, now that some of the most respected and trusted lawyers have been exposed as crooks, we do not know how credible the profession is. Some critics including members of the bar believe it is rotten to the core; but it is no more corrupt than the people it represents, and that is where reform is first needed. In any case, we know only a small number of lawyers, and they may have done us well, but we do not make a point of publicly praising them for what we expected them to do. Instead, we love to complain about our disappointing experiences. Yet we do not pay any attention to The Florida Bar or its disciplinary process. Those of us who have done so believe that The Florida Bar, despite the good work it has done, has been too discriminatory, favoring powerful law firms and smacking down criticism from uncooperative lawyers; we believe it has been far too lax, allowing abuses to continue for many years before finally disbarring offensive lawyers; it has been much too opaque due to its destruction of consumer complaints that it chooses to do nothing about. Considerable improvement is obviously needed. After all, are not all lawyers by nature shysters? No, not really. Janes fifth attorney stepped up and actually tried help her. My fifth attorney was Edward Tietig, the attorney the judge would not listen to when he told the judge that I was impaired too much to do my own case, Jane said, showing me a Motion For Determination of Competency filed in her dissolution of marriage case 93-9107 in August 1996. In that Motion Mr. Tietig averred: In the course of talking with Mrs. Favreau and examining the files and correspondence and determining and mental and physical condition, Petitioner formed the opinion that Mrs. Favreaus mental state was such that she could not exercise competent judgment in her legal and financial affairs. As a result of that determination, Petitioner found it incumbent upon him, as an officer of the court, to inform the Court of this circumstance, and he did so by Report to the Court, dated July 10, 1996

~9~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

No one would help me except for Edward Tietig, Jane stated, who really tried to help me although he did not get paid, but whom Judge Jacobus would not listen to. The attorneys I had gotten took my money and abandoned me, finally forcing me to represent myself. I can point out on the transcript where the opposing attorney laughed at me, a woman impaired by her former husbands violent crime. Judge Jacobus bullied attorney Tietig and refused to allow him to talk, and attorney Tietig did not want to deal with Martocci so he withdrew. Judge Jacobus violated my rights as a victim of domestic violence when he refused to allow Tietig to show him I had not been given an Order to show the value of the family assets Judge Jacobus just ignored Mr. Tietig. REFLECTIONS The disciplinary records still intact demonstrate an abusive pattern of malpractice and unethical and immoral conduct. Those records alone give us cause to believe Janes allegations are meritorious. Judges and lawyers bemoan how much the legal system is clogged up by pro se litigants, and they wrack their brains and wring their hands for a remedy to the mess. At least Jane did better than the shysters she was able to hire. At least she created a record that truly reflects the worst nature of the Florida bar. Eventually the court ordered her to file no more pleadings except through some licensed lawyer who would not represent her, and ordered any further pleadings to be shredded. Fortunately she is not in jail for appealing that decision. Despite the official rhetoric about improvements made and to be made, there are plenty of bottom-feeding shysters to this very day, preying on people who can barely scrape together whatever $500 to $1,500 in 1995 dollars is worth today, and then throwing them to the sharks to defend themselves the best way they can. The marital property stolen from Jane by the organized system of injustice in Brevard County and the State of Florida was worth far more than that; the damage she still suffers from legal abuse is incalculable. Most legal victims walk away, give up, lie down and die, but Jane retained her dignity by fighting for her rights, which are the rights everyone should have rich or poor. Hope springs eternal. Jane believes that one day her cases will be reopened with the help of a licensed errant knight after all these years, on the grounds that there was a fraud perpetrated upon the courts. We shall soon expose in some depth the misconduct of the attorneys who worked for her former husband. We have already rendered a brief account of the conduct of one of the judges in respect to Janes case. Our examination of conduct of the judges involved as well as that of her own attorneys suggests that the court participate in defrauding itself; that is, that the judicial system itself is a fraud on the people, the sort of fraud that caused American dissenters to cry Burn down the courthouse! No, Jane is not the only victim of legal abuse, nor is she the worst case. No doubt the number is legion in every county a Roman legion comprised about 10,000 soldiers. We have not heard about most of them. The awful truth is that most of us do not want to hear about their miseries. For example, we would rather write Jane off as a crazy old toothless woman who got what she had coming for marrying such a man and who should just move on instead of bucking the

~10~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

system. If it were not for the grace of God, this could happen to you? it is said, but powerful people believe they are already saved hence are immune no matter what they do.

Indeed, we want to think positively, to leave our bad experiences behind us, to focus on good and to hypothesize that evil is only the absence of good, forgetting that s/he who ignores evil is good for nothing. The Law is essentially what rich and powerful people do. They can afford what is called justice, and can even buy legislatures to legalize their crimes. What can victims re-victimized by judicial abuse do without professional representation, without a professional voice? The vast majority of family law cases, for example, have one side without an attorney; one side must represent itself pro se, and basically rely on the integrity of the system, on the judgment of judges and the good will of opposing attorneys who are not supposed to be their advocates. Perchance the elected judges in Florida are attorneys whom the bar did not discipline and for whom all records of complaints were utterly destroyed by administrative rule of the Supreme Court. Perhaps the judges have become too full of themselves given the judiciarys selfdiscovered inherent or virtually divine power to judge. The innocents can only clamor for mercy so that their innocence will not be treated so cruelly, but there is no benevolent king nor is there a god to distribute the large scale discretionary justice required to balance the scales. Lawyers chip in pro bono services or wash their hand with cash contributions therefor, and legal aid societies solicit funds, yet still there is a notorious dearth of legal aid, and that is no accident. Yes, something may be done about a particularly outrageous case if the outcry reaches the legitimate media. But the organized mainstream press is hardly likely to bite too hard the hand of the system that feeds it and polishes its press shield, or offend too many of the potentates it worships for their power and who constitute its major source of important news. And woe unto not only the clamoring victim, whom few people believe, but unto the heroic lawyer who breaks ranks and blows the whistle on judicial misconduct; s/he may be not only disbarred but pursued to hell and back by the attorney general for criminal contempt of court. Nevertheless, everyone including lawyers must, like Jane, clamor for justice, and insist, as did the Hebrews, that one day justice inevitably be done no matter how high off the hog the offenders are eating, so that one day the officers and justices of the court who have such contempt for the court as to defraud it will have their just deserts on this very earth, and be cast into the same pit where they have dumped the innocents.

XYX

~11~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

~12~

Justice Blind to Injustice

JUSTICE BLIND TO INJUSTICE


Re-Victimization of Edna Jane Favreau Brevard County Den of Vipers Series

September 29, 2010 Miami Beach, Florida By David Arthur Walters Edna Jane Stewart was smart and attractive when she moved to Middle Floridas so-called Redneck Riviera from Ohio, where she had already proved her mettle by becoming a top real estate sales person. She continued to do well in Florida, winning awards for her sales leadership. She started accumulating a small real estate nest egg of her own. All she wanted for the future was a man. The answer to her dreams was Walter Favreau, retired from the Air Force. Walter had been stationed in Europe, where he had served the United States as a coder. He had only clothes and a pension to his name; his previous wife had gotten the rest. But he was a real charmer, and Jane thought she had met the man of her dreams instead of a conman with a brutal side. Of course she married him because she was in love. He helped her with her real estate business, mostly picking up and delivering keys, got his name on her rental properties, and brutalized her. And then he tried to strangle her to death, leaving her disabled for want of oxygen to the brain, and otherwise severely traumatized. His sentence was naturally light, a mere years probation; men were likely to get off easy with domestic violence in those parts, not to mention attempted murder of their wives, providing they had the right attorney and judge. Off to court he went for a divorce, planning to get all the property. She wanted at least half the property, and she wanted the compensation to which she was entitled as a victim under the law. But justice was blind to injustice at the Brevard County courthouse, where she was repeatedly revictimized: insult was added to injury time and time again. She was stripped of her rights and her property, left impoverished and toothless.

1|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

Jane did her best to fight back, but she was written off as just another hysterical nutcase instead of a brutally disabled human being, for she did not appear in a wheelchair or braces or crutches and the like. You see, a womans psychological trauma and disability is not a real disability as far as many men are concerned, even to lawyers and judges who have read the tracts about gender bias; it is just something normal for inherently irrational females, who must resort to hysterical antics to get their way given the overwhelming power of males. Embittered, pauperized, obsessed with the notion that some slight justice might be done some day, at least for other women if not for her, her ordeal continues to this day. She is elderly but she has no peace in old age. No, maam, the years are not golden ones for her; nary has a day shined all day for her; the days are blackened by the horror that wisdom reveals to all too many of us, that justice may be consistently blind to injustice wreaked by the strong on the weak. It is injustice, indeed, for might does not make right where the righteous should be mighty; wherefore the unrighteous, no matter how mighty, are expected to fall: They will have to pay some day, a woman said ever so hopefully to me today. Jane can think of nothing else but her ordeal; the very thought of it brings on the panic that compels her to fight the fight against the brutal truth of human nature which every woman feels from time to time, some slightly, but others even more than she visit the shelters and the courts, peel back the roofs and peer into the dens of vipers, if you would bear witness to the awful truth about the horrible side of the much extolled nuclear family. A woman must fight to be human: She must keep advancing the stone up the hill to civilization, at least to the extent of her innocence, from whence it invariably rolls back down again while the gods laugh at the sight of her plight. And now Jane has been told not to try to get up again, not to re-present herself to the court, not to file another brief lest she be condemned to jail for criminal contempt of court. Sisyphus never had it so bad, for he was guilty as charged; yet he could laugh at the gods, cheat Death for awhile, and make the Sun go up and down seemingly forever. The court has been deaf or surd to Jane, but mind you that her struggle has not been entirely absurd, meaningless or futile. Although she was cheated out of everything in court by pettifoggers and careless judges, she helped get lawyers on both sides of her case disciplined by The Florida Bar, albeit belatedly; indeed, The Florida Bar moves as slowly as the Law, grinding many to dust, presumably for the sake of social stability. Janes successes with The Florida Bar were quite a feat given the fact that she was up against the judicial system kit and caboodle part of her problems at the courthouse was due to the fact that she had blown the whistle on the shenanigans at the courthouse. The Bar in Florida is integrated with the Florida Supreme Court, so the Bar in effect is the court, is part and parcel of the judiciary; it is said that The Florida Bar is an arm of the court in its supremacy, where a lawyer may not practice if not a member. The judiciary, at the apex of its vanity, decided some time ago that the judiciary has an inherent power to discipline attorneys as it will hence is unaccountable for same to legislators and executives, most of whom are lawyers. Even many lawyers who enjoy their monopoly very much think this is a bad thing, to place discipline and the interests of the trade in the same hands, but the most of them cooperate along the lines of the power pyramid those who do not may be excommunicated on trifling pretexts while those who do may get away with atrocious conduct for years and years and even become
2|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

the most respected lawyers in the state. So we may criticize the Bar for good reason. Still, despite of the personal biases and prejudices of the lawyers who run the show, the Bar does discipline lousy and crooked lawyers when their infractions become all too obvious. We shall eventually review some of Janes successes in getting lawyers disciplined, including a notorious Rambo lawyer, an attorney, now deceased, who utilized what is known in the trade as bomber tactics. But first of all we shall discuss the alleged misconduct of her first attorney, Mary Pamela Huddleston, against whom she filed a complaint with The Florida Bar to no avail. According to Jane, after Walter tried to kill her she went into hiding. She was terribly affrighted that he would find her; she said her terror was aggravated by coverage of the O.J. Simpson murders. Walter sued her for divorce, she said, to draw her out of hiding. Barbara Favreau, Janes sister in law, she explained, knew what Walter was up to and informed Janes daughter, who knew where Jane was and therefore could pass along information to her. Barbara said Walter was putting a formal notice in the newspaper that he would get everything if Jane did not appear in court, so she came home, still impaired by back injuries and extreme stress. She was completely petrified by the thought or sight of him. He was already on probation for battering her. She was sure he would try killing her again, one way or another, including by burning the house down with her in it, as he had threatened to do. And he said he would kill the police if they came. He really was a real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide, Jane said. He was not that way, she rued, before she married him in 1985, or at least he hid it very well for 5 years. Before the marriage he was quite the charming gentleman, but the ink had barely dried on the marriage certificate when he turned mean and started abusing her. Enter Mary Pamela Huddleston, Esq., whom she retained to handle the case for $1,500. Pam Huddleston was my first attorney. She abandoned me without a hearing and kept my money but did not account for her time etc. I feel that she sold out to the other side because she canceled an important hearing. There was a Notice for Hearing in court about Florida Statute 61.16, which says if the wife needs help with attorney fees the judge can make the husband pay part of the wives fees to get an attorney. She tricked me into coming to the office for what she said would be an out of court settlement, but it turned out to be a big trick done to cancel that important hearing I was tricked during the conversation into believing there would be an outof-court settlement. When I got there about 4 pm, my ex was on the phone and his attorney, Ms. Kalbac, was in the room. The attorneys, Huddleston and Kalbac, canceled the hearing, and I learned that nothing had been put in writing. They should not have cancelled that hearing. My attorney hid from me when I tried to reach her, and she did not do anything after that. Tricking a disabled person in post-traumatic stress syndrome with severe panic attacks was easy for her and his attorney. When I was back home in my safe place, I could go over things and mostly figure things out, but it was too late for me to get something done because no attorney would take this on - one tried but he was shot down real quick. Jane put the court on notice that she intended to sue Ms. Huddleston (Document 172 Case 051993-DR-009107 Walter Favreau v Edna Jane Favreau, Dissolution of Marriage) and she filed a complaint against Ms. Huddleston with The Florida Bar.

3|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

The Bar has no present record of the complaint filed - Case No. 99-30-325(18C) not even of the case number, because of the Supreme Courts policy of destroying complaint files where no disciplinary action was taken after one year has elapsed from the time the file is closed. Such files are public records during that one-year period, but thereafter there are no records available, nor are there records such as logs indicating that there were any records at all. Once a file has been closed by our staff or grievance committees and has been purged from the system, averred Dan Feldman, Data Entry Specialist for The Florida Bar, on September 2, 2010, we have no records of it of any kind whatsoever, nor have we ever kept such records in any capacity. The Florida Bar does not have any knowledge of the file number, or anything regarding the file either physically or in regards to any database. At this point (after a nondiscipline file is purged from our database and destroyed) for all intents and purposes, the file and any computer records of such has never existed. Please note that with files that have been closed by our staff or a grievance committee no ethical violation exists and the allegations in the given complaint either cannot be proven or the matter does not warrant discipline of any kind. The destruction policy is obviously pernicious, contrary to the public interest in holding misbehaving attorneys in particular accountable, as well as in holding the self-regulating judiciary accountable for misbehavior in respect to that regulation. Indeed, the arrogantly conceived and executed inherent powers of the hierarchically organized judiciary and its integrated bar renders the all-powerful institution unaccountable to the public and is of exceeding danger to everyone concerned including the attorneys themselves. At present we can name several powerful and highly esteemed attorneys who are under investigation for possible misconduct or who were cleared by the Bar of misconduct involving alleged misbehavior that would threaten the very fabric of our social institutions; but if the Bar is queried, they will be referred to as attorneys of good standing with no history of disciplinary action at all. And that is not to mention those attorneys in good standing who have no apparent history of misbehavior yet who have had dozens of complaints filed against them over the years for lesser infractions. That is, a string of accusations may exist indicating a possible pattern of conduct that would give any rational consumer cause to conduct further inquiries before retaining them the market for legal services is far-from-efficient. So the disciplinary files on officers of the court are not only concealed if other officers of the court do not deem them guilty of violating the rules though they might give them a verbal tongue-lashing they are destroyed. Mind you that the records of complaints against police officers, or officers of the law, are available to the public in many jurisdictions even when the officers were cleared; however, there have been successful attempts to make disciplinary records on police officers confidential so that no patterns of misbehavior will show on the records of police officers until they are deemed guilty as charged in the absence of a history that might help prove them guilty. Therefore concerned parties are stashing copies of current records in rooms so they can be retrieved when officers are charged with misconduct. Of course, an officer of the court accused of misconduct may very well be innocent, there may have been no cover-up by the local grievance committee or bar counsel, wherefore there should be some record of the complaint, procedure, and acquittal, just in case the issue is ever raised again by anyone at all, including the complainant. One might reasonably suppose that the accused lawyer would be careful to keep a record, at least of the formal acquittal.
4|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

Since The Florida Bar destroyed the public record of the charges brought against Ms. Huddleston, and our public information is limited to those charges, this journalist contacted her for her side of the story. The Florida Bar gives Mary Pamela Huddlestons address in Sevierville, Tennessee. She was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1990, and to U.S. District Courts in Florida and Tennessee. She is listed as a retired partner on the Huddleston & Robbins PA website. Huddleston & Robbins, P.A. is a full-service family law firm in Melbourne, Florida: A familyrun practice that cares about your family. Family comes first at Huddleston & Robbins, P.A. Not only are we a family-run law office, but our divorce and adoption lawyers strive to bring familial care and compassion to every case we handle. Making decisions that impact your family's future is difficult, and we take pride in our ability to guide clients through family law matters with patience and understanding. I contacted Ms. Huddleston on Sunday, September 26, 2010 by email, attaching thereto an article I had written about her former clients ordeal at the hands of attorneys and judges, along with a plea for legal assistance: Madame: Is this case familiar to you? I have uncovered a document regarding a complaint filed with The Florida Bar against a Mary Huddleston. I'm unable to obtain any record of the disposition by the Bar. Ms. Huddleston responded 7 minutes later, with: Sorry, I don't know or remember any such complaint. I am in good standing with the Florida Bar. Good luck on helping this lady!! Perhaps I had the wrong attorney, so I sent her a copy of an old advertisement, with the note: Thank you! Did you run this advertisement?

She replied 18 minutes later, with: Whats your point? Having both sides of the story is my interest in this particular file. I have in my possession some documentation of a complaint filed with The Florida Bar (Re: Complaint against Mary Pamela Huddleston, Esq. Case No. 99-30-325(18C) for which no disciplinary action was
5|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

apparently taken wherefore the Bar file was destroyed but is publicly documented elsewhere. I figured the attorney involved would probably have some memory (if I sent along the complaint) of the event and might even have a copy of the Bar's letter of determination. Further, if that attorney was still practicing family and divorce law, perhaps she might be interested in clearing up any misunderstanding and perhaps taking on the case. I was somewhat taken aback by her outrageous response 5 minutes later: Nope not interested!! I no longer live in FL AND I WOULD NEVER EVER GET BACK INVOLVED WITH THAT CLIENT!! Please cease and decease from contacting me past this email!!!! It appeared that Ms. Huddleston had been playing coy as to the complaint; even worse, that she was probably lying about having no knowledge of it; that she remembered her former client very well; that she was being disingenuous in wishing me luck to find Jane legal assistance. Apparently she perceived not only Jane but me as her enemy; I concluded that she was not very wise in barring me from ever contacting her again, as I wanted to hand over the information I had about the complaint along with my article on the subject so she could give me a rebuttal prior to publication. I had identified myself as a journalist; the information I had on hand had already been made public years ago; the information appeared to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I had offered Ms. Huddleston the opportunity of rebutting the claims made. Ms. Huddleston is an officer of the court hence a public figure. The public has a definite interest in knowing about the conduct of officers and the court, and about the institution that disciplines them. Therefore the public deserves and is entitled to this information. Please stand by. More information will be forthcoming in The Brevard County Den of Vipers series.

Copy of document from Case No. 99-30325 Florida Bar v Huddleston all records, including the record that there were records, was destroyed by The Florida Bar: Sept. 10, 1998 The Florida Bar 1200 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Fl. 32804-6314 Re: Complaint against Mary Pamela Huddleston, Esq. Case No. 99-30-325(18C) Dear Ms. Savitz: This is in response to Ms Huddlestons letter dated to you Aug. 31, 1998 and sent to me Sept. 10, 1998. Ms Huddleston mentions in her second line that she represented me for a short period of time in 1994, but the record reflects this to be untrue. I would like to know what date she
6|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

speaks of in 1994 for she did not even show up at the pre-trial on February 2, 1994. And it was noticed to her. She took my money and told me she would help me get a divorce for 1,500.00 dollars and represented to me that she could do that for this amount, and according to the contract that we had and was signed by Ms Huddleston she agreed to asking the judge to have my former husband pay attorney fees if that amount ran out. Completely unknown to me she went in secret to the court house Dec. 22, 1993 and withdrew without a hearing - the rule says I must be noticed of a hearing so I can be present. I do not at any time remember anything about a joint stipulation, and I see there is no date on that stipulation; Im baffled as to when it might have been signed. If it was on the occasion that Ms Huddleston and Ms Kalbac - who under false pretenses brought me to their office, claiming they had worked out an out of court settlement, which turned out to not be true as the record proves then clearly and emphatically and beyond any doubt that document was signed under circumstances of severe distress and by coercion on her part. Without my approval Ms Huddleston canceled my hearing before the judge for temporary relief and F.S. 61.16 (1) should have been asked for at that hearing. Why does Huddleston fail to mention this part? On that day I never mentioned Legal Aid nor said I would apply because at that time I still had income from my rental property. This is absurd for Huddleston to be making up this accusation. The rule book for attorneys makes it crystal clear on just how attorneys may withdraw, stating there must be a hearing held and a notice sent to the client. It also goes on to state that stipulation cannot be used in things that are substantial; leaving no doubt those things that are substantial as this is cannot be done by way of stipulation. Instead, for an attorney to withdraw there must be a hearing, which was not done in this case. Why does she fail to address these facts? Ms. Huddleston mentions she does not know if any of these attorneys have ever represented Ms Favreau [me], which does not address anything of relevance to the case you have before you. Attorney Martocci fills his papers with this superficiality stuff, not addressing it also. In my last letter I told you the case number where Ms Huddleston and Ms Kalbac were accused of working together while on opposite sides in the same time period. In the last line of the Aug. 31, 1998 letter, Ms Huddleston claims her withdrawal would not affect the clients rights. Ms. Huddleston had in her possession the Doctors letters stating my severe condition pertaining to spouse abuse and the aftermath, of being impaired and subject to post trauma stress disorder; she clearly had first hand knowledge of my trauma and my poor emotional condition. It is absurd to even attempt to make a statement that her withdrawal would not put me jeopardy. Surely, she was required to keep a copy of our contract as I still have my copy. Ms Huddleston misrepresents what really took place. She did not zealously represent me for the amount of money paid. This is obvious, and on top of that she did grave harm to the disabled clients case by canceling an important hearing. There is no excuse for this outrageous treatment to her client.
7|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

Note on 1-21-94, Docket No. 33, Order for a non jury trial was sent to Pamela Huddleston address; 112 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Fl. 32901. Document 33 in case 93-9107 shows that the orders for trial were sent to Pamela Huddleston on 1-21-94. On document 34 you will find the statement 2-2-94 was the first time the former wife found out she had no attorney because she was abandoned without a hearing so she could tell the judge of her disabilities and impairments and in need of FS 61.16. Ms. Huddleston states falsely that a pre trial was set for 221-94; according to the records this is an order for trial and was sent to her not to Ms Favreau. Check out document 33 of case 93-9107. Termination of relationship liability of attorneys, The Professional Ethics Commission: The attorney must not act adversely to clients interest until the legal representation is completed, whether by conclusion of the clients matter...... As an attorney Ms. Huddleston knew or should have known it was against the rules to try and withdraw with out a hearing being held, and at the same time to cancel an important case hearing was outrageous in her actions as it caused the case to clearly appear that she was selling out to the other side. Its of significant importance to note that [in the phone book advertisement] she indicated that she had been an Assistant State Prosecutor and knew the laws about prosecuting a criminal for domestic violence. It sure looks like she sold out to the other side because she did not make sure the Order for restitution was properly finished to say how much restitution was to be. She sold out I tell you. Edna Jane Favreau EXHIBIT Attached was found an advertisement identifying Pamela Huddleston as Former State Prosecutor and Former Law Enforcement Officer now offering FREE CONSULTATION in Family Law and Personal Injury, practicing at 112 W. NEW HAVEN, AVE. MELBOURNE 725-4207

8|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

EXHIBIT OF DOCKET (In this case I am the Respondent-Petitioner) the R stands for Respondent) 10 08 93 12 ANSWER TO COUNTER PETITION W F FAVREAU 10 12 93 13 NOTICE: FILING FIN AFDVT RESP 10 12 93 14 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT E J FAVREAU RESP 10 14 93 15 AMENDED NTC HRG MOTION TEMP RELIEF PET HRG DATE, TIME ETC MBC 10-18 @10 T 10 15 93 16 OBJECTIONS TO: TEMP RELIEF HRG PET Walter Favreau 10 15 93 17 AMENDED NTC HRG MOTION TEMP RELIEF PET HRG DATE, TIME ETC FRP 11-1 9:30 R 10 21 93 18 MOTION: COMPEL DISCOVERY W FAVREAU

10 21 93 19 NTC HRG: FOREGOING MOTION FRP 10-28 8:30 T W FAVREAU [piggy back on my hearing its not fair] 10 22 93 20 OBJECTIONS TO: MOT COMPEL RESP 10 26 93 21 NTC FILING ANS INTERROGS OF E FAVREAU RESP
9|P a g e

Justice Blind to Injustice

10 27 93 22 MOTION: TEMPORARY RELIEF

W FAVREAU W FAVREAU

10 27 93 23 NTC HRG: FOREGOING MOTION FRP 11-1 9:30 R

11 09 93 24 NTC CANCEL HRG SCHEDULED 11-1 9:30 E J FAVREAUs attorney 11 12 93 25 JOINT STIPULATION RESTRAIN ORD PET & RESP both Attorneys 11 12 93 26 ORDER: APPROVING FOREGOING STIP judge FRANK R POUND JR 11-10 11 22 93 27 RESPONSE TO NTC PROD W FAVREAU E J FAVREAU

11 22 93 28 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

11 29 93 29 NTC N/J TRIAL ORIG ACT; APPROX 3 HRS PET Note: I was told there was going to be an out of court settlement and to come to Pam Huddleston but when I got there my attorney tricked me and canceled my Hearing - that was scheduled way back and it was piggy backed with a hearing from Ms Kalbac - Huddleston picked up the phone and called the JA (Nancy) to Judge Pound and cancelled the hearing. But, no out of court papers were signed It was a trick, plain and simple. They were afraid I would be able to get a message to the judge in writing about what tricks they were playing on a disabled impaired woman who needed the laws of ADA to protect her. So, they canceled the hearing so I would not be able to get to the judge. I sent Notice to the judge in writing but Nancy said she was not going to show it to the judge, so I filed it with the clerk of court for the records but no one reads pro se documents.

10|P a g e

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

THE MARTOCCI FILES PART I In Memory of a Rambo Family Lawyer

HELL ON WHEELS
January 08, 2011 by David Arthur Walters MIAMI MIRROR When I suggested to an attorney that hell on wheels might be an appropriate advertisement for deceased Brevard County family lawyer Henry John Martocci, and said the description was a flattering one in comparison to the contumely at least three of his embittered victims still heap on him daily in terms that I did not care to repeat because I did not want Southern ladies to appear unladylike, the attorney warned me to be careful how I describe the legendary bomber lawyer lest I defame the dead and insult The Florida Bar, the mighty arm of the Supreme Court of Florida that regulates the practice of law. But there is no way someone could be held liable for defamation of a dead person, I said, because the reputation of a person dies with him as far as the law is concerned. After all, it is impossible to injure a dead man. But what about the persons he leaves behind, his heirs and foundations? I was asked. Well, there is some merit in considering that question in the context of
~1~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

defamation, and some legislature may want to address it. Until then, as far as I know, there are no legal grounds that would hold someone liable to anyone for digging up a dead man to hang him in the public square, figuratively speaking I think that was actually done to Thomas Cromwells corpse. And the historical record will show that the tendency is more to praise than dispraise the dead shall we put an end to the praise as well? People may criticize someone to no end until he dies, then praise him to no end, make a legend of him. Even once infamous Tamerlanes reputation has been made over: he is now a hero to some folk, his towers of skulls condoned or forgotten. Some young lawyers may one day come to admire Henry John Martocci, and long for a return to the good old days when, first and foremost, men were men and women were women, notwithstanding the advance of civilization, presumably measured by how well women are treated in respect to men. Besides, I intended to tell the truth as I knew it, based upon public records and a few first-hand accounts. I obtained most of the records from The Florida Bar, and if the Bar was remiss in appropriately disciplining Martocci over the years in response to countless complaints, the insult was its own against itself and not something I conjured up out of thin air. If a lawyers reputation survives him, and the legal profession in the form of the Bar is his reputational estate, then let the Bar sue the Bar for any defamation ensuing from the publication of its public records. The man in question here, Henry John Martocci, intimidated female litigants already softened up by abusive husbands. He threw things, got in peoples faces, pointed at their chests, swore, stalked them in courtroom hallways, ambushed them in court and deposition rooms, made lewd remarks, and resorted to misogynist and racist slurs. Not that he hated women completely, for humankind cannot get along without them, and humans are ambivalent creatures; why, he was allegedly observed fondling a favorite court reporter under the table. And he had a girlfriend when the cause of the first successful disciplinary complaint arose; he married her, though it is believed that the love did not endure long, but that alone does not make one party worse than the other. Suffice it to say that he conducted himself as some men are wont to do given their culture, but are not supposed to do in civilized or polite society, at least not openly. In any case, he was a great prevaricator; he used every dirty trick in the unwritten book to win his clients cases, if they were men, including rewriting court orders in their favor, and intimidating and ambushing their spouses. Will not boys be boys? Will not a man be a man? Will not a lawyer be a lawyer? Does not professional contention render the contenders mean? Does not a litigant want to win his case instead of being taken to the cleaners? Then let him hire a zealous lawyer. Bomber lawyers are also referred to as Rambo lawyers in bar journals. For instance, we found an article by Allen K. Harris in the Oklahoma Bar Journal, entitledDiscovery in Civil Matters Rambo Depositions: Controlling the Breeding Ground for Incivility and Other Disruptive Conduct to Enhance Access to Justice. Intentionally rude behavior and legal literature referring to Rambo have given birth to the modern-day litigator called the Rambo lawyer, named after the warrior John Rambo. David Morrell, First Blood (1972). In the movies a sweat-drenched, disheveled John Rambo fights through clinging jungle vines with guns blazing as he mows down his enemies. In law offices
~2~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

across the country, the John Rambos of the legal world are invading deposition rooms, yelling obscenities at opposing counsel, and attempting to mow down their "enemies" with nasty verbal invectives. The Oklahoma Bar article quotes the criticism of Illinois Circuit Judge Richard Curry: "Zealous advocacy is the buzz word which is squeezing decency and civility out of the law profession. Zealous advocacy is the doctrine which excuses, without apology, outrageous and unconscionable conduct so long as it is done ostensibly for a client, and, of course, for a price. Zealous advocacy is the modern day plague which infects and weakens the truth-finding process and which makes a mockery of the lawyers' claim to officer-of-the-court status. And the conduct of our very own Florida lawyer Henry John Martocci in one example among many mentioned in Part II, under RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DEPOSITION TACTICS: SEXIST, RACIST AND OTHER INSULTING REMARKS IN DEPOSITIONS - THE LITTLE LADY LAWYER.Egregious remarks reported in the recent case of Florida Bar v. Martocci, 791 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2001), involved a male lawyer, Henry John Martocci, who demeaned opposing female counsel, Diana Figueroa, belittling and humiliating her, with comments that she did not know the law or the rules of procedure, that she needed to go back to law school, that she was a stupid idiot, a bush leaguer, that depositions were not conducted according to girl's rules, and that her client was a nut case. Martocci received a reprimand and probation. The client in that case was Florence Berger nee Patton. Diana Figueroa told Florence that the case, which was won but ignored by the Brevard court despite an appellate affirmation, had made her famous and brought her more clients. Florence Patton is currently writing a book about her trials and tribulations within the Brevard County court system, the Department of Child Services, and the local Salvation Army domestic violence center wherein Henry Martocci plays a leading role. She describes the persons involved as the ring, as if they were racketeers. We shall discuss the case itself and the details of the disciplinary case against Henry John Martocci later. Now we should remember that family law, which was at least half of Henry John Martoccis sole-practitioner practice, is rife with unpleasantness to say the least. That is, family law practice is by nature turbulent, and if the lawyer does not develop a sense of humor and equanimity, the emotional demands may work to his psychological ruin. The family lawyer must somehow bring order to a mess and apply to it legal principles which are only part of the puzzle. It is seldom profitable to invest much time in research, hence his practice is empirical, what he has learned will work in court. To add to the family lawyers predicament on the ground is the fact that judges may be of limited competence and confused about simple issues, therefore proceedings are subject to accidents and the process may be likened to a lottery. What one may expect is a result not justice. Somehow the lawyer must profit from all this; and the process may not at all be according to the academic textbook; indeed, it would seem that the profession of law is really a trade: if a person can read and write and has analytical skills, and gains practical experience with a law firm, he might very well perform as well as if not better than a university and law school graduate. The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself, quoth Dickens in Bleak House. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained
~3~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble. In any case, all is fair in love and the Battle of the Sexes. Of course the fair sex on the pedestal is naturally prejudiced in its own favor, as is the brutal sex mired in the mud at its base, so that must be considered when Henry John Martoccis victims damn him to hell. There is no doubt, however, even among men, that weaker sex gets the worst of the battle at the home from brutal husbands, and then are re-victimized by the legal system, especially when they cannot afford a good lawyer. If that lawyer is female too, then may the Lord help them, for the legal system, which is dominated by men, is subject to what jurists call gender bias, a bias that even female lawyers and judges professedly cotton to in order to succeed; that is, a woman may have to behave like a man to take his seat and hold it for very long. I asked Florence Patton why a certain female judge had decided in Henrys favor given his allegedly misogynist disposition: I heard rumors that she was bisexual. I met her years ago when I used to hang out with the assistance district attorneys. She didnt like me then. I also think she was affiliated with Martocci through a relative. In December of 1996, when women like Florence Patton, Edna Jane Favreau, and Marji LeCompte were being re-victimized by the judicial system, the Supreme Court of Florida published Gender Bias Then and Now, Continuing Challenges in the Legal System, The Report of the Gender Bias Study Implementation Commission. The Supreme Court created the Commission in 1994 with the task of focusing on the recommendations made by the original Gender Bias Commission Report of 1990 and its follow up reports to see what recommendations had been acted on. The Commission was naturally stacked with males, lawyers, court administrators, and cops. It reported that equitable distribution in divorce cases was now required by statute, i.e. that equitable distribution of marital assets is now a statutory reality. The Miami Mirrors continuing review of Edna Jane Favreaus horrible ordeal at the hands of incompetent and gender-biased attorneys and judges demonstrates anecdotally at least that equitable distribution was by no means a real reality, not in Brevard County. Henry John Martocci with the help of chuckling cronies on the bench stripped her of her assets and left her indigent, adding legal abuse syndrome to the disabilities she suffered from continuous mental torment and physical abuse, including an attempt to permanently shut her up by strangulation. Her every appeal to have her case re-opened because of the fraud perpetrated on the court was denied; in fact, she was ordered not to file appeals, and it was ordered that anything she did file be ignored and shredded. Thus was she shut up as far as the court was concerned, the record of her further abuse by the judicial system and its criminal disregard of the Disabilities Act were destroyed by the judicial shredder. The Commission noted that spouses without extensive litigation resources often fail to obtain discovery, and consequently are not treated fairly in the dissolution context, and have little chance of reopening the case once that information because apparent. The Commission observed that the one-year limit on a motion for relief from a judgment based on fraudulent affidavits in divorce cases had been removed.
~4~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

Now that would be in a case of intrinsic fraud, meaning that one of the parties had been defrauded. In the event of extrinsic fraud, where the court had been defrauded, called fraud upon the court, Rule of Civil Procedure at 1.540 provides that, This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court. Yet, although there is supposed to be no statutory limit to reopening a case where the court itself has been defrauded, the chances of Jane and others like her of getting their cases re-opened are remote because the courts defrauded were engaged in perpetrating the fraud. How could we expect a fraudster to hold itself liable for fraud? Especially when the fraudster has constitutional independence that provides it with the sole, inherent power to discipline itself. Maybe it will feel guilty one day at the sight of Justice blinded to righteousness. The Commission stated that recent studies and surveys continue to indicate that gender bias continues in the legal profession, and in the courts to adversely impact female attorneys, parties and witnesses. There were reports from various sources, mostly anecdotal, that women are still being adversely affected by gender-biased behavior. Here is something from Brevard County: Joyce Grant, Director of ACES (Association for Children for Enforcement of Support) from Brevard County noted regrettable gender bias remarks and lack of interest on the part of judges in enforcing child support obligations in many instances observed by her court-watch group, in the court room. The judges would have no regret if their feet were not held to the fire by someone. So It was recommended and suggested that more recent surveys on the economics of gender bias in the profession be done in Florida. All this was nothing new: in fact, The original Commission report noted evidence of gender bias in the handling of cases and conduct in the courtrooms of the state court system. So extensive education was recommended, and a Court Conduct Handbook was written and handed out. New Family Law Courts were recommended and established by the original Commission, and the current Commission supported new Family Law Rules, which were adopted by the Supreme Court. We may thank the Lord High Chancellor for good intentions and tinkering reforms. Meanwhile, gender bias continues as long as man is free to sin, free to despise himself in another, and blame that other for his original sin, of being born an individual alienated from the womb. Henry John Martocci, born in the Bronx, and he passed away at age 70 on November 24, 2007 at Cape Canaveral Hospital. He was admitted to the New York bar in 1965 and to the Florida Bar in 1977, and was an esteemed member of Phi Delta Phi International Legal Fraternity, the oldest and most prestigious law fraternity in North America, established in the year 1869 to promote a higher standard of professional ethics, and whose other illustrious members include the likes of Benjamin N. Cardozo, Gerald R. Ford, Robert F. Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, William H. Rehnquist, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. Henry had his allies in the profession. They testified that he was a good lawyer, meaning, first of all, that he won his cases when they were winnable and otherwise put up a good fight. He may have been neurotic; maybe he had anger management issues, yet he was a good lawyer, albeit in want of psychotherapy. His best personal references in the profession even professed that his integrity was impeccable. And when he was forced to admit to the facts of his misconduct after doing his best to skirt them, he claimed that, no matter how unprofessional his conduct might
~5~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

have been, it was not unethical as defined by Florida Bar rules. Well, some lawyers say that whatever is legal is ethical, so there you go. The Florida Bar is naturally concerned with maintaining the dignity of the profession in respect to its advertisements. For example, in its case against John Robert Pape and Marc Andrew Chandler, who ran television advertisements for their practice displaying the head of a pit bull wearing a spiked collar and the telephone number 1-800-PIT BULL, the Referee held that the respondents did not violate the rule against making statements characterizing the quality of lawyer services; rather, what the lawyers described was their personal qualities; therefore, the profession as a whole was not impugned and the advertisement was constitutionally protected commercial speech. There is a big difference (qualitatively and substantively) between quality of services that a lawyer renders and the qualities or characteristics of the advertising lawyer,quoth the Referee. Although the respondents did not appear before the Referee in spiked collars and duly growl at him, they had complied with the rule that portrayals be objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney and shall not be deceptive, misleading, or manipulative. The Florida Bar held that pit bulls are perceived as loyal, persistence, tenacious, and aggressive, and that the advertisement was tastefully done, and appealed to a group which might not otherwise seek representation. Wherefore our advertisement for Henry John Martocci might read: HELL ON WHEELS Henry John Martocci Family Lawyer Feared by Lawyers and Judges Alike Roll right over your Spouse Take her to the Cleaners Send her to Hell Call 1-800-BUY HELL. We may envision him pulling up to the Salvation Armys domestic violence shelter, where incoming victims were given Welcome Bags and were offered legal advice if they need it. According to Florence Patton, the nutcase who got on the wrong side of Henry John Martocci when he was representing her estranged husband in a custody battle, Martocci was in league with Cindy Flachmeier, the director of the local Salvation Army domestic violence program back then. That seemed counterintuitive to me: Why would a woman-hating lawyer want to drum up business at the shelter, that is, unless he wanted to re-victimize the victims there? I asked Florence Patton if she wished, in retrospect, that she had hired Henry John Martocci. She considered the question an insult, and contradicted the claim of his references that he was a man of high integrity. Are you kidding? Martocci was gross and arrogant. He would yell anywhere in the courthouse or parking lot words like f--king lunatic, with slobber running out of his mouth. He was disgusting, rude, vulgar, would talk to or about women about sex. He had no morals. His
~6~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

personality made him appear much uglier than he was. Anyway, court would not be an option knowing what I know. I hate to tell you what path I would have taken. They have pretty much taken my children and my life. Are you saying that Henry Martocci won mens cases but he ripped off women and lost their cases, that female victims were referred to Henry Martocci at the Salvation Army, so he represented not only the abusers but the victims as well? I asked Florence Patton. Yep, thats what I am saying. I know a couple of the women, or rather I knew them. Henry Martocci totally screwed the women over. Director Cindy Flackmeir at the Salvation Army started referring Henry Martocci to victims getting divorced. It was Flackmeir who referred me to attorney Ellen Shipman, who became Flackmeirs Assistant Director at the Salvation Army. Shipman was working there in 2001 I was surprised because she told me she hated the Florida Bar, and was going to teach law at the local university. She charged me a $1,500 retainer and went to court with me for a hearing or two and lost my fight to not have a particular court psychiatrist, Jeff Williamson, appointed for evaluations at the request of Martocci because I did not want a male psychologist, and because another psychologist, Charles Stevens, had already said that further evaluation would be futile and a waste of time. I was shocked when Judge Jacobus agree with Martocci. Ellen Shipman said the psychiatrist was okay, but she expressed her disappointment with the legal system. She told me she was being disbarred she knew that before she took my case. She said she had a choice of being disbarred or quitting; if she didnt quit, she would have been sanctioned and disbarred. Shipman informed me just before one of Martoccis surprise (ambush) hearings that she could not represent me. They had all corners covered in Brevard County. The two, Ellen Shipman and Cindy Flackmeir, were referring women victims to Henry Martocci. Florence Patton says she shall reveal, in her forthcoming book, of which we have a preliminary draft, her perspective on the alleged abuses that occurred at the shelter, including abuses of children during visitations in the presence of the authorities. She said she believes that the Salvation Army directors were bought off, that the Salvation Army center was crooked. Civic leader Cindy Flackmeir did not respond to our query on the matter. Whatever her viewpoint on the emotionally turbulent situations she has dealt with, it would seem that the genders are not as clearly divided as we would like them to be to support the allegations of bias. Of course we might conjecture that some higher power might be involved in the conduct, perhaps money, or loyalty to friends in the ring, and the like traditional virtues. Florence Patton mentioned an F.B.I. Investigation of the Department of Child Services as indicative of the woeful state of affairs. She supports her position with anecdotes that women at the Salvation Army center were generally screwed when referred to Henry John Martocci. I opined that his reputation as an aggressive lawyer may have won women over to him, women who believed he would run roughshod over their estranged espouses regardless of their gender. I did manage to find in his Internet obituary a comment by a woman who thought he was a wonderful man and said that he had won her case. The public forum is full of complaints and praise is not often heard the pill was not only bitter but had terrible side effects. I do remember a gal named Marji, Florence Patton said, going to Martocci and she got harmed by him and he had a lien on her place. I knew Marji from the Family Learning Program
~7~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

which we both attended. She knew my whole story and still hired him. I begged her not too. Flackmeir referred him to her. Marji did not care that he harmed so many other women. She did not care about others he harmed and hired him anyway. When I ran into her and she told me she lost her son and her house and business were leaned, I just looked at her and walked away. I refused to speak with her any further. We contacted Marji LeCompte. She definitely regretted hiring Henry John Martocci; she had not a kind word to say about him quite to the contrary. She also complained about the revictimization of women and children at the Salvation Army center. I was tricked into hiring Martocci, she said.We agreed to a flat rate to file for custody after the divorce case went horribly because a spineless attorney, a former judge, represented me, and due to a nasty, evil judge presiding over the case. It was the director of the Salvation Army center who referred me to Henry Martocci. I hired him to appeal from the judgment of Judge Lober, a member of the Good Old Boys Club. I fought a judgment that there was to be curbside pick-up of my child, and I argued that Only trash is picked up curbside. I asked the court to order visitation assistance for the protection of my own safety and for my son's protection against witnessing any physical or verbal abuse that I would receive during transfers of my child. Even the Melbourne police department wasn't safe, as was documented with the Brevard County courts and with the Department of Child Services. Using a public place is the safest. The Salvation Army center was selected. I finally got my son back into my custody after almost losing him in a truck accident in July 2007. I wish I could sue the State of Florida for assisting with the abuse my son suffered. He thankfully survived it all. Having your children with you is the only blessing that comes from a bad marriage. There is so much to tell, it just never stops. There are so many things average people have never been exposed to or would understand if they were, about how and what is hidden and corrupt in this county on all levels of government agencies and the media. She said she had filed a complaint against Henry John Martocci. Nothing happened with it, but paper trails are good even when the system is crooked; its out there for everyone to know even when it is covered up.When I explained to her that the Florida Bar destroys all complaints for which no public disciplinary action is taken, along with any records that complaints were even made, either to protect the lawyers reputations or to conceal a pattern of misconduct on the part of certain lawyers and the Florida Bar itself, she said, I have the documents. I don't throw away paper trails. Florida Bar personnel sometimes deny it, but many complaints are tossed without being recorded in the system. The public has access to the complaints are recorded and are eventually dismissed, but only for a year after no probably cause for discipline has been found.Consumer complaints against officers of the law, who are considered to be public figures, may be kept public indefinitely even though no probably cause to discipline them is found just recently, some jurisdictions have started destroying such records quickly, so non-profit entities are being set up to collect copies of the records before they are destroyed. On the other hand, officers of the court, whom the Supreme Court once offhandedly declared not to be public figures, are far more privileged and have managed to secrete information against them. In some states anyone who reveals the information may be jailed; and in others, bar associations have condoned the filing of
~8~

