Lawyer Complaints
Florida Lawyer Brian O’Connell Borrowed Half a Million Plus and then Lied On His Tax Return
What else is being lied about? And will the Catholic Charitable Donations need a Few Hail Mary’s?
A ONE YEAR SUSPENSION FOR BRIAN MCKENNA O’CONNELL
He’s about to be reinstated, subject to payment of the bar’s legal fees of appx $17k
JUN 29, 2023 | UPDATED BY LIT: JUL 28, 2024
COMPLAINT OF THE FLORIDA BAR
BRIAN MCKENNA O’CONNELL
MAY 24, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 1, 2022
The Florida Bar, complainant, files this Complaint against Brian McKenna O’Connell, respondent, pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and alleges:
1. The respondent is and was at all times mentioned herein a member of The Florida Bar admitted on November 10, 1980 and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.
2. The respondent resided in and practiced law in Palm Beach County, Florida, at all times material.
3. The respondent was Board Certified by the Florida Bar from August 1, 1990 until July 31, 2020 in Wills, Trusts and Estates.
4. The respondent was an attorney with the law firm of Ciklin Lubitz, at all times material.
5. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee “I” found probable cause to file this complaint pursuant to Rule 3-7.4, of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and this complaint has been approved by the presiding member of that committee.
PPP Loans - Over $325k forgiven
ALERT: There are 2 PPP loans for a total of $324,552 in our database for businesses with the name “O’connell & Crispin Ackal PLLC” in Palm Beach, FL. This this is typically due to the same business receiving both first and second-draw loans, but may also include similarly named but unrelated businesses, multiple branches of the same business, mistaken multiple applications, or potential fraud. Click each loan below to see full details.
COUNT I – THE MISAPPROPRIATIONS
6. The respondent represented Nancy C. Brown, hereinafter referred to as “Brown.”
7. The respondent prepared the Nancy C. Brown Amended and Restated Revocable Trust, hereinafter referred to as “The Trust.”
8. Brown, as settlor, executed The Trust on February 6, 2009.
9. The respondent, together with Wachovia Bank were named as the trustees of The Trust.
10. Subsequent to the execution of The Trust, Wachovia Bank resigned as the corporate trustee leaving respondent as the sole trustee, as reflected in the First Amendment to The Trust, dated December 8, 2011.
(The Trust and First Amendment to The Trust are attached hereto and incorporated herein as The Florida Bar’s Exhibit 1.)
11. The First Amendment to The Trust required respondent, as the sole trustee, to distribute to the following beneficiaries, as specific devises:
The sum of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($1,500) DOLLARS shall be distributed to JOHN OLSON, if he survives Settlor.
The sum of FIVE THOUSAND ($5,000) DOLLARS shall be distributed to SCHENELL M. FINN, if he survives Settlor.
12. The First Amendment to The Trust also required respondent, as the sole trustee, to distribute all the rest, residue and remainder of the residuary Trust Estate as follows:
[T]o such one or more charitable organizations qualified under Section 501(3)(c)(sic) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, as the Trustee, in the Trustee’s sole discretion, shall determine”.
(See The Florida Bar’s Exhibit 1, page 2 of the First Amendment.)
13. Brown died on January 28, 2014.
14. The respondent administered Brown’s estate and The Trust.
15. On or about March 6, 2014, respondent represented The Trust in the sale of Brown’s home, with the sales proceeds of $538,342.73, disbursed at closing to The Trust.
16. On or about March 7, 2014, respondent caused the proceeds of $538,342.73 to be deposited into the trust account maintained at IberiaBank, Account ending in 9513, which respondent opened on or about the date of the sale of Brown’s residence.
17. The respondent opened the IberiaBank account ending in 9513, on or about March 7, 2014, despite the existing account at Wachovia Bank, entitled “Nancy C Brown Rev Trust.”
18. The respondent’s personal bank account was also maintained at IberiaBank.
19. Ciklin Lubitz did their banking primarily at Wachovia Bank and Citibank, at all times material.
20. The respondent was the sole signatory on the IberiaBank Account ending in 9513 for The Trust.
21. A federal tax lien was filed in June of 2012 in the combined amount of $1,006,240.00 against respondent’s former residence located at 132 Cortez Road in West Palm Beach, Florida.
That combined lien was finally paid and satisfied in 2021.
22. Multiple tax liens were also levied on properties owned by the respondent in Berrien County, Michigan by March of 2014.
23. From March 7, 2014 through June 4, 2014, in thirteen separate transactions, respondent misappropriated a total of $506,455.30 from Brown’s trust proceeds held in IberiaBank Account ending in 9513.
24. The following dates and amounts of the respondent’s misappropriations are listed below:
03/07/2014 $42,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell)
03/27/2014 $40,575.00 (withdrawal for “Berrien County Treasurer”)
03/30/2014 $36,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell)
04/02/2014 $19,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell
04/14/2014 $250,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell)
05/02/2014 $40,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell)
05/09/2014 $3,188.50 (withdrawal for “Zazz Events”)
05/09/2014 $10,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell)
05/19/2014 $40,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell)
05/30/2014 $15,000.00 (payable to Brian O’Connell)
06/02/2014 $2,500.00 (payable to Flagler Bank)
06/02/2014 $6,691.80 (payable to Flagler Bank)
06/04/2014 $1,500.00 (phone/in-person transfer)
Total $506,455.30
25. All of the thirteen separate withdrawals made by the respondent from the IberiaBank Trust Account ending in 9513 were for the personal benefit of the respondent and not for the interests of the beneficiaries.
26. Not a single one of the thirteen separate withdrawals from The Trust account was for the interests of the beneficiaries.
27. On or about June 10, 2014, a paralegal with the Ciklin Lubitz Firm questioned the withdrawals from The Trust’s Account ending in 9513 with an email to the respondent with the subject line
“The Brown Trust Account is down to $30,000”
which stated:
“What is going on with all of these checks and withdrawals?”
28. On or about June 14, 2014, the managing partner of the Ciklin Lubitz Firm and others met with the respondent and confronted him concerning the withdrawals from The Trust’s account at IberiaBank ending in 9513.
29. During the June 14, 2014, meeting the respondent told those present that he had “borrowed” the funds.
Brian McKenna O'Connell
Brian M. O’Connell is a member of O’Connell & Crispin Ackal, PLLC, where he focuses his practice primarily on estate planning and administration as well as probate litigation. Located in Palm Beach, Florida, he provides representation to clients throughout the area.
30. The respondent did not have any right or basis to “borrow” funds for his own personal benefit and not for the interests of the beneficiaries.
31. But for the intervention of the Ciklin Lubitz’ Firm’s paralegal, the respondent’s misappropriations would have gone undetected.
32. The Ciklin Lubitz Firm hired an attorney who concentrates his practice handling matters concerning ethics.
That attorney advised members of the Ciklin Lubitz Firm that if the respondent replaced the misappropriated funds, the firm was not required to report the misconduct to The Florida Bar.
33. The respondent repaid the misappropriated funds, plus interest, over a six-month period. The first payment of $252,294.53 was paid by the respondent on June 19, 2014.
The final payment of $265,604.87 was paid by the respondent on December 31, 2014.
34. The fact that respondent eventually paid back the misappropriated funds with interest does not excuse or mitigate the misconduct.
35. After several years, another member of the Ciklin Lubitz Firm filed a bar grievance after learning of the respondent’s misappropriations and deceptions.
36. In his November 26, 2019 and July 14, 2020 responses to The Florida Bar, respondent claimed for the first time that his right or authority to “borrow” $506,455.30 from The Trust for his personal benefit and not for the interests of the beneficiaries was permitted under sections 11.1 (A) and
(D) of the trust.
Those sections are set forth below:
(A) With regard to both real and personal property, for the purpose of obtaining funds for payment of taxes, claims and the costs of administration of Settlor’s estate, if authorized, and for making distributions, conversion into cash, management of the property, and for every other proper purpose, they may acquire, invest, reinvest, exchange, lease, sell, borrow, mortgage, pledge, transfer and convey in such manner an on such terms without limit as to time as they may deem advisable, even for terms beyond the expected term of the estate or any trust, and no purchaser or lender shall be liable to see to the propriety of the transaction, nor to the application of the proceeds.
(D) To cause any property, real or personal, belonging to the trust to be held or registered in the Trustee’s name or in the name of a nominee or in such other form as the Trustee deems best without disclosing the trust relationship.
37. Section 11.1 of Brown’s trust absolutely does not provide the respondent any right or authority to “borrow” funds from The Trust for his personal benefit and not for the interests of the beneficiaries.
38. In his November 26, 2019 and July 14, 2020 responses to The Florida Bar, respondent claimed for the first time that his right or authority to “borrow” $506,455.30 from The Trust for his own personal benefit was also derived from the following Florida Statutes:
736.0802(2)(a) Subject to the rights of persons dealing with or assisting the trustee as provided in s. 736.1016, a sale, encumbrance, or other transaction involving the investment or management of trust property entered into by the trustee for the trustee’s own personal account or which is otherwise affected by a conflict between the trustee’s fiduciary and personal interests is voidable by a beneficiary affected by the transaction unless:
(a) The transaction was authorized by the terms of the trust;
736.0814(1) Notwithstanding the breadth of discretion granted to a trustee in the terms of the trust, including the use of such terms as “absolute,” “sole,” or “uncontrolled,” the trustee shall exercise a discretionary power in good faith and in accordance with the terms and purposes of the trust and the interests of the beneficiaries.
A court shall not determine that a trustee abused its discretion merely because the court would have exercised the discretion in a different manner or would not have exercised the discretion.
736.0815 General powers of trustee. —
(1) A trustee, without authorization by the court, may, except as limited or restricted by this code, exercise:
(b) Except as limited by the terms of the trust:
1. All powers over the trust property that an unmarried competent owner has over individually owned property.
736.0816(19) Make loans out of trust property, including, but not limited to, loans to a beneficiary on terms and conditions that are fair and reasonable under the circumstances, and the trustee has a lien on future distributions for repayment of those loans.
39. Those statutes do not provide the respondent with any right or authority to “borrow” funds from The Trust for his own personal benefit and not for the interests of the beneficiaries.
Brian McKenna O'Connell (Fl. Bar Profile)
COUNT II – THE DECEPTIVE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND INCOME TAX RETURNS
40. The charitable contributions were ultimately paid by respondent as follows:
6/19/14 Cardinal Newman – contribution to art room – $75,000.00
6/19/14 Catholic Charities Elder Affairs Program $175,000.00
12/30/14 Cardinal Newman High School $199,588.03
12/30/14 St. Juliana Catholic School $40,000.00
12/30/14 University of Florida $20,000.00
12/30/14 Rosarian Academy $15,000.00
41. On or about December 30, 2014, the respondent forwarded a $20,000.00 check to the University of Florida as a Law Review pledge on a starter check from the Trust’s IberiaBank Account ending in 9313.
The check was sent without a cover letter.
42. The respondent’s file at the Ciklin Lubitz firm did contain a cover letter, which clearly identified the pledge as being a charitable contribution from the Trust.
(The cover letter and check maintained in the Brown file is attached hereto and incorporated herein as The Florida Bar’s Exhibit 2.)
43. The respondent caused that $20,000.00 check to the University of Florida to be considered as his own personal contribution to the Law Review, as opposed to a contribution from The Trust.
44. After being confronted by The Florida Bar through its investigation, the respondent took action to “change” the name of the benefactor from his own name to the actual contributor – Nancy C. Brown concerning the contribution to the University of Florida.
45. Respondent’s conduct of misrepresenting the $20,000.00 bequest to the University of Florida as his own charitable contribution was dishonest, deceitful and a misrepresentation.
46. Consistent with respondent’s misrepresentation to the University of Florida as to the true contributor, the respondent additionally took the $20,000.00 bequest by Brown to the University of Florida as a charitable deduction on his own 2014 tax return.
(A copy of the relevant pages of Brian O’Connell’s 2014 tax return provided by him to The Florida Bar upon request is attached hereto and incorporated herein as The Florida Bar’s Exhibit 3.)
47. When an individual submits his or her income tax return, he or she does so allege under penalties of perjury that he or she has examined the return and to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, the return and accompanying schedules are true, correct and complete.
48. Respondent’s conduct of misrepresenting the $20,000.00 bequest to the University of Florida as his own charitable contribution qualifying as a deduction on his 2014 Federal Income Tax return was not, “true, correct and complete”, rather it was clearly dishonest, deceitful and a misrepresentation.
By the conduct set forth above, respondent violated R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-4.3
[Misconduct and Minor Misconduct.
The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of certain categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not all-inclusive, nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct to be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct.
The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.];
3-4.4 Criminal Misconduct.
A determination or judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction that a member of The Florida Bar is guilty of any crime or offense that is a felony under the laws of that court’s jurisdiction is cause for automatic suspension from the practice of law in Florida, unless the judgment or order is modified or stayed by the Supreme Court of Florida, as provided in these rules.
The Florida Bar may initiate disciplinary action regardless of whether the respondent has been tried, acquitted, or convicted in a court for an alleged criminal misdemeanor or felony offense.
The board may, in its discretion, withhold prosecution of disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against the respondent.
If a respondent is acquitted in a criminal proceeding that acquittal is not a bar to disciplinary proceedings.
Likewise, the findings, judgment, or decree of any court in civil proceedings is not necessarily binding in disciplinary proceedings.];
4-8.4(b)
[A lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.];
4-8.4(c)
[A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, except that it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule, and it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer employed in a capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule.]
and 5-1.1(b)
[Application of Trust Funds or Property to Specific Purpose. Money or other property entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, including advances for fees, costs, and expenses, is held in trust and must be applied only to that purpose. Money and other property of clients coming into the hands of a lawyer are not subject to counterclaim or setoff for attorney’s fees, and a refusal to account for and deliver over the property on demand is conversion.].
WHEREFORE, The Florida Bar prays respondent will be appropriately disciplined in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as amended.
Phillip D O'Connell, Jr.
Randi Klayman Lazarus,
Bar Counsel The Florida Bar
Fort Lauderdale Branch Office
Lake Shore Plaza II
1300 Concord Terrace, Suite 130
Sunrise, Florida 33323
(954) 835-0233
Florida Bar No. 360929
rlazarus@floridabar.org
smiles@floridabar.org
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz,
Staff Counsel The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
(850) 561-5839
Florida Bar No. 559547
psavitz@floridabar.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this document has been e-filed with The Honorable John A. Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, with a copy provided via email to Michael Edward Dutko, at michael@dutkoandkroll.com;
and to John R. Howes, Esquire, at johnrhowes@gmail.com;
a copy has been furnished by United States Mail via certified mail No. 7020 1810 0000 0813 8537, return receipt requested to Michael Edward Dutko, whose record bar address is Dutko & Kroll, P.A. 600 S. Andrews Avenue, Ste. 500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2851;
and furnished by United States Mail via certified mail No. 7020 1810 0000 0813 8544 to John R. Howes whose record bar address is Howes Law Group, P.A., 633 S. Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
and via email to Randi Klayman Lazarus, Bar Counsel, rlazarus@floridabar.org and smiles@floridabar.org, on this 24th day of May 2022.
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz Staff Counsel
NOTICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AND DESIGNATION OF PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the trial counsel in this matter is Randi Klayman Lazarus, Bar Counsel, whose address, telephone number and primary email addresses are The Florida Bar, Fort Lauderdale Branch Office, Lake Shore Plaza II, 1300 Concord Terrace, Suite 130, Sunrise, Florida 33323, (954)835-0233 and rlazarus@floridabar.org and smiles@floridabar.org.
Respondent need not address pleadings, correspondence, etc. in this matter to anyone other than trial counsel and to Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, psavitz@floridabar.org.
MANDATORY ANSWER NOTICE
RULE 3-7.6(h)(2), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, PROVIDES THAT A RESPONDENT SHALL ANSWER A COMPLAINT.
Ciklin Lubitz Firm
YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:
• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.
• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.
Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.
Florida
August 2022 List of Thievin’ and Lyin’ Attorneys In the State of Florida
The consistent theme for August 2022, and indeed most months, is Florida lawyers theft of client funds and settlement funds.
August 1, 2022 Disciplinary Actions
AUG 1, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: NOV 15, 2022
The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined six attorneys, suspending three and disbarring three.
And LIF’s highlighted a few of these rogue attorneys before.
Timmy W. Cox, Sr., 7401 S.W. 16th St., Plantation,
suspended effective immediately following a July 13 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2014)
Cox failed to respond to official Bar inquiries.
The Bar filed its Petition for Contempt and Order to Show Cause on April 29.
The Florida Supreme Court ordered Cox to show cause by May 18. Cox failed to file a response to the court’s Order to Show Cause.
(Case No: SC22-598)
James F. Feuerstein III, 22724 Stallion Dr., Sorrento,
disbarred effective immediately per a July 21 court order as Feuerstein is currently suspended for 91 days (by court order dated April 21).
(Admitted to practice: 1987)
Feuerstein failed to respond to official Bar inquiries in three separate Bar matters and failed to file a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.
(Case No: SC22-618)
Thievin’ from Your Own Mamma’s Estate
John Hadsall, 18198 3rd St. E., Redington Shores,
disbarred, effective 30 days following a July 7 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1980)
Hadsall was found to have improperly transferred assets from the estate of his mother for personal use.
He failed to show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he acted in good faith throughout the transactions and failed to show that his mother acted freely, intelligently, and voluntarily in gifting him funds from her accounts.
Hadsall subsequently attempted to render himself judgment proof to thwart the estate’s attempt to recoup the funds.
(Case No: SC21-1444)
Melanie L. Johnson, 4790 Longbow Dr., Titusville,
disbarred effective immediately following a July 14 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2004)
Johnson misappropriated client funds.
In response to the Bar’s request for records needed to perform a compliance audit of her law office trust account, Johnson reconstructed her records and submitted records to the Bar that contained false and misleading information.
(Case No: SC21-1675)
Thievin’ from Clients, and Received a PPP Loan
Bradley Nephase Laurent, 8615 Commodity Circle, Suite 6, Orlando,
emergency suspended effective 30 days following a July 14 court order but to cease accepting new clients as of July 14.
(Admitted to practice: 2005)
Laurent misappropriated client funds from his law office trust account, some of which he repaid from the proceeds of a Paycheck Protection Program loan he obtained on behalf of his law firm for COVID-19 relief.
(Case No: SC22-851)
Thievin’ from Clients, and Lyin’ to the Bar
James Santos Wilkie, 1333 S. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1323, Pompano Beach,
emergency suspended effective immediately following a July 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2013)
Wilkie misappropriated client settlement funds and made misrepresentations to the Bar during their investigation.
(Case No: SC22-911)
Meet James S. Wilkie – Managing Partner
James was originally born in North Miami Beach; however, due to his father being a United States Marine Corps Officer (Col. James R. Wilkie Ret.), he lived in dozens of places across the continental United States. James graduated from Collierville High School in Collierville, Tennessee, where he elected to remain and receive his Bachelor of Science in Education from the University of Memphis. While attending the U of M, he joined the prestigious fraternity Pi Kappa Phi. Furthermore, Mr. Wilkie went on to make the Dean and Presidents list through his undergraduate education. He was accepted to Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing Michigan, where he placed in the top 4% of his class.
Wanting to be closer to his family in South Florida, he transferred to Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center, where he graduated with his Doctorate of Juris Prudence in 2011. Mr. Wilkie attended the Nova Southeastern University Family Law Clinic, where he worked with both The Thomas Family Law Firm in Memphis Tennessee, and Legal Aid of Palm Beach County Florida. During law school, his concentration was Personal Injury, Criminal Defense, Family Law, Civil Litigation, and Dependency. He accepted a position with Katz & Katz, P.A. where he practiced a wide variety of law, including but not limited too; Plaintiff Personal Injury Protection Litigation, Personal Injury Plaintiff, Contract Actions, and Criminal Defense. Eventually in 2013, Mr. Wilkie opened the doors to The Wilkie Law Firm, P.A. practicing mainly Plaintiff Personal Injury and complex negligence cases. He remained the managing partner of The Wilkie Law Firm until his assentation to of counsel with Salpeter Gitkin, LLP through his now conjoined practice in 2018.
Mr. Wilkie has recovered millions of dollars for his clients and boasts a wide variety of trial experience in multiple areas of law. Mr. Wilkie values himself as a well versed civil litigation attorney utilizing his knowledge and extended experience to provide his clients with the most advantageous outcome. Having successfully co-counselled cases in Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi, Mr. Wilkie’s wide variety of experience and aggressive nature continues to achieve leaps and bounds for his clients.
James is a long time Florida resident and enjoys golf, softball, basketball, fishing and spending time with his wife Crystal and his two daughters Amilia and Anessa.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accident Injuries
If you have been struck by a motor vehicle while riding your bike or walking then it may be necessary to seek financial compensation for your injuries. Medical bills, lost wages from time off work, and other considerations can create serious complications for your life beyond the pain and suffering associated with your injuries.
Car Accidents
If you have been hurt in a car accident, do not accept any settlement that is offered by an insurance company without first reviewing it with a skilled and experienced attorney who can advise you more thoroughly about your legal rights and options.
Motorcycle Accidents
If you have suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident that was caused by another party’s negligence or recklessness, then you may be able to file a civil lawsuit seeking financial compensation for damages rather than simply relying upon an insurance claim to meet your needs.
Truck Accidents
If you have been hurt in an automobile wreck involving a commercial truck then we can help you to explore the possible merits of legal action and to determine whether the driver, trucking company, truck manufacturer, or another third-party may be liable.
Catastrophic Injuries
If you have suffered life-complicating injuries and would like to know more about the possible advantages of filing a civil lawsuit then you should consult with a skilled and experienced attorney about your case.
Cruise Ship & Boating Accidents
If you have been hurt in an accident involving another person’s failure to properly operate, design, or maintain a watercraft then you might wish to consider filing a civil lawsuit seeking financial compensation for your injuries. You may be able to recover the resources that you need to address medical bills, boat repair costs, and other appropriate damages.
Premises Liability
Premises Liability If you or your loved one has been hurt in an accident that occurred on another party’s property then you may be able to pursue financial compensation through a civil lawsuit. Medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages may be recoverable.
Medical Malpractice
If you or your loved one has been the victim of a medical mistake and has experienced adverse health effects as a result, then you may wish to investigate the possibility of pursuing a medical malpractice claim. A successful lawsuit can gain you the resources that you need for present and future care and may also help you obtain financial compensation for other relevant damages.
Products Liability
If you have been sickened or hurt by a dangerous product then you may be able to file a civil lawsuit seeking financial compensation for your injuries. A successful legal action might help you cover the costs of medical bills, lost wages, and other considerations appropriate to the specific details of your case.
Personal Injury
If you have been hurt in an accident that was caused by someone else’s negligence or recklessness and are looking for a compassionate and committed legal representative, then we can help you fight to hold them accountable for the harm that you have suffered.
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist
If you have been in an automobile accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist then it may be possible to pursue additional financial compensation through a civil lawsuit. A successful legal action might gain you the resources necessary to make up the gap between the policy maximum and the damages you have experienced.
Wrongful Death
While prevailing in a wrongful death lawsuit against the person or entity responsible for your loved one’s death may seem like a hollow victory, the reality is that it may be the best or only way to ensure that you have the financial resources that you need to cope with the painful adjustments you must make.
The Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 110,000 members of The Florida Bar. Key discipline case files that are public record are posted to attorneys’ individual online Florida Bar profiles. To view discipline documents, follow these steps. Information on the discipline system and how to file a complaint are available at www.floridabar.org/attorneydiscipline.
Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that includes a rigorous background check and retaking the Bar exam. Attorneys suspended for periods of 91 days and longer must undergo a rigorous process to regain their law licenses including proving rehabilitation. Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.
YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:
• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.
• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.
Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.
Appellate Judges
The Eleventh Circuit Issues Another Glossed Opinion to Dismiss a Pro Se Lawyer’s Appeal
All motions under Rule 60(b) OTHER THAN those based on Rule 60(b)(4) must be made within a reasonable time.
Henry v. City of Mount Dora, No. 21-14120 (11th Cir. Sep. 16, 2022)
REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 17, 2022
Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Marie Henry, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), (d)(3) motion seeking relief from the court’s order dismissing her federal claims raised pursuant to several federal statutes, and remanding to state court her state law claims raised pursuant to Florida state law.
After filing an ethics complaint against one of the defendants and a pro se motion to disqualify a judge in a predatory lending case, Henry was referred to a Florida Bar grievance committee on two counts of misconduct and, after disciplinary proceedings that she challenged as defective, she was suspended for 6 months.
She originally filed her complaint in Florida state court, but the Florida Bar removed her case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On appeal, she argues, first, that the district court erred by denying her Rule 60 motion as untimely.
Second, she contends that the court abridged her due process right to an impartial tribunal, notice, and an opportunity to be heard by dismissing her federal claims where the defendants did not unanimously consent to removal, the court judicially noticed facts without a hearing, and the judge was a member of an adverse party.
Third, she asserts that the court erred by failing to analyze fraud on the court.
Finally, she argues that the court’s denial of an extension to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation violated 28 U.S.C. § 2072.
I.
LIT OBJECTS TO THE PANEL SUMMARY, WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE DATES FOR THE FLORIDA BAR SUSPENSION, WHICH WAS IN MARCH 2015 , AND GLOSSES OVER THE FACT IT TOOK THE BAR YEARS TO PROSECUTE AND REACH ITS FINAL DISPOSITION.
A Federal Notice of Appeal is Not Limited to 30 Days, that’s a Judicial Rule Subordinate to Statute https://t.co/gyXvQ7Ha1Z
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 17, 2022
We review de novo the denial of a motion to set aside a judg-ment for voidness under Rule 60(b)(4).
Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colom., 771 F.3d 713, 736 (11th Cir. 2014).
Motions pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) are not subject to a reasonable timeliness requirement or a typical laches analysis.
Id. at 737-38.
But “Rule 60(b)(4) does not provide a license for litigants to sleep on their rights.”
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 275 (2010).
When considering whether a movant slept on her rights, we have noted that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and have addressed the merits of the movant’s jurisdictional argument.
See Stansell, 771 F.3d at 737
(holding that movant waived “his right to object to any defects in the service of process or to any denial of his right to be heard” because he “sat on his rights for nine months” but addressing alleged jurisdiction issues).
We may affirm for any reason supported by the record.
Bircoll v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 (11th Cir. 2007).
Here, the district court applied a reasonable time requirement to Henry’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion, but that requirement was inappropriate.
See Stansell, 771 F.3d at 737.
However, Henry sat on her rights by waiting more than 2 years to file her Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
See id. at 737-38.
Thus, we affirm the district court as to any issues raised by Henry that do not relate to subject matter jurisdiction because she slept on her rights for over two years.
Bircoll, 480 F.3d at 1088 n.21.
Like in Stansell, however, we next consider Henry’s arguments that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
See Stansell, 771 F.3d at 737.
LIT DISAGREES WITH THE PANEL OPINION WHICH CONTRADICTS ITSELF AND THIS COURT’s OWN RULINGS TO RELY UPON A SCOTUS BANKRUPTCY CASE, WHICH IS INAPPOSITE TO THE FACTS HERE.
FURTHERMORE, THE CITE, WHEN READ FULLY, IS NOT ABOUT DELAY IN APPEALING AT ALL:
“United had actual notice of the filing of Espinosa’s plan, its contents, and the Bankruptcy Court’s subsequent confirmation of the plan. In addition, United filed a proof of claim regarding Espinosa’s student loan debt, thereby submitting itself to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction with respect to that claim…. United therefore forfeited its arguments regarding the validity of service or the adequacy of the Bankruptcy Court’s procedures by failing to raise a timely objection in that court.“
United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 275 (2010)
—————
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.:
“All motions under Rule 60(b) other than those based on Rule 60(b)(4) must be made within a reasonable time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). ” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. J&J Mgmt. Consulting, No. 15-14628, at *4 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016)
II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) provides relief from a final judgment or order if the judgment is void.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
A judgment is not void under Rule 60(b)(4) merely because it was erroneous.
Espinosa, 559 U.S. at 270.
Generally, it is void solely if it is premised on a jurisdictional error depriving the court of even arguable jurisdiction or on a due process violation that deprived a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.
See id. at 271.
Federal courts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.
In re Nica Holdings, Inc., 810 F.3d 781, 789 (11th Cir. 2015).
The Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine is a narrow jurisdictional doctrine concerning a court’s subject matter jurisdiction that bars parties who lose a case in state court from appealing their loss in a federal district court.
Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1208 (11th Cir. 2021);
Alvarez v. Att’y Gen for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2012).
Neither res judicata nor the requirement that all defendants consent to removal is jurisdictional.
See Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1524-25 (11th Cir. 1994);
In re Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 123 F.3d 1407, 1410 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997).
An appellant abandons any argument not briefed before us, made in passing, or raised briefly without supporting arguments or authority.
Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004);
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014).
We can consider sua sponte an abandoned issue if a forfeiture exception applies and extraordinary circumstances warrant review.
United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 17, 2022) (No. 21-1468).
Here, Henry was not entitled to relief pursuant to her Rule 60(b)(4) motion because she did not identify any jurisdictional defect depriving the district court of arguable jurisdiction.
See Espinosa, 559 U.S. at 271.
The requirement that all defendants consent to removal is not jurisdictional.
See In re Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 123 F.3d at 1410 n.2.
Res judicata is not jurisdictional either.
Narey, 32 F.3d at 1524–25.
Moreover, to the extent Henry argues that the district court erred by concluding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied, that is an argument over which the court had jurisdiction because a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.
See In re Nica Holdings, Inc., 810 F.3d at 789.
Moreover, Henry points to no error in the district court’s application of the doctrine, nor to any other possible jurisdictional problem that might have deprived the district court of arguable jurisdiction.
Thus, we affirm the district court’s denial of Henry’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
1 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feld- man, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
Hey Congress,
When y’all gonna pass the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, to bring these Outlaws in Dirty Black Robes, called judges, back into line? Judges are replacing democracy with tyranny, and they have no respect for Congress. https://t.co/L5fbbwJz27 pic.twitter.com/WDFC3oFGN6
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 16, 2022
III.
We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(d)(3) motion for relief from a judgment due to the opposing party’s fraud on the court for abuse of discretion.
See Cox Nuclear Pharm., Inc. v. CTI, Inc., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b)(3) motion).
Rule 60 does not limit a court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P 60(d)(3).
A movant must prove fraud on the court with clear and convincing evidence.
See Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 283-84 (11th Cir. 1987)
(appealing denial of Rule 60(b) motion after denial of § 2254 petition).
Fraud on the court is limited to exceptional conduct like bribery or evidence falsification involving an attorney.
Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978) (prior version of Rule 60).
We have held that, in independent actions challenging a judgment for fraud on the court, the alleged fraud must not have been raised in the original litigation, and it must not have been possible for the complaining party to raise the issue through reasonable diligence.
See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir. 1985).
Here, the district court addressed fraud on the court, and it correctly found that Henry failed to show sufficiently egregious conduct.
The conduct Henry points to on appeal, even if true, does not fall within the category of egregious conduct that can constitute fraud on the court, but instead amounts to, at most, arguably erroneous legal arguments, or conduct that occurred before she filed her complaint, neither of which come close to the necessary showing of fraud on the court.
See Rozier, 573 F.2d at 1338.
Furthermore, she does not challenge any conduct that was not raised before her Rule 60 motion or that she could not have raised through reasonable diligence.
See Travelers Indem. Co., 761 F.2d at 1552;
Bircoll, 480 F.3d at 1088 n.21.
Thus, we affirm the denial of her Rule 60(d)(3) motion.
LIT OBJECTS TO THE PANEL SUMMARY, WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE THE ‘CONDUCT’ AT ISSUE, AND BLANKS HENRY’S ARGUMENTS.
IV.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for extension of time for abuse of discretion.
See Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade Corr. & Rehab. Dep’t, 878 F.3d 1008, 1010-11 (11th Cir. 2017)
(extension of time to file motion for substitution).
A request for an extension should be granted if good cause is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
Here, Henry arguably has shown good cause for an extension in her motion for an extension to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning her Rule 60 motion because she asserted that she did not receive the report and recommendation until after the time for her to file objections had passed and she had been occupied caring for a family member.
We assume arguendo that she showed good cause for an extension.
However, the consequence for failing to object to the magistrate’s report and recommendation is waiver of the right to challenge those issues on appeal.
11th Cir. R. 3-1.
Because we have reviewed Henry’s arguments as if she had not waived them for failing to object, we affirm the denial of her motion for the reasons discussed above.
See R. 3-1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
AFFIRMED.
LIT OBJECTS TO THE SCANT LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE ‘CONSEQUENCE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE MAGISTRATE REPORT’.
YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:
• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.
• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.
Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.
Florida
June’s List of Florida Lawyers Behavin’ Like, Well, Lawyers
The Florida Supreme Court disciplined 19 attorneys, disbarring three, suspending nine, reprimanding one, and revoking the licenses of six.
June 2022 Florida Bar List of Disciplinary Actions Against Florida Lawyers
JUN 1, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JULY 9, 2022
BREAKING NEWS FROM LAWS IN FLORIDA .COM
The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Has Decided it is Closing the Door on Transparency Due to LIF’s Detailed Investigations, based off the monthly Florida Lawyers behavin’ badly, e.g. the disciplinary list issued by the Florida Bar.
The Amount of Monies these Lawyers are Thievin’ is Now being Withheld from the Disciplinary Reports, where the Rogue Lawyer Admits Guilt and Agrees to the Bar Sanction(s). This is Brand New, before LIF Could Obtain the Amount of Money Finched via their Reporting.
That Stated, We’ll Just Harvest More Facts and Data about the Ochlocracy and Judicial Corruption along with these Rogue Florida Lawyers Behavin’ Badly and Post it On Our No BS Blogs. p.s., the Gov. Ron ‘The Unwanted Dictator” DeSantis is included.
It’s A Coverup. No Details of the Amount of Theft of Funds by the Fl. Bar or Supreme Court.
Charles H. Burns, 205 Golfview Dr., Tequesta, ($1.2M family residence) disciplinary revocation without leave to seek readmission effective 30 days following a May 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1980)
Burns was the subject of a Bar grievance that involved allegations of misappropriation.
(Case No: SC22-227)
Allan Campbell Should Have Been Disbarred. LIF Has Covered this Case in an Ongoing Series of Articles.
Allan Campbell, 1300 South Duncan Dr., Bldg. A, Tavares, suspended for three years and completion of The Florida Bar’s Ethics School effective 30 days following a May 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1990)
Campbell created a law firm with nonlawyers who were allowed to control Campbell’s law firm and the employees of the firm.
The nonlawyers engaged in the unlicensed practice of law with respect to both the timeshare exit cases and the mortgage foreclosure cases.
Campbell allowed others, including nonlawyers, to file pleadings using Campbell’s e-filing credentials without his approval.
Campbell made accusations under oath in federal court that he later admitted he did not know whether those accusations were true.
Additionally, the nonlawyer employees engaged in negotiations with timeshare resorts, under Campbell’s name as an attorney, located in jurisdictions in which Campbell was not admitted to the practice of law.
Campbell allowed the nonlawyers who ran his law firm to advertise and directly solicit potential clients in a manner that was not allowed by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
Finally, one of the nonlawyers who ran Campbell’s law office told Campbell not to come back that the nonlawyer was changing the locks, preventing Campbell from having access to his own law firm.
A new law firm was created with a similar name under a different attorney who continued servicing the cases under Campbell’s law firm without any notice to the clients from Campbell or the new attorney.
(Case No: SC21-1495)
Persistent Offender, Sandra Coracelin’s Devious Behavior Results in Disbarment
Sandra Coracelin, 16211 S.W. 18th St., Miramar ($684k family residence), disbarred effective immediately following a May 23 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1997)
Coracelin filed her petition for reinstatement from a three-year suspension.
After determining Coracelin acted in contempt of the two previous orders of suspension, the Bar filed a petition for contempt and order to show cause.
Coracelin committed several misrepresentations to the Bar during the reinstatement proceedings and to an employer during her suspension, including attempting to tamper with a witness and thwart The Florida Bar’s investigation into her conduct during her suspension.
Coracelin also omitted three legal employments, and other jobs, from her petition for reinstatement and failed to disclose the income derived from them.
(Case No: SC20-1473)
Maite Diaz Banked on Florida Bar Reinstatement
Maite L. Diaz, P.O. Box 820300, Pembroke Pines, public reprimand by publication effective immediately following a May 12 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2006)
This is a reciprocal discipline action that was issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 25, 2019.
It ultimately resulted in Diaz being suspended by the bankruptcy court due to what the court described as gross incompetence.
Diaz appealed the order in federal court and sought reinstatement prior to the conclusion of the appeal.
She was reinstated in 2020 after a finding that she was fully rehabilitated.
(Case No: SC21-1754)
Perverted Florida Lawyer John Gillespie is to be Welcomed Back to the Florida Bar after 3 Years despite being Incarcerated for running his Law Office Like an Underage Prostitution Ring
John Gillespie, 252 8th Ave., Cramerton, NC, suspended for three years, effective immediately following an April 28 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1998)
Gillespie engaged in misconduct, including a conflict of interest, by engaging in a sexual relationship with a criminal client that resulted in the birth of a child.
Gillespