Since I did not want to leave such a grave matter to my imagination, I asked Avery on March 2, 2012, if there was more to the Bar investigation that what appeared in the file: I have examined the public file and there seems to be something amiss, perhaps a missing grievance committee report detailing its inquiry or explaining its finding, and missing testimony from a witness. The only grievance committee document I received is a terse statement from its chair person finding no probable cause, with no explanation of the finding whatsoever, leaving the file as it stands casting the Bar procedure in a rather bad light, so I am checking with you prior to filing my own report. Your September 7, 2011 letter, notifying Mr. Griffith that there was no finding of probable cause by the grievance committee, states that the finding was made because there was no independent evidence submitted to corroborate his claim that Mr. Gongora committed a extortionate act during the July 12 meeting had with Mssrs. Griffith, Zablotny, Gongora and Hilliard attending. However, the Bar file includes an affidavit sworn to by Mr. Zablotny witnessing that the extortion complained of did in fact take place at the meeting between the four persons. I understand that the inquiry/complaint filed by Mr. Griffith, making the same allegation, is considered sworn to under penalties of perjury. Therefore the Bar had two sworn statements to the effect that an extortionate threat was actually made at the meeting. On the other hand, Patricia S. Etkin, answering the Bars inquiry for Mr. Gongora, said no such event took place, and gave a description of events that contradicted the Griffith-Zablotny account. I notice that Ms. Etkin did not submit a sworn statement from Mr. Gongora to that effect. It would seem that the sworn statements of Mssrs. Griffith and Zablotny would carry more weight than the unsworn statement of Mr. Gongora made through his lawyer; but no, the decision seems to be in favor of the weaker side. Is there some rule of evidence that would give Ms. Etkins representation of what her client said to her preponderance over the sworn testimony of two witnesses? I would like to include that rule or principle in my report. And surely the public will need to know if the word independent in your letter, in regards to the want of evidence, implies that the grievance committee and its chair presumed that Mr. Zablotny conspired with Mr. Griffith to lie about facts simply because he has a business relationship with him. Is that true? Is it a rule of law? I think anyone would better understand the committees finding of insufficient evidence if it were a case where two witnesses said one thing and two other
Page 7 of 8
A report by Jeffrey Bradley published March 31, 2011, by SunPost states that Hilliard appeared before the City of Miami Beach Commission (date unspecified), where he admitted that the meeting between Griffith, Zablotny, Gongora and himself took place, but claimed that Gongora did not tell Griffith to hire him.
Page 8 of 8