The Miami Mirror True Reflections

defamation suits against anyone who reveals the information whether it was made public at one time or not. In any case, the Florida Bar tolerated, albeit sometimes barely, Henry John Martoccis misbehavior over several years instead of disbarring him. The first disciplinary case we shall take up in the next part involves a sort of pissing match between him and an opposing attorney, and takes up the notion drawn by him in self-defense that there is a difference between unprofessional and unethical conduct. -To Be Continued-

~9~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

THE MARTOCCI FILES PART II In Memory of a Rambo Lawyer

UNPROFESSIONAL ETHICS
January 15, 2011 by David Arthur Walters MIAMI MIRROR

PROFESSIONALISM AND RAMBOISM The late Florida lawyer Henry John Martocci was clearly a Rambo lawyer who in his family law practice took no prisoners. Leaving aside all the blather about professionalism, the dignity and integrity of legal counselors, he was more than willing to win at all costs, to figuratively batter his victims and leave them for dead beside the judicial road. Indeed, every dirty trick and intimidation tactic was fair when he was waging the legal battle of the sexes. After all, he was a litigator; good manners do not win cases. Woe unto a poor defenseless woman once her estranged husband put her in Henry John Martoccis sights. If she was not poor to begin with, she would be when he got done with the case, and she would also lose custody of her kids if her husband wanted them, regardless of the record that he had abused them. She would have difficulty getting a local lawyer to handle her case, for he made the practice of law miserable. Even legal aid attorneys did not want to confront him; not only were they afraid of him, he had friends there, one of whom represented him in a disciplinary case. When an abused woman ripe for re-victimization by the legal system did obtain legal counsel, representation would most likely be incompetent; a series of lawyers would grab $1,500 retainers, show up for a hearing or two, sell out and cut and run, as they did in the cases of Edna Jane Favreau, stripping her of her hard-earned property and leaving her to defend herself pro se, i.e. without legal counsel. She got several attorneys disciplined but she lost everything anyway; years have passed but she hopes to get her case re-opened, and has repeatedly asked the government to prosecute the judges for participation in fraud upon the court and for criminal violation of the Disabilities Act. Yes, she said the judges went along with the bomber attorney,
~10~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

chuckling here and there; a judge threatened to impose a small for one of the most flagrant abuses, but nary a judge reported Henry John Martocci to The Florida Bar or slapped him down in court. Florence Patton was also on the wrong side of the notorious lawyer. She said she paid around $300,000 in fees during her custody battle, including $50,000 appealing the judges ruling to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. She won her case and recovered the fees in the appellate case, but the lower court refused to award her costs and fees there, and the judge refused to obey the mandate of the appellate court, to have her estranged husband turn over custody and pay arrearages. She said an attorney collected $5,000 for another appeal, and then threw the case. She was told that the Florida Supreme Court, where the lower court judges father sat, would not hear an appeal, but she pursued an appeal there anyway, and she said it was rejected without comment. To make a long story short, Florence Patton was financially ruined; she works as a waitress now. The movie character Rambo, as we know, was a sort of vigilante who cursed and used extralegal means including terroristic threatening and homicide to obtain justice. Natural law theory claims that legitimate law must rooted in morality, in the reason and conscience true to human nature; otherwise, laws do not have to be obeyed. And there is always the divine law that, expressed as the Golden Rule, trumps ill-conceived human law. Even fickle Zeus reported declared that a man without a sense of justice should be banished or put to death, for all normal human beings regardless of status are equally created with a sense of justice; they expect fair treatment and redress for wrongs done to them. But it is not justice according to reasoning and conscience or God that Rambo lawyers are after; they are after the result; paid by the stone, they will leave no stone unturned to get it. They are legal positivists in the worst sense of the word, for they separate law from morality, and claim that the former is not derived from the later, or, if something is legal it is moral. It is this sort of positivism that legal philosophers say led to the rise of Nazism in Germany. We know the Germans admired Machiavelli and Hobbes. Might makes right: There is no such thing as righteousness in nature; the natural state of man is continuous warfare, the war of all against all, and the only natural right, they say, is right for each individual to fight for his life, using all means necessary to preserve it; the notion of unjust law is absurd, for the law is whatever rules the sovereign power may impose. It may follow that a zealous lawyer may do whatever he believes is in the interest of his client no matter how unscrupulous or immoral if there is no statute or bar rule against it, and may go so far as to say: If it is not illegal, its moral, so dont talk to me about professionalism. Professionalism became quite the issue in 1905, when President Theodore Roosevelt denounced the ethics of the marketplace in law practice and urged the bar to take affirmative steps to rein in unprofessional elements. The American Bar Association responded in 1908 with the Americas first set of national ethics standards, the Canons of Professional Ethics. There was scarcely any debate over their adoption. Critics claimed that the Canons were designed by the professional elite to restrain trade, and in a bigoted fashion; the wave of immigrants and others who were graduating from night schools threatened the power of the bar elite and promised to bring more competition to the trade. There seems to be little success resulting from the codification of ethics standards in the profession. The number of lawyers actually chastened for
~11~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

violations of those standards is tiny in proportion to the number of complaints made, and those numbers are falling as the public realizes complaining is a relatively futile exercise as well as one that can result in expensive retaliations such as defamation slap suits. Well, now, it is said that lawyers are expected to discipline themselves, first of all; and then their peers are expected to play a role in discipline; finally, a complaint may be brought to disciplinary counsels or grievance committees. The attitude that has prevailed since the American Revolution is that we should not expect lawyers to be any better than their clients. Perhaps ten percent of them are rather vicious. Some experts believe that around ten percent of the nations lawyers are Rambo lawyers, so Henry John Martocci had plenty of company in his class. The so-called Socratic Method is taught in law class, and that dialectical method is said to render graduates argumentative and mean-minded sophists who will say and do anything to win their cases for a fee provided their conduct does not violate the positive law, which is generally supportive of commercialism and ruthless competition. Their conduct may be immoral, but as long as it is not illegal or unethical as defined in writing by published bar rules, no holds are barred, and they may behave with impunity in a manner that was once deemed unprofessional. Observe that Socrates, who was the wisest man in the world because he was aware of his own ignorance, did not lose arguments, and that his interlocutors were sometimes his mouthpieces and quite often his stooges, foils to show off the brilliance of his foregone conclusions. But Socrates was not arrogant; he and his companions during dialectical discourse were civil, sincere, conciliatory, interested in the truth, etc cetera. They were not Platos sophists as he defined them: egotistical and antisocial. They engaged in polite conversation on great subjects. When law was a noble profession, a good lawyer was an honorable counselor; he was civil, i.e. sincere, respectful, dignified, honest, and conciliatory. Still today lawyers are supposed to have higher duty, that to the general public if not to the Lord on High, than just to win a particular case; they are supposed to be good citizens, i.e. citizen lawyers. Above all they must be trustworthy. It is believed that the success of the legal system and of democracy itself depends on lawyers professionalism in the best sense of the term. Noble or virtuous professionalism as opposed to vicious or commercial professionalism can be feigned. Lately the most highly respected and trusted lawyers in Florida have been exposed as fraudsters. They had highly developed social skills; for obvious reasons, the fraudsters did not display impropriety and political incorrectness. But Rambo lawyers are zealous bottom feeders who engage in outrageous and/or unconscionable behavior on behalf of clients. They could care less about the noble tradition of the profession; after all, positivists exposed the evils of nobility and overthrew the ancient regime. Alas, they did not see the beam in their own eye. Now we hear that there is widespread dissatisfaction among judges and lawyers at the gradual changing of the practice of law from an occupation characterized by congenial professional relationships to one of abrasive, dog-eat-dog confrontation. The unprofessional conduct of some lawyers can make the practice of law so unpleasant for other lawyers that more than half of practicing lawyers may wish they had chosen another profession.

~12~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

We can only hope that the most disgruntled lawyers do something to radically reform the profession from within rather than take up another occupation. Then their higher duty to the public would mean something. Given the so-called inherent power of the judiciary to discipline lawyers and its independence as a branch, the chances of effecting radical reform from outside the system are slim short of burning down the courthouses with the lawyers in them. The organizations that discipline attorneys and judges have gotten rid of many bad apples, but the public still has too many good reasons to have contempt for the court system and particularly its integrated bars. As for the other branches of government, they are dominated by lawyers, as are the large non-governmental organizations; so what other recourse do commoners have but revolution? Maybe it is not too late: we may find lawyers to take on the power elite. DISCRIMINATION AND BAD LANGUAGE Not surprisingly, Henry John Martoccis name comes up in national and state bar association literature discussing Ramboism. The following reference is to his conduct in Florence Pattons case, which we will discuss at length elsewhere: Attorney made faces at opposing counsel, stuck out his tongue at her, and told her that she was a stupid idiot and should go back to Puerto Rico. Florida Bar v. Martocci, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 843. (public reprimand and 2-year probation). No, Henry John Martocci was not the only notorious Rambo attorney in this great nation of ours, nor was he the only one who relished demeaning inexperienced female attorneys, "I don't have to talk to you, little lady," "Tell that little mouse over there to pipe down," "Be quiet, little girl," and "Go away, little girl." Principe v. Assay Partners, HRO Int'l Ltd., 154 N.Y. Misc. 2d 702, 586 N.Y. S. 2d 182 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, 1992) (attorney sanctioned). Plaintiffs counsel referred to female defense counsel as a c--t, and a--hole and advised her that she should go home and have babies. Matter of Jordan Schiff, Docket No. HP 22/92 Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Dept., Report and Recommendation of Hearing Panel (NY Feb. 2, 1993); see also Matter of Schiff , 599 N.Y.S.2d 242 (1st Dept. 1993) (censure Schiff finding that conduct reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law). The Oklahoma Supreme Court in Matter of Reinstatement of Katz, 907 P.2d 1029 (Okla. 1995) condemned intimidation tactics. The Court was inhospitable toward Scott William Katz who was uncivil and rude. The Court ruled that an attorney who had been disbarred from the Florida State Bar was not welcome to practice law in Oklahoma because of egregious remarks in court documents and in correspondence. The attorney's application for reinstatement in Oklahoma was denied (1) for calling a Florida Judge in a court filing a "m----------- son-of-a-b----;" (2) for calling the judge's daughter "a common whore and trollop,"; (3) in correspondence for telling a fellow lawyer, "Zaretsky: you're an a------;"and (4) for describing a Florida Supreme Court Justice in a lawsuit as "the bimbo, Rosemary Barkett." Justice Hardy Summers wrote, "In an era when many veteran lawyers lament a perceived decline in professionalism, this court does not encourage the practice of law by intimidation. Id. at 1032

~13~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

Just get your foul, odious body on the other side," and "Don't use your little sheeny, Hebrew tricks on me." In re Williams, 414 N.W.2d 394 (MN. 1987) (suspension from the practice of law). A deputy district attorney who told defense counsel in a hallway conversation that I dont believe either one of those chili-eating bastards, referring to the Spanish surnamed defendants. People v. Sharpe, 781 P.2d 659, 660-661(Colo. 1989) (public censure). Neither officials of the bar nor bench have been sitting on their hands. Disciplinary rules were recommended at the national level to curb the abuses, and the supreme courts of states including Florida have adopted them. For example, Florida Bar Rule 4-8-4(d) provides that lawyers may not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic. The national and state bar association published criticism of Ramboism is primarily in defense of attorneys and the reputation of the profession, and seldom do we hear how parties and witnesses themselves are abused. Judicial process is supposed to get at the truth, to bring out the facts so justice can be served, but Rambo lawyers misuse the process to suppress the truth and obstruct justice. They use dirty tricks, such as putting falsehoods in unsworn memoranda, writing letters that purportedly confirm settlements that have not been had, misquoting court opinions, misstate an opponents position, and withhold documents. But the criticism is largely focused on egregious conduct in deposition rooms, where there is usually no judicial authority to oversee the proceedings but the officers of the court who are involved in the misconduct. In depositions, Rambo lawyers give instructions, and make suggestive objections, such as answer if you know or answer if you remember or the highly favored I dont understand the question, that coach witnesses in order to obstruct justice. We shall relate elsewhere how Henry John Martocci physically intimidated Edna Jane Favreau during a deposition, and tried to prevent her from filming the deposition so people could see his disgraceful conduct. Now the courtrooms, and the deposition rooms by association, are considered sacrosanct. But misconduct in hallways, parking lots, and so on does not get as much attention and may not be very seriously considered; it may even be believed to be outside of the purview of the ethical rules, despite Rule 3-4.3: Misconduct and Minor Misconduct. The standards of professional conduct to be observed by members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration herein of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline shall not be deemed to be all-inclusive nor shall the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance thereof. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline. THE A-HOLE AND F--- YOU CASE
~14~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

In the first part of this series, we promised to briefly discuss the first known Florida Bar disciplinary case brought against Henry John Martocci, which involved a pissing match between him and another attorney. The Referee in the case noticed that the misconduct took place outside of the deposition room, and that was a mitigating factor. No discipline was imposed because John Henry Martoccis unprofessional conduct was matched by his opponent, but the Supreme Court took the unusual step of publishing the details to shame the both of them for putting the profession to shame. We shall eventually see that the charges in the A-hole and F--- You Case were hardly the worst ones brought against Henry John Martocci over the years, yet the case is an important one because not only does it give us an idea his temperament, especially towards women in his threatening of a court reporter, it is sometimes mistakenly cited in other parts of the country as supportive of the positivist notion that draws a difference between morality and law, and, by implication, between the high moral standards of the profession and ethical conduct the specific rules of the bar regulating conduct no matter how vaguely conceived and arbitrarily enforced they may be. Theoretically, lawyers must obey those rules; they should adhere to professional standards but they do not have to. Here is the classically drawn difference between is and ought, the real and the ideal of the basic human crisis, that of hypocrisy, without which there would be no improvement to progress towards. Professionalism is a term we often see mouthed in these matters; it is an overarching term that includes legal ethics or definite professional responsibilities, yet it also includes the suggestion that lawyers ought to be civil. Critics dismiss the insertion in bar codes of adjurations to be civil, and claim they are not binding like ethics rules. Traditional jurists, however, insist that law is rooted in high moral standards, and that the ethics rules are merely the lowest common denominator of acceptable lawyer conduct. In Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2nd 1357, Florida Bar Case 1996-30098, we learn that after a partial deposition being taken on the morning of April 24, 1995 was prematurely concluded, Henry John Martocci, representing the former wife in a custody and support case, approached the opposing attorney J. Scott Lanford from the rear. Mr. Lanford had reminded him that the deposition would be continued that evening, and had instructed Mr. Martocci to be there, thank you. Mr. Martocci put his hand on Mr. Lanfords shoulder and said , F--- you, and, after Mr. Lanford asked him to repeat what he had said, said it again, and then called Lanford an A hole twice. The tape recorder of a court reporter by the name of Stephanie McGraw did not pick up the F--you but did record the word Ahole uttered several times. Just before the deposition was continued that evening, Mr. Martocci objected to the presence of McGraw as court reporter. He was heard saying to his client, while pointing at McGraw, Im going to get that woman if its the last thing I do. During the deposition, he claimed that Ms. McGraw and Mr. Lanford had completely fabricated the damning portion of the tape. A witness testified he had seen Mr. Martocci push or point at Mr. Lanfords chest. Witnesses testified they had heard Mr. Martocci call Mr. Lanford looney in the parking lot after the deposition.
~15~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

Mr. Martocci filed a complaint with the Bar against Mr. Lanford and claimed that Lanford had engaged in fraudulent behavior during the proceedings and had called him a liar. Although the tape recording caught Mr. Martocci saying Ahole several times, Mr. Martocci denied he had used that word or had said F--- you, but he eventually admitted using the F-word, claiming that his denial was based on the fact that he had not said it during the deposition but after it was terminated. He said that his uncouth reaction to Mr. Lanfords reminder of the deposition was due to his stress and physical illness at the time, and the fact that the time of the deposition conflicted with his need to attend to his girlfriends mother, who had Alzheimers disease. He showed that he had himself been taken to a hospital after suffering a mild stroke, having a blood sugar level of 1100. Furthermore, he said Mr. Lanford had called him a liar before a circuit court judge. He also pointed out that, during his 32 years of practicing law, 12 of them in New York and the last 20 in Florida, he had only one finding of guilt against him in a disciplinary action, and that over a fee dispute, therefore no pattern of misconduct was evident. However, the Referee did not point out that he may very well may have had dozens of complaints lodged against him for which the records had been destroyed pursuant to the Supreme Courts record retention policy because there were no findings of guilt for one reason or the other. Not only are such records destroyed but so are the records that there were any records. A large number of dismissed complaints could very well indicate a pattern of misconduct, not only on the part of attorneys but on the part of The Florida Bar, the disciplinary arm of the Supreme Court of Florida. The Referee, on December 5, 1996, having considered Mr. Lanfords behavior and having taken Mr. Martoccis physical and mental health in mind as well as the other mitigating factors, such as the fact that the conduct occurred outside of the deposition room and that Mr. Lanford had insulted Mr. Martocci in front of a judge, found that no Bar Rules had been violated, and recommended no discipline. But the Florida Bar objected to Mr. Martoccis excuses, blaming tactics, and unwillingness to take responsibility for his behavior; the Bar argued against the Referees findings but to little avail: the Supreme Court deplored the childish and demeaning public conduct of both attorneys, the sort of unprofessional albeit not unethical conduct that occurs all too often in the profession, and said it shamed the Bar, therefore the Supreme Court decided to publish its finding even though it approved of the Referees recommendation. The court commends The Florida Bar for bringing this type of case as a necessary part of regulating our profession. While the court cannot condone the actions of Mr. Martocci in this case, while reviewing the totality of the circumstances including, but not limited to, the personal circumstances of the Respondent at the time of the alleged actions, the health of the Respondent including his physical and mental health, and, most importantly, the conduct of opposing counsel in this case, the Referee finds that it has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct rises to the level of a violation of Rule 4-8.4 (c) and 4-8.4 (d). No discipline is recommended against the respondent. Now the layman might think that calling an attorney an A-hole and insulting him with the Fword actually violates the part of Rule 4-8.4(d) that provides that lawyers may not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice,
~16~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis. That it did not rise to that level is, as Luther liked to say of theological contradictions, is one of Gods Mysteries. The Supreme Court excused itself, washing its hands of the matter, observing case law to the effect that a Referees findings must be upheld as correct absent some clear evidence of error or lack of evidence, otherwise the court is precluded from reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the referee. Although the Bar had presented evidence of the Respondents guilt, the Referee decided otherwise, based on mitigating factors that the Bar had not disproven. The Referees decision on the facts appeared to turn on whether the profanity occurred during the deposition or out in the hallway after the deposition. Wherefore the Supreme Court, recognizing that the Referee is best-equipped to make a judgment as to the character and demeanor of a lawyer subjected to the disciplinary process, deferred to the Referees judgment in the case. Now we can see that, contrary to subsequent citations of this case, the issue was not decided on the difference between suggested professional conduct and actually prohibited unethical conduct. It was decided on mitigating circumstances, namely; that the wrong of one attorney was cancelled by the wrong of another, and, somehow, pursuant to the judiciarys mysterious ways, said cancellation did not allow either partys misconduct to rise to the wrong level, a level warranting discipline. Still, given the facts gleaned from the Bar record, we believe Henry John Martoccis unprofessional conduct outweighed that of his opponent, and gave definite indications of a bad temper that could lead to serious obstructions of justice. It appears that he was let off the hook for some unstated reason or the other another one of Gods mysteries. Now in our review of the Martocci disciplinary files we are admittedly discussing incidents occurring a decade or more in the past. The legal system does change, although the wheel grinds slowly as more and more people on the bottom are ground to bits by injustice those who occupy the seats of privilege on top of the wheel may eventually find themselves on the bottom as it turns. Times have apparently changed, at least in respect to disciplining attorneys involved in pissing matches. Now both attorneys may be disciplined instead of allowing their offenses to cancel each other out. THE ASS CLOWN AND SCUM SUCKER CASE Take, for instance, how justice was served by The Florida Bar in a recent pissing match between two attorneys who eventually brought complaints against one another Florida Bar Case No. 2009-10487 (13C) and No. 2009-10745(13C), An email flaming war started in May of 2008 between Tampa attorney Nicholas Francis Mooney and Palmetto attorney Kurt D. Mitchell. Mr. Mooney, born 1960, was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1985, is not specially certified in any area of practice, and had no published record of previous complaints. He is also licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Kurt D. Mitchell, born 1974, was admitted to the Florida Bar in 2005, is not specially certified in any area of practice, and had no published record of previous complaints. Mr. Mitchell, then 34, represented the plaintiff in a suit against Volkswagen of America. Mr. Mooney, then 48, represented the defendant. Their 14-year difference in age and 20-year
~17~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

difference in experience practicing law was an important factor in their contentious exchanges. The senior addressed his junior as Sparky, and even worse, as Junior, while the younger lawyer addressed his elder as Corky, and even worse, Old Hack. The more experienced attorney reportedly won the case: a judged dismissed it with prejudice, i.e. complaint could not be reasserted. We could apply their own projections to their mutual conduct: it was unprofessional, juvenile, and even asinine, the base nature we all have been reduced to when angry at one time or another and our high standards are forgotten. The two lawyers were flaming each other in heated email exchanges, their audience being multiple persons in both of their law offices. The dynamic duo had some difficulty pinning down hearing dates in the initial exchanges. At one point Mr. Mooney apparently had to attend to his childs surgery and could not appear on a certain date. Fed up with the delays, which appear to be in part his own fault, Mr. Mitchell called Mr. Mooney an ass clown and derogated Mr. Mooneys special needs child, insinuating that the child had had hundreds of surgeries. He said Mr. Mooneys own language skills were that of a nine-year old, and that Mr. Mooney should not hate Mr. Mitchell but should hate his own genetics. He called Mr. Mooney a jerk and a lying, dilatory, mentally handicapped person. Mr. Mooney claimed Mr. Mitchell was the retarded development of sperm deposited on the back seat of a Ford Pinto. The pissing match went on and on: Mitchell: It is clear you cannot deal with the pressure of litigating. I told you on multiple occasions what time frame I was looking to conduct the deposition. Mooney: Wow, you are delusional!!!! What kind of drugs are you on??? I can handle ANYTHING a little punk like you can dish out. Remember, I have been doing this for 20+ years and have had not a single heart attack as a prosecutor for 15 years. I have handled case loads in excess of 200 cases, many of which more important/significant than these little Mag Moss claims that are handled by bottom feeding / scum sucking / loser lawyers like yourself. I have actually done a jury trial am and looking forward to teaching you a lesson (please call Patrick Cousins, he is still hurting from the ass whooping I gave him more than a year ago) while I know that you have a NOTHING life, other people do have more important things to worry about than little Kurtle boy. Mitchell: Yes, Mr. Mooney, I am very impressed by your email. Oh and by the way the reason youhate me is not because I am a scum sucking and loser attorney but because I am the exact opposite, I am a very competent, hard working attorney who gives my clients vigorous representation and does not get bullied by high powered 20 year defense attorneys who practice form pleadings. Finally, God has blessed me with a great life: I work when I want to, I ride my dirt bike and atvs with my kids when I want to, I ride my motorcycle when I want to, etc. See the secret is obey the bar rules i.e. only take as many cases as you can diligently and capably handle so I can guarantee you I work far less than you. So you keep on handling your heavy case loads and I will go on obeying the bar rules and limiting myself to the number of cases I can diligently and capably handle and enjoying my kids, wife and toys. The hostility was carried over to a deposition taken December 19, 2008: The deposed witness said that Audi of America made money based on the sale of vehicles and parts to dealers. Mitchell interjected and said the statement was not accurate. Mooney said Okay, Mr.
~18~

Miami Mirror True Reflections

Mitchell, as if suggesting that should be enough of that, whereupon Mitchell proceeded to start a heated exchange, saying that if Mooney had an objection to make, then he should make it, as he was not in the mood to listen to Mooneys long diatribes. Mooney said, You can choose to listen, but when you sit there and say that is not accurate, youre accusing the witness of lying. Mitchell persisted in arguing with Mooney, referred to him as a twenty-year attorney, Mooney addressed Mitchell as Junior, and brought up Mitchells email claim that Mooneys special-needs child was a retard. The Florida Bar Complaint against each lawyers stated that The ongoing hostility demonstrated between (Mooney) and Mitchell has served to prohibit them from effectively resolving scheduling matters and conducting the litigation in a professional manner, which conduct is contrary to honesty and justice and is prejudicial to the administration of justice and to our system of justice as a whole. Hence they violated Rule 3-4.3 (commission of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice) and Rule 4-8.4(d). Nicholas Francis Mooney was given a public reprimand, ordered to take and pay the $750 fee for taking the Bars Professionalism workshop, and to pay Bar costs totaling $2,470. When considering the standards for imposing punishment, one case mentioned was the case of Florida Bar v. Martocci, 791 So.2nd 1074 FLA (2001). That was the casing involving Florence Berger nee Patton, which we shall discuss elsewhere. During various times during the course of that litigation, Martocci made unethical, disparaging and profane remarks to belittle and humiliate Florence Patton and Florence Pattons attorney. Martocci actually physically threatened her father in a courtroom confrontation. Martocci was found guilty of violating Rule 4-84(d), and was given a public reprimand and two years probation. The Martocci case was not mentioned as a standard for punishment before imposing sanctions on Kurt D. Mitchell. He drew a ten-day suspension from practice, was ordered to take the Florida Bars Anger Management workshop, and to pay Bar costs of $1,998. WHO CARES ABOUT BAD MANNERS OF LAWYERS? So lawyers have bad manners. So what? Who cares about lawyers? If the kitchen is too hot for some of them, let them get out of it. Let them destroy one another if they can! But we may need a lawyer some day, and we do not want to be the collateral damage of their bad tempers. Still, a litigant may not care if his attorney hurts someones feelings when the misconduct is intentionally or habitually done by a Rambo lawyer to win his case. My side is the just one, so let justice be done by any means! If there are Rambo lawyers on both sides, a hell of a battle is bound to ensue. All too often the party on the other side appears pro se, has no legal experience hence is a sheep among wolves. We have advertised the late Henry John Martocci as Hell on Wheels in the previous part of our series. In our next part we shall go from bad manners to conduct so unprofessional over a protracted period of time that it will give us cause to wonder at the veracity of the Bar officials when they refer to some recent case as the most egregious they have ever seen.

~19~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

HELL ON WHEELS LAWYER SCORCHED LEGAL GROUND


by David Arthur Walters Edna Jane Favreau, disabled by her former husbands violence including head banging and strangulation in a vicious assault and battery and attempted murder for which he got a slap on the wrist from the criminal court, was duly re-victimized by several judges and lawyers in Brevard Countys civil court, including by her own lawyers, who took her cash and sold her marital property interests out at the behest of her former husbands so-called Rambo or bomber lawyer, the late Henri Martocci, who has been otherwise characterized as a hell on wheels lawyer. We do not regret criticizing a dead mans misconduct here, for we believe the deceased shall do the living a great deal of good from beyond the grave if his misconduct is examined as exemplary of the deplorable current behavior of many lawyers unduly tolerated by their respective judicial systems, judiciaries careful to promulgate their self-derived, inherent power to discipline their own kind without interference from the executive and legislative branches, not to mention The People, who are increasingly betrayed by all three, colluding branches of the ruling elites, lawyer-run government. Several persons complained about Martoccis egregious conduct to The Florida Bar, which is an integral part of the Florida Supreme Court, an integrated bar with a colossal conflict of interest inasmuch as it not only licenses and disciplines attorneys but also represents their political and economic interests; especially the overriding interests of powerful, influential law firms, on which no files are kept because they are unregulated or not subject to discipline because, as Florida Director of Lawyer Regulation Kenneth Marvin explained it in email on October 16, 2009, when questioned about Greenberg Traurig in regards to its role in Allen Stanfords massive fraud: only individual lawyers are licensed. Therefore it appears that the Bar cannot or will not answer any inquiries that if answered might suggest that attorney misconduct is motivated or perpetuated by the organized, narcissistic submergence of individual consciences in powerful law firms or pools. Greenberg Traurig, by the way, has represented The Florida Bar. We The People are supposed to trust lawyers to discipline themselves, yet we have seen the trust broken in Florida, where some of the most trusted and powerful lawyers in the state have been
~1~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

exposed as malignant fraudsters. To wit, the Florida Bar was sleeping at the bar, ignoring the worst albeit most trusted miscreants, although it did disbar a number of small practitioners after they were caught stealing clients money. Henri Martocci was a large, intimidating man, but he was a small fry not associated with a big firm; still, he managed to do a lot of damage with his slash-and-burn tactics, and his success was due in part to an informal pooling of local interests that the Florida Bar could have detected via simple database analyses. But alas, the Bar is interested only in individual attorneys, one at a time, and not in the conspiracy that has silently subjugated the entire population to a ravenous professional monopoly bound by its political-economic nature to advance the vested interests of the wealthy elite to the detriment of the less fortunatenotwithstanding many outstanding exceptions for which lawyers deserve praise, the law is what rich people do and poor people suffer. The Florida Supreme Courts opinion on one of the complaints brought to the Florida Bar against Martocci, an opinion occasionally cited throughout the United States, made a distinction between unprofessional and unethical conduct. The matter at hand appertained to a spat between two attorneys, one of them being Martocci. In what has been called The A-hole and F--- You Case, or The Florida Bar v Martocci (699 So.2nd 1357), the Court deplored the childish and demeaning public conduct of both attorneys, the sort of unprofessional albeit not unethical conduct that occurs all too often in the profession. Why, the affair shamed the Bar, said the Court, therefore the Court decided to publish its finding in the case to shame the lawyer even though it approved of the Referees not guilty recommendation. The court commends The Florida Bar for bringing this type of case as a necessary part of regulating our profession. While the court cannot condone the actions of Mr. Martocci in this case, while reviewing the totality of the circumstances including, but not limited to, the personal circumstances of the Respondent at the time of the alleged actions, the health of the Respondent including his physical and mental health, and, most importantly, the conduct of opposing counsel in this case, the Referee finds that it has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct rises to the level of a violation of Rule 4-8.4 (c) and 4-8.4 (d). No discipline is recommended against the respondent. For shame. And no discipline was imposed in a complaint that Jane filed against Martocci in 1998, Case No. 1999-30139. The grievance committee, citing the distinction between ethical and professional behavior made in 699 So.2nd 1357, found no cause to discipline Martocci, but gave him a letter of advice instead: You are strongly advised to tread carefully when dealing with unrepresented parties. Your antics herein were clearly designed to intimidate and harass the complainant and if taken further could have lead to a finding of probable cause. Your action in this matter, although not clearly unethical, put all attorneys and the legal profession in a negative light in the publics perception and were not in line with your oath of admission to abstain from all offensive personality. For shame. Martocci himself did not get away with citing his own case (699 So.2nd 1357) when defending himself in Florida Bar Cases 1998-32,033(18B) and 1998-32,145(18B), involving a dissolution of marriage case in which he represented Francis Berger. Martocci had made disparaging and humiliating remarks to Florence Berger and her attorney Diana Figueroa. Witnesses said he called Mrs. Berger a nut case, made facial gestures and stuck out his tongue at her; berated her attorney, saying she did not know the rules of procedure nor the law, that she was stupid , an
~2~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

idiot, a bush leaguer who should go back to Puerto Rico, advised her that depositions are not conducted under girls rules, grabbed a telephone from her hand, calling her a bitch; called her father (Mr. Patton) the father of that nut case, threatening him physically by getting in his face and screaming at him, a confrontation that only ended when broken up by a Bailiff. Ms. Figueroa had tried to intervene, but Martocci ordered her to go back to Puerto Rico. There were previous disciplinary complaints against Martocci, but the referee said that previous disciplinary cases against him had not been taken into consideration in making the recommendation for discipline in this. Martocci admitted that he had lost control but he said he would not get off the cases no matter what, the very cases that he should have gotten out of before the problems before things escalated, problems he did not seem to know he had. His threatening and disparaging behavior was unethical and prejudicial to the administration of justice. However, the referee noted that Martocci had a reputation as an able lawyer, and since there were no prior disciplinary measures or convictionsdespite previous complaints broughthe recommended a reprimand and two years probation along with mental health sessions and anger management courses. The Supreme Court handed out a public reprimand and two years probation, another wrist-slap. For shame. I contacted Florence Patton and asked her if she wished that she had hired Henry John Martocci, given that he was hell on wheels whose scorched earth policy might have won her case, and that his colleagues had testified to his integrity or utter devotion to clients. She considered the question an insult, and contradicted the notion of his integrity. Are you kidding? Martocci was gross and arrogant. He would yell anywhere in the courthouse or parking lot words like f--king lunatic, with slobber running out of his mouth. He was disgusting, rude, vulgar, would talk to or about women about sex. He had no morals. His personality made him appear much uglier than he was. Anyway, court would not be an option knowing what I know. I hate to tell you what path I would have taken if I had known then what I know now. They have pretty much taken my children and my life. She said that her lawyer, Diana Figueroa, told her that her case, which was won on appeal but ignored by the Brevard court below presided over by a Martocci crony, had made her famous and brought her more clients. Ms. Patton is currently writing a book about her trials and tribulations within the Brevard County court system, the Department of Child Services, and the local Salvation Army domestic violence center wherein Martocci played a leading role. She describes the persons involved as The Ring, as if they were racketeers. The self-serving disciplinary farce is obvious to anyone who senses injusticeZeus recommended to the ancient Greeks that anyone without a sense of justice be executed or banishedbut not so obvious to the lawyer trained in the Sophist Method of American law schools. No doubt many complaints filed against Martocci were destroyed pursuant to the Florida Supreme Courts retention policy, which mandates that its disciplinary arm destroy disciplinary files where no guilt is found, ostensibly to protect innocent attorneys, but in our opinion also to cover up the Florida Bars negligence and corruption and to conceal patterns of misconduct that would be apparent with the retention of all consumer complaints. We cannot state that as a matter of fact because the Supreme Court of Florida has its strong arm destroy the facts, the very last thing an innocent institution would do unless protected by the inherent powers of the court when it comes to its own misconduct.

~3~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

In any case, Martocci was allowed to continue with his scorched earth policy for a long time, leaving countless victims in his wake. Certain Brevard County judges and lawyers either winked or joked about comrade Martoccis unprofessional and unethical behavior, and blocked Janes access to justice, violating her right to due process, and eventually stripped her of her hardearned property, leaving her an impoverished disabled, toothless old lady to defend herself without benefit of legal counsel. She did her best despite her disability and lack of professional training to educate the judges about the rules and laws they never read or failed to follow, but her efforts fell on deaf ears for the most part. A judge, for appearances sake, order Martocci to stop abusing Jane, and one judge even imposed a small fine, but the abuse continued and the judges overlooked it. The courts finally determined that any of her further pleas and appeals must be shredded unread; she was ordered to shut up unless represented by counsel denied to her. Yet still today, after many years have passed and recovery rendered hopeless, she will not abandon her cause, which is, unfortunately, the cause of thousands of impoverished women left to fend for themselves in conservative backwater courthouses. Some of the judges therein are blessed by the attorneys they have served, and are elevated to high positions in the state judiciary. Now the reader will find below quotes from a brief and an affidavit Jane filed with the court a dozen years ago during her desperate effort to gain justice and the recovery of her propertyshe alleged that the lawyers and judges resorted to tricks of the trade and perpetrated a fraud on the court that finally left her hard-earned property, her lifes savings, in the hands of her former husbands new wife after he died. Please be patient while reading Janes prolix and somewhat redundant affidavit, and get a sense of the panicked state of mind she must have been in while witnessing and writing about another abused woman being victimized by an officer of the court. Also keep in mind that she suffers organic damage from her former husbands abuse, due to a lack of oxygen supply to the brain while being strangled, and that she has been diagnosed with abductor spasmodic dysphonia, a symptom in her case being a tendency to hypergraphia, i.e. it is difficult for her to speak but she can write up a storm. In their book Hysteria or Pithiatism, published in 1918 by the University of London Press as a Military Medical Manual, neurologists Joseph Babinski and Jules Froment, concerned with the problems military surgeons faced in the Great War, discussed the etiology of such phenomena as shell shock and combat hysteria. Of particular interest was their observation that hysterical phenomena may be caused by suggestion, hence a new term, pythiatism, was coined from the Greek words meaning I persuade and curable. The new tag suggested that symptoms could be caused and eliminated by the influence of suggestion, to differentiate it from the usual view of hysterical behavior, that it involved the natural activity of the organs not influenced by mere talk. In other words, hysterical behavior might be psychogenic, something a psychologist might address rather than a medical doctor, although a psychiatrist might be a better choice. In those days, the syndrome Jane suffers from would be called hysterical mutism. We learn from the Military Manual that, when showing a woman suffering from hysterical mutism at one of his Tuesday lectures, neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot identified the hysterical mutism syndrome as follows: "Not only has it become impossible for her to articulate a single word in a loud or a low voice, but she is even incapable, in spite of all her efforts, of emitting any laryngeal sound or noise whatever. It is true that she will still have a means of communicating with us by
~4~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

an intelligent pantomime, or what is still better by writing, for although there is an absolute motor aphasia, the faculty of expressing herself by writing has, in striking contrast, remained perfectly unaffected, as you will see in a moment. Now in Janes case, the ability to write is more than unaffected; it is enhanced, overcompensating for her speech impairment. Nowadays, the cause of her unusual behavior might be attributed to an abnormality in the brain rather than a psychological dysfunction, something that Babinski was careful not to completely discount. Add Judicial Abuse Syndrome, a newly recognized post-traumatic stress disorder induced by experiences with the judiciary, to the mix, and we shall better understand Janes shell shock and combat hysteria, and then give credence to the method of the madness that is not incoherent after all but is rather a redundant expression of the truth about an abusive judicial inquisition that would make anyone mad if subjected to it.

Many judges do not read or follow the rules requiring them to admonish attorneys for unprofessional behavior and turn them into the Florida Bar for ethical violations. Lawyer conduct that is unprofessional and uncivil must be turned into the proper authorities. No one should have to deal with ruthless situations which only display lawyers' ignorance of the rules or their mean-spiritedness, or both. For instance, a citizen of the United States should not have to tell a judge to sanction counsel if he sees him throwing documents at someone, and tell him that if the offensive behavior persists, he will recess the hearing until assured the lawyer can act a like grownup, or admonish counsel that name-calling and comments about the opposition's personal appearance will not be tolerated the judge should sanction the attorneys right then and right there when that kind of thing happens. And a lawyers scorched earth policy, being equivalent to burning homes and leaving residents nothing for survival, which is what happened to me in Brevard County courts, should be severely dealt with by the court. [Martocci] completely did gross and egregious misleading [things] to the court about issues to trick the court and the judge into signing Orders and documents that are unlawful The attorney (see case SC95,315 of the Florida Supreme Court) has been found guiltyof doing things that was prejudicial to the administration of justice under the Rule 4-.8.4(d) i.e., obstructing justice. [My] case is about attorney misconduct and misrepresentation and has been for a long time! The 5th DCA does not want to address these things, and I dont exactly blame them for it is convoluted and it is egregious. But now that the Supreme Court has made their ruling on whether the attorney (Martocci) has a pattern of misconduct and misrepresentation, it is past time to look at my case in a light that is fair without convoluted and fraudulent matters on the case. Said attorney was found guilty. See page 6 of the Supreme Court of Floridas Order, in Case SC95-315... Under F.S. 960.05 [the statute provides rights to crime victims] it would seem that something needs addressed about the Affidavit of witness to the Martocci Commotion and Mayhem just outside the judges chambers and in the court hallway on May 23, 2001, just after the Hon. Judge Torpy told the attorney, Mr. Martocci, that nothing would be changed in his visitation Orders
~5~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

that day, and gave Ms. Paton indication that it looked like her former husband might be in violation of his court orders for not allowing her children to visit their Mother on Mothers Day and the week end before, at the hearing where Ms. Paton Noticed the Court in her affidavit that basically said attorney (Martocci) has been engaging in a pattern of misconduct, and that he was lying to and misleading the court about her children and herself and that both Mr. Martocci and his client is continuing to obstruct justice in her case, and in so doing these types of things that are completely contrary to the law, e.g. telling his client to disobey the court Orders about her visitation that was court ordered being misconduct. I heard attorney Mr. Martocci announce that he told his client to just disobey those court orders about the visitations more than once.

Affidavit of witness to the Martocci commotion and mayhem just outside the judges chambers and in the court hallway on May 23, 2001 The following is what I saw happen and heard just after it was suggested to Ms. Paton by said attorney to stay and set a date for the next hearing to finish with the examination of the witness Ellen Paul from the Salvation Army staff. I was in the first hallway just outside the judges chambers with the door open, after holding the door open to let Mr. Berger and his girlfriend go by me As they left that hallway while going into the next hallway, I turned back to look for Ms. Paton and then I saw Mr. Martocci get up in the little womans (Ms. Paton) face, very close up, and say very loudly, You will tell me, now, who the witness will be!!! Also her daughters were being yelled at by Mr. Martocci then they were beside Ms. Patonand the young ladies were trying to get their mom out of the room. They were beside her and were trying to escort Ms. Paton outside away from the bombastic mayhem that was taking place, and it looked like the attorney was getting up in their faces also. It appeared to me Mr. Martocci was out of control, and he kept repeating to Ms. Paton, in a loud voice, You will tell me now! in an awful loud and intimidating manner, as is his usual egregious gross, overbearing manner. But soon it became clear it was not just ridiculous and silly the way he was yelling. It went from silly to being obnoxious and mean for him to get up in her face. This ruthless behavior was meant to do damage to the already shaking little lady, who is a victim of the crime of domestic violence that has PTSD and panic attacks. At first one is inclined to laugh at the silly way the attorney tries to push people around in the courthouse, here towering over the young ladies and also over Ms. Paton and shaking his finger in her face real close up, as if he was trying real hard to get power and control of things through intimidation tactics. But this is what is known in the court as Bomber Tactics. And all this was done in front of the office personnel that are in the area of the outer office. Remember, they were asking the JA to the judge for a time to finish the hearing of May 23, 2001. One does have to wonder why the judge could not take time to finish the testimony in the best interest of the children. However, Ms. Paton, as calmly as she could under the stressfulness of the circumstances, said to Mr. Martocci that she would let him know as soon as she could. He then he got up even closer
~6~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

to her face, which is petite compared to his large face. Hers is quite small and he is very tall/large compared to her size of 5ft. 1 in. Attorney was behaving like a terrorist right out of the movies, just like in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film, and it clearly seemed he meant to do harm to this lady. Her funds have run out and so did her attorneys run out on her.... Mr. Martocci has churned the case and nothing is settled that would make it in the best interest of the children. He clearly seemed to be trying to intimidate her with the Bomber Tactics the Florida Bar articles talk about in their Florida Bar Journal. Next, as Ms. Patons daughters tried to escort her out of the judges outer room, Mr. Martocci kept following her very close behind. He just kept on talking and talking and would not stop. We tried to let him by so we could wait till he left the area but instead of going by he just stopped and would not pass on, while still talking in a mean-spirited voice all the time. This attorney truly has a pattern so he knows he is doing harm and damage. He was following us as a stalker follows someone. If the attorney would have been in accordance with his professional rules of conduct (and not being rude and disrespectful of the opposing sides rights the result would have been different on that day. But instead he has a goal of injuring and damaging people (especially victims of abuse who shake) instead he turns things into a painful situation. If only he would have let us leave the area alone and dropped back while we were going down the long hallway but instead he was breathing down our necks saying things about the Berger case and about my case. I had not spoken to him at all. Nor had I said his name. I just kept looking forward and walking forward. Next thing I knew he was calling out my name loudly and asking me if I remembered something about how he had been able to see to it that I did not get anything from my former husband in my case and laughed, as in letting me know it was because he was able to stop me from getting anything. I never looked back and I did not respond to him but he kept on loudly saying my name out in the courthouse hallway; not wanting to respond to him, I just ignored him. I was facing the elevators and still never looked back, but when I stopped to try and get him to go on ahead again, he then came up to me and directly got in my face saying disparaging things in a threatening manner while trying to get me to answer him, and he asked me more questions, trying to intimidate me as he started frothing at the mouth. And I did not listen to what he was saying. I just kept my back against the wall trying to get him to go on by, and I said these words: Mr. Martocci, you know very well the judge made out an Order for me that says [you] are not supposed to belittle me and that [you] are not to get up in my face and say things to me. I stopped to let him by but he would not go by. I wanted him to leave me alone and I told him again to leave me alone. I became aware things were urgent when [Martocci] started frothing at the mouth. No victim should be put through all this. It is not what the law book says is supposed to be going on if a woman is a victim of spouse abuse and battery. The Brevard Court system personnel need more training on what to do to look after the victims here. I told the judge [about the events described here] but he did not do anything.

~7~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

After that he just got louder and louder and we tried to move towards the elevator because it was plain to see he was not going to leave us alone. It felt like he was trying to stay behind us, and that he was trying to herd us on the elevator like he did to Ms. Paton and her attorney in 1998. See SC95-315 where he was found guilty of misconduct. I simply would not be able be on an elevator with the attorney that is out of control of himself so badly. I just could not ever get on the same elevator with [Martocci] so I stood over by the wall and shut my eyes, and I remember thinking, this is a nightmare, but I could still hear what was going on and the loud yelling by [Martocci] did not stop even after he got on the elevator. When the Bailiff got there I got behind the Bailiff and I peeked around to see if the attorney was going to leave the area. Just before the Bailiffs got there, Mr. Martocci had walked over to the stairway door where his client, Mr. Berger, was with his new girlfriend (I dont remember her name), and also by the stairs door was Mr. Martoccis secretary. I just could not stand it anymore, and I began to panic, and I called for a Bailiff and started looking for a Bailiff. I said, Where is the Bailiff? We need a Bailiff. I noticed that the receptionist in the front hall, beside the elevator, was on the phone and seemed to be calling for a Bailiff, for she was all bent over under her desk as if she was trying to say something to the person on the other end so they could hear her over the loudness of the attorneys yelling and all the noise that was going on in the hallway. [Martocci] was acting like a school yard bully, yelling at everyone in sight. As we went to go on the elevators, Mr. Martocci moved over to his client and was over by the stairs, and he looked like he wanted to use the stairs, and it looked like Mr. Berger wanted Mr. Martocci to go down that way with him, but Mr. Martocci loudly said No! Im not going that way. Im going to use the elevator! And he said it in a mean-spirited way. And he moved back over to where we were, so we all scattered back down the hallway from where we had came. Next thing I knew there was two Bailiffs, and then a third one came. When the Bailiffs appeared, Mr. Martoccis secretary immediately said to Mr. Martocci: Mr. Martocci get on the elevator! And she was able to get him to go because the Bailiffs were there by that time. But just as Mr. Martocci was about to go down in the elevator and the doors were closing he yelled outit was really, really loudIm going to bust her ass! And Ms. Paton seemed very upset at all this. She is a petite lady and we could [Martocci] was yelling at the little lady just to intimidate, frighten, and harass her. The attorney should know by now he cant hold his temper, and he should not get up in peoples faces and try to make them do things, like tell him something right now. Ms. Paton tried to stay calm but it was easy to see he had done her damage emotionally. She later went to the injunction office and they told her to come back tomorrow. Ms. Paton was shaking when she left the courthouse, escorted by a Bailiff, and did not return to her work for quite some time after that. About dark I stopped by on my way home a few hours later and she was still not at work yet.

~8~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

I still have that Order where Mr. Martocci was Ordered not to berate me or yell at me or get up in my face or intimidate me in any waysee Bomber Tactics with a copy of the judges Order to have him sanctioned for disobeying those same judges orders. This is a constant thing with this attorney, and with the new attorney. I still panic and shake when I must to go to court. It seems very evident he does it on purpose, intentionally to intimidate victims and especially victims of spouse abuse, just as he did the same thing to me at my hearings also. One would only have to look at the records in the court to prove all this is true. In Florida Supreme Court case 88,180, he says he [would] get that woman if its the last thing I do. And on the transcript of Florida Supreme Court case 95,315, he even tells in so many words that he does not think it is so bad to belittle or say mean degrading things to women, with words like Henhouse S - - - And it is no secret that he uses the B - - - -word a lot when addressing women. He even called me crazy at a deposition, in front of an officer of the court, and while he was under Oath he denied doing that. Mr. Martocci has many times used disparaging words when calling out my name in the courthouse hallways. He is verbally abusive and uses sexist, words and ethnic insults and unethical behavior designed to belittle and humiliate women, especially victims of abuse. And yes there is proof of what I am saying. And there was even a witness to the above. It is on a video tape and was sent once to the Orlando [office of the Florida Bar], but the local friends or buddies looked the other way and let him off. And when the same video tape was sent to the [headquarters of] the Florida Bar in Tallahassee, it went missing, [it] got lost according to Florida Bar member Ms. [Kathy Lee] Kilpatrick [Chief Disciplinary Counsel about whom several complaints had been made. For example, see Larson v The Florida Bar, SC02-1598, wherein it was averred that she employed a standard Florida Bar ploy to get rid of a complaint against an attorney: dismissing a complaint by stating it was just a fee dispute not subject to disciplinary action.] In Orlando, Ms. Robin Martin, secretary to Ms. Brown-Lewis, told me she could plainly hear [that] the attorney had said I was crazy, but the attorneys there just let it go; the local guys just fluffed it off and let him off. After that the video was sent to the Tallahassee Bar but they said they lost the video. Ms. Kilpatrick wrote me a letter. It then became very apparent to me the people at the Bar dont want to allow a pro se [selfrepresented litigant] to bring anything to their attention. So what is the use? I only send this affidavit to tell what I know about what went on in the hallway and outer room by the judges chambers on May 23, 2001, for it more than seems clear that the Florida Bar will never look at my case against this Ruthless unethical attorney breaking many of their rules. Does anyone read the victims rights laws in Florida or the ADA laws? Next we were going to get on the elevator because the attorney was over by the stairs but all of a sudden the attorney (Mr. Martocci) started yelling again that NO, he was not going to
~9~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

take the stairs, but that he was going to take the elevator, at which time we all moved away from the elevator ( I was in great fear that I would be herded onto the elevator, so I moved away from the elevator, to the area back down the hall way from where we had just come from, and just then the Bailiffs came in, just in time to hear Mr. Martocci yelling he was going to bust her ass. And I do mean he was yelling. Yelling loudly! I moved over behind the lady Bailiff and waited for the elevator to go down. This was an awful thing to have happen. Officers of the court are not supposed to do this. My Order from Judge Jackson clearly told the attorney he was not to get up in my face. My medical doctors have noticed the court many times of my medical impairments and disabilities. I am a disabled person and in a protected class and none of that mayhem should have been allowed to go on to a disabled person. See ADA title II and III. Mr. Martocci seemed to be upset with the judge for not signing Orders to deny Ms. Patons visitations with her young children. And he seemed also to be upset because he knows his 5th DCA appeal in this case does not have the law on his side. He prolongs cases just to make more money or to be vindictive to the opposing sides. The Bailiffs said this is just something Mr. Martocci does all the time! And, Oh, hes just being Martocci, as if to say that he is a badly spoiled little boy throwing another of his special tantrum in the courthouse and he has been doing this for so long... that no one pays any attention to him doing this bad stuff anymore... like saying he is just doing a man thing. And giving the impression that a woman should just let it go, because it was just ol Mr. Martocci acting up again. Well it is not in any way a fair thing (it is pathetic) and to a person in trauma or a person who has panic attacks it is clearly damaging when he gets up in their faces and yells while shaking his finger in their face. And it did look to me like his victims this time were having a hard time understanding what in the world was going on. At that time Ms. Paton and her grown daughters looked very afraid and distressed because the attorney was getting so close to them and yelling out things at them. And I know for sure it makes me afraid and distressed me and makes me unable to think clearly or sleep. And that it upsets my stomach for him to get up in my face again. Over and over I have heard him say to the judges, in a little boy voice: Youre right, your Honor, I should not have lost my temper. Always the judge just lets it go, and then the attorney smiles and winks at his client as soon as the judge turns his head the other way. This same thing happened in my case too and I saw it with my own eyes and I can assure you it is a pattern with the attorney and that is meant to do damage and harm and that it is intentional. That is what his referee judge [in a disciplinary case] said also. And at my trial you can hear (on the reporters tapes) the judge say the following right out to him: Mr. Martocci, I have again caught you misrepresenting things to this court. But did the judge do anything? No he did not do a thing, except to pretend to fuss at him after he had the jury removed out of the room. To me the judge would say things like, Oh! dont be so sensitive,
~10~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

when I asked him if he would stop the attorney from making loud noises trying to distract me. This is just one of his tactics he tries to use, although the laws show the judge is supposed to turn in the wrong doings along with the misconduct to the proper authorities. The judge failed in his duty of care ! In fact the judge later (in my trial) started joking with the attorney and they both told the jury, with a note, that a jury could not ask for an investigation into where my assets actually were. That was just after the attorney told the judge to tell the jury it was none of their business where my assets actually were. I told the truth and offered proof, but the judge allowed Mr. Martocci to unlawfully block that evidence by telling the judge lies. It is all in the transcripts. And the fact is that my former husband still has them but he said he did not while under Oath. I tried to give the judge the proof but the judge refused to go by the state law and allowed Mr. Martocci to mislead the court again. And the truth is [my] former husband with the help of this attorney and some of the judges assistants did fraud upon the court and mislead the court and indeed the assets are left in limbo to this day [she eventually would lose most of them to her former husbands new wife]. This kind of thing, of degrading, blocking access to justice, denial of due process, and all the belittling of poor disabled women, is a pattern here and it is indeed local custom here even though the laws of the land say discriminating is against is against the laws. I have watched Mr. Martocci talk about inappropriate things at depositions when victims of spouse abuse are present. To hear him belittle and berate women is awful to have to sit through. See the attached Deposition, showing that nothing at all was accomplished at the deposition because Mr. Martocci intentionally wasted the time and money of the victim of spouse abuse and just ruined the deposition with dumb things. If you dont believe me, then really read the whole thing, and think about what should have gone on in that days deposition! And see what actually did go on in the deposition. And because he yells, Ill get that woman if its the last thing I do, that should give cause for the Bar to take notice that this attorney is obstructing justice in his cases by always confusing issues and making mayhem and churning cases from 1992 that still have not been finished. Now the question is will they look at this? Or will they again say this is a pro se (too poor to hire an attorney) after my first five (5) attorneys drained all my assets and abandoned me (the first attorney abandoned me before pre-trial without notice or a hearing) now I wonder? Will this also just get filed in the waste basket and never looked at by the Florida Bar like the video? Or will it be lost just as they lost the last video of the attorney being put under Oath swearing to the judge he did not say what he said? Please take note that document 177 of case no. 96-9544 CA clearly shows that even the local judge found attorney Martocci guilty of misleading the court and sanctioned him after he looked at that same video tape where the attorney said the disparaging, bartering and egregiously false things under Oath.

~11~

THE JURISPRUDENTIA CLUB

But the many judges and other Officers of the court just keep on allowing all the misleading and misconduct to just be ignored, just like some parents just ignore their little spoiled brat they have, just because its more trouble to correct him than it is to just ignore him. And the officers of the court here take the attitude of, who cares if a bunch of women get harmed or are damaged in all this bad misconduct and mayhem? done by the attorney with the help of the other officers of the court. And their intentional neglect of duty shows clear [and] callous disregard for poor pro se women here in Brevard Countt. See 42 USC 1983: In Civil action for deprivation of rights every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress if done with reckless indifference etc... The perpetrators are allowed to continue to harass innocent victims and citizens by prosecute or unlawful act upon some perjury, lies, misstated facts and deliberate refusal to apply all rights and laws with total disregard for the truth and justice. All of this is done and carried out under Color Of Law And Justice. [Martocci] knows he is on probation, yet he engages in a campaign to deny due process to women and especially pro se women in the courts. Citizens are being robbed and betrayed while suffering and experiencing great losses. Lives are being destroyed by these unlawful individuals with high influential and knowledgeable expertise of the law. And the trusting citizens become the victims of these gross and deliberate violations which is clearly due to not enough training with limited and/or no knowledge of the law, which the legal system uses to shield themselves. In addition to the trust and confidence wrongly and sadly placed in these high priced counsel it is the citizens who end up damaged. The following cases show there seems to be a pattern of Mr. Martocci obstructing justice and of churning the cases: [Florida Bar] v. Martocci, 2000-30,186 18C, 2000-31,053 18C. Having first been duly sworn and under penalty of perjury, I , Edna Jane Favreau do testify to the above facts. By Edna Jane Favreau _____________

~12~

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND PAUL CRISINGER

On April 9, 1997, I stood up to object in front of witnesses to the denial of my rights, and Judge Bruce Jacobus told me to sit down. He refused to acknowledge my objection. He intimidated and bullied me, even sent the bailiff over to make me sit down, saying he would have me thrown out of the courtroom if I did not sit down. He clearly denied me my due process in that hearing. It took a lot of courage for me to stand up before Judge Jacobus. He abused his power. I did not get a fair hearing. A witness made out an affidavit describing what happened just after the hearing. Below is a true copy of the affidavit, which is Document No. 356 on the courts record. Edna Jane Favreau nee Stewart

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND PAUL CRISINGER In re Abusive Conduct of Florida Judge Bruce Jacobus and Attorney Henry Martocci towards Edna Jane Favreau

[I swear] that this Affidavit be the truth as I witnessed it on April 9, 1997 in the courtroom of Judge Bruce Jacobus, and also in the courtroom of Judge Burke on Aug. 15, 1997. In these hearings I take and retain my notes. My presence at the Viera Justice Center was to assist my friend, Ms. Favreau, because she is subject to panic attacks and under the ADA guidelines is allowed to take a friend with her to court to help her with papers. Also on occasions, because of physical handicaps, Ms. Favreau must be pushed in a wheel chair when her blood pressure is high due to Court related stress. My personal observance of this gentle lady over the past several years has been that she is of good moral character and of sound mind although she has panic attacks induced most often by the stress of the court room when she is near her former husband and his bombastic attorney. I have also met her daughter and some of her grandchildren and they are also of good moral character. Before the 4/9/97 hearing even started, it was demanded, by attorney Henry Martocci, that I be banned from sitting with Ms. Favreau during the court hearing. Prior to this hearing on 4/9/97, I had previously sat with Ms. Favreau during other hearings because she needs help with her papers, and her medical condition of
Page|1

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND PAUL CRISINGER

panic attacks from the former husbands beatings police records and medical doctors reports are in the records about this. It was clearly understood by myself I would not speak, just help with papers. I was instructed not to address the court at any time, but I did take notes. I state this now as I believe the court reporter was not engaged as the hearing had not officially begun. Judge Jacobus denied the attorneys protest to my being there, and I did sit with Ms. Favreau. I consider this above ruling, that I could sit with Ms. Favreau to be the only fair ruling during the entire time; and knowing that under ADA title II that the judge did not have much choice in this matter. I state this also: that attorney Martocci throughout this hearing stared and glared to try and intimidate me and seemed upset that Ms. Favreau could not see him all the time, because I was between him and Ms. Favreau. Attorney Martoccis constant belching, coughing, hacking, and making of throat noises were remarkably loud and unnerving. I noticed that the attorney only made those inarticulate noises when Ms. Favreau was about to say something. Due to my being with Ms. Favreau, attorney Martocci stared continually deliberately showing antagonistic glaring at me in crude and rude way, and his extreme vulgarities brought to my mind the past accounts of how the judge in the Charles Manson case had to banish or reprimand Manson from the courtroom for these types of glares and antagonistic interruptions to the court. I lived in California at that time, and my brother who is in the Music Business had a friend that personally knew Sharon Tate. I followed that trial with some interest through TV and newspaper articles, and attorney Martoccis disgusting glares and interruptions reminded me how Charles Manson had tried to intimidate people in the court, and how Manson was banned from the court room for glaring, staring, and doing antics designed to unnerve the people in the room, but in that case the judge kept control of the courtroom and reprimanded Manson when he tried those tactics. The tactics of attorney Martocci could be paralleled directly in the same fashion as Mansons - that is how intense his staring was - directed at myself and Ms. Favreau. Again, accompanying attorney Martocci were his out breaks of belching, hacking, and flamboyant coughing fits. Again, these only appeared when Ms. Favreau was speaking or addressing the court. Several times, because she could not be heard, she paused to wait for attorney Martocci to settle down. Not one of these obnoxious and blatant rudeness's and continual vulgarities were ever addressed by

Page|2

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND PAUL CRISINGER

the judge. The judge seemed to support the attorneys rude, and vulgar outbreaks by just allowing them to go on and on. In particular, the judge was asking about the worth of the Holly Hill rental property jointly owned by both parties. I heard the judge ask the Defendant, Mr. W. Favreau, if the Holly Hill home had any worth and I heard him tell the judge not much, very, very little or none in fact. When on March 26, 1997, just a little over one month earlier the defendant and I personally took part in the bidding on that Holly Hill house, I heard Mr. Favreau tell the clerk of the court his bid was 25,000.00(and that is on record in the files) the court orders said if Ms. Favreau could not come up with the funds to pay for the house by 2:00 p.m. that day that the bid automatically would belong to Mr. Favreau. The land records show the house has about 30,000.00 in equity. In other words, to tell the judge there was no worth to the Holly Hill home was a lie told to the court by the defendant Mr. Favreau. I remember Mr. Favreau trying to tell the Clerk, Joe Maly (that was selling the houses) that he wanted me forbidden to go into the Public Sale and made a loud fuss about it in the hall way trying to intimidate his former wife from trying to save her homestead from the illegal sale that was taking place. The Law books say the judge is not supposed to sell her part of the homestead but that it is to be partitioned among the parties. I took part in the biding because when under stress I have observed how Ms. Favreau cant speak fast and stutters a lot. I am sure it is from the Post Trauma Stress Disorder she has, and when she panics she cant move or speak. I have observed this in her so I went with her to help save her small two bedroom homestead- that is the only place she seems to feel safe after she filed for the order of protection. I saw the police affidavit showing the husband tried to kill her. Ms. Favreau petitioned the judge to trade the properties, but it has been apparent that it is the goal of the former husband to do harm to Ms. Favreau, by these his fraudulent actions. The home is set up to accommodate Ms. Favreaus medical disabilities and the judge should not have even considered that sale because its against Florida Statutes. And under ADA title II the judge should have given reasonable accommodations. Now to the main point of this affidavit: it is to show that the court inattentively denied Ms. Favreau her Substantive and Procedural Due Process of Law. I personally watched while Ms. Favreau stood on her feet and objected
Page|3

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND PAUL CRISINGER

to the defendant falsifying the amount the Holly Hill house was worth for the court. Ms. Favreau was trying to tell the court the real value, but the judge just ignored her in a reckless way that was so heedless I could hardly believe what was going on. It was obvious that Judge Jacobus was favoring attorney Martocci and his client, and would cut her off and never let her speak clearly denying her procedural due process. See the Transcript, pages 5 and 6 When attorney Martoccis client was addressed about the Holly Hill property, there were discrepancies concerning his statement of worth in the April 9, 1997 hearing as opposed to his bid of 25,000 in a prior auction (March 26, 1997), he became angered. He turned red in the face and threw his glasses across the table expressing a tantrum so intense that Judge Jacobus sat back in his chair clearly intimidated by Mr. Favreaus outburst. Judge Jacobus did not say a word or utter a reprimand concerning this event! It then became even more clear of judge Jacobus bias toward Ms. Favreau as a pro se when she stood up to object to false information stated by Mr. Favreau concerning joint properties; and when Ms. Favreau continued to object- Judge Jacobus summoned the bailiff to remove Ms. Favreau from the court room if she did not sit down. In view of the opposing parties continual tirades this action by Judge Jacobus was inappropriate and uncalled for! The next time I was in a hearing with Ms. Favreau was Aug. 15, 1997 in front of Judge Burke ( 97-2345 CA). Judge Burk was even more abusive, more disrespectful, and inattentive to Ms. Favreaus handicaps than judge Jacobus. The demeanor of Judge Burk was one of outright cruelty. As a minister, I have dealt with many peoples different levels of frustration and anger- Judge Burk definitely on that day exhibited the soul of an angry and frustrated man. In a civil court of Law there should be no room for such behavior - too much is at stake! I also state that in my limited time viewing the courtroom procedures and in studying cases in the law library; then comparing them not only to Ms. Favreaus case but to some recent and famous national trials- ( O. J. murder trial, Rodney King, Jon Bennet Ramsey investigations ) is that the problems underlying our judicial process and procedures is not due to the written Laws. For truly my studies have revealed functional Laws based on the Federal Constitution; Laws which allow every U.S. citizen their due process
Page|4

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND PAUL CRISINGER

in court either as a pro se or with an attorney; the problems exist in the interpretation of these laws by Judges and officers of the court and the fact that laws are interpreted rather than justly applied. If the courts would stick to the laws as written and apply them equally and fairly there would be fairness to all, and much quicker settlements. I state this affidavit and much more left unsaid to be true. United States citizen is entitled to their Procedural Due Process in courts. Signed copy in the records, Document Number 356, Case 96-9544 EXCERPT of Docket: 03/03/2000 355 AFFIDAVIT 03/07/2000 354 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 03/07/2000 356 AFFIDAVIT REV. PAUL CRISINGER 03/07/2000 359 NOTICE COURT HEARING 03/09/2000 357 PETITION MODIFICATION (THIRD) ORDER PROTECTION & CONSOLIDATING CASES 03/13/2000 361 MOTION TO HAVE ORDER TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERS 03/14/2000 360 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 03/17/2000 363 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Every

Page|5

AFFIDAVITS OF JOE STEWART


JOE STEWARTS FIRST AFFADAVIT
IN THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA EDNA JANE FAVREAU,
Petitioner,

v CASE No. WALTER F. FAVREAU,


Defendant.

97-9644-CA

_________________________________
STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF BREVARD

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH N. STEWART After being duly sworn and cautioned, I, Joseph N. Stewart do state the following under oath: 1. In 1981, when Mr. Favreau first started seeing my mother, my family lived at 120 Moonstone Ct. in Daytona Beach, Fl. 2. I was in the 5th grade and went to school at Port Orange Elementary. In 1981, my mother was working for Century 21 Realty and Mr. Walter F. Favreau did not have a job. Mr. Walter F. Favreau did not have a car. I remember he would come over and borrow my mothers car. My mother had her own leased residence at 120 Moonstone Ct. and that Mr. Favreau did not live with us. When Mr. Favreau alleged in his deposition that he took care of [my mother] and her three children at that time he was not speaking truthfully. Mr. Walter F. Favreau has written checks out of my mothers bank account as early as 1981. When Mr. Walter F. Favreau alleged that my mother was domineering this is not a term I would ever apply in reference to my mother. If anything, this is a term I would apply to Mr. Favreau instead. Furthermore, I have never
Page 1 of 6

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

witnessed my mother being domineering towards him or anyone else. 9. My mother was never mean to me and always did things to help me be a wise person. My mother was not of poor health until she entered the relationship with Mr. Walter F. Favreau. I took time from work and came to be with my ill mother in the deposition and also to return the leather jacket personally to Walter Favreau. Walter Favreau had the jacket in his closet but he had gained too much weight to wear it so he gave it to me to wear to my Christmas Band concert in 1988 and I have pictures of me wearing it that day. I believe Mr. Walter F. Favreaus claim that the jacket was not the one he gave me is in fact an attempt to make a fraudulent claim for the cash value of an Italian leather jacket. When his attorney Henry Martocci started making racist remarks about it being a gook jacket because it was made in Korea, I found that comment to be very offensive and a totally improper remark for a member of the Florida Bar to make. If Henry Martocci is any example of how attorneys work in Brevard County Florida, it is a shame. Because of the long trip to come to be with my mother who is too ill to go alone to the courthouse (as described by her doctor), it is my belief that because there was no deposition(that being due to Mr. Favreaus attorney being so bombastic and seemingly determined to stop the deposition, it is my opinion that Mr. Favreau should be responsible for my expenses on the wasted trip. According to the orders made by the judge my mother was to be allowed to video for her own personal use all the depositions and hearings etc. I believe this attempt to prevent her from having a videotape of the deposition for her own use (as she has orders from a judge to allow her to) was done to upset my
Page 2 of 6

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

mother and cause additional expense to this case, and that the attorney Henry Martocci should be sanctioned for doing that.

19.

Henry Martocci changed what the judge ordered regarding the videotaping when the orders were typed up and that false statement had to be brought to the judges attention and another order had to be given with the true statement of the judge. My mother needs this over with for her healths sake, and the actions of the attorney Henry Martocci, I believe, are designed to weaken this disabled woman to a state where she cannot fight for her day in court.

20.

______________________________ Joseph N. Stewart

JOE STEWARTS SECOND AFFADAVIT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY FLORIDA EDNA JANE FAVREAU Plaintiff v WALTER FAVREAU CASE NO. 96-9544 CA

Defendant ____________________

COMPULSORY JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE COURT


AND

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH NEAL STEWART

This Notice to the Court is to state I was assured the 1-12-98 deposition of Mr. Walter Favreau would take place
Page 3 of 6

My Mother checked for me before I left South Carolina for Florida and we were assured the deposition would take place. Atty Martocci alleges I panned the room with the video and took pictures of people in the room including the Bailiff (who was never even present in the room during any part of the deposition!) This attorney's allegations are simply not true and the video will show that. This attorney seems to be purposely delaying things and is unfairly trying to have my mother denied her right (as given to her by the orders of Judge Jackson) to videotape the deposition for her personal use. It seems that the attorney is afraid to have his own actions videotaped, and given the inappropriate behavior I have witnessed from him (outlined in my last affidavit to this Honorable Court), I dont blame him. My Mother, since she has been married to the defendant, has declined greatly in physical health and well-being. The level of stress she is having to face in these situations it seems to me is orchestrated by the defendant's attorney to make her have a breakdown before she can complete her judicial actions. I urge the court to sanction the attorney Martocci for his frequent deviations from ethical practices, and not overlook his tactics in this matter; including changing Judge's orders in his favor when he writes them. (Why attorneys in your State are allowed to write Judge's orders themselves, is beyond me; It seems to open the door for "typos" in the Attorney's favor. I have witnessed the court document containing one of Atty. Martocci's "typos" regarding where he inserted the word "professional" into the Judge's orders concerning who would be responsible for the video-graphy, and the judge immediately had the order corrected to reflect his actual judgment when that was brought to his attention. I also ask the court to guarantee my mother the right to always be given a large room to have her depositions, or any other meetings with the defendant and his attorney. It has been shown to the court long ago that this was needed to accommodate her disability, yet, when we arrived at the courthouse for the deposition, she was pushed and ushered into a tiny room, inches away from the person responsible for her disability and his bombastic attorney, and no one at the courthouse even seemed to care that the judge had previously granted that she could have a large room. It is VITAL
Page 4 of 6

to my mother's health that she is granted this accommodation, and anyone who works on the floor where the proceedings are taking place should be made aware of the judge's orders regarding this ahead of time. My sister and I have made arrangements for someone to be with our mother on 3-4-98. And can anyone explain to me what the problem was at mothers last hearing before the Hon. Judge Ed. Jackson, because my mother was there at 11:20, but the office help- told her the time had been changed to 3:30 so mother left word where she was going to the Law Library. When she returned at 3:15, she was told the hearing had taken place at 11:30 after all. Please take notice that mother has always wanted to mediate things but it is Mr. Favreau that dragged her into court and it is he that will not put any offers in writing (with 72 hours for her to look over the documents because she has a problem when she is rushed and panics too many times. This was no problem before, but now after that man abused and battered her so brutally that he was sentenced to a year in jail after he plead guilty (according to the State Attorneys office records I saw) now rushing her is a big problem. Signed copy went to the attorney-Thomas
State of South Carolina By____________________________ Joseph N. Stewart

First affidavit was signed and put on record. The second affidavit was given to my attorney Billy Thomas to be put on record. The affidavits were also sent to The Florida Bar with my letter, as follows: ________________________________________________________________

JANES LETTER TO THE FLORIDA BAR:

When I first turned in my complaint to the Florida Bar something should have been done then. I have suffered many months of pain

because this attorney has used intimidation and tactics and mislead the court. On June 6th 2001 Mr. Martocci told the court

lies and again misled the court about me with direct lies and trickery. I need this investigated and brought to an end.
Page 5 of 6

It is past time to do something about this mayhem towards Jane Favreau. Doc. 177 is on record also (Orders showing Martocci was found guilty of saying inappropriate things to Jane)

It would be justice if the Florida Bar did something right and investigated this and asked the Florida Supreme Court to grant me a trial de novo because the proof is in the records that Attorney Martocci lied to the court in my case. I am elderly and I am not

well physically or emotionally and clearly because my assets are still with Mr. Favreau and Anna May. I am not well financially. There was

fraud used on the documents given to the court by Anna May Favreau.

The little that is left of my life should not be spent in court due to the bad actions of a Florida Attorney. I will send this affidavit in

with a formal complaint but things need expedited and you know that as I know that, I have spent all my lifes saving and 20 years of my life mixed up with the corruption of the Brevard County Courts.

And the Florida Bar is supposed to be in charge of looking after things that are done wrong by their members but they do not.

Page 6 of 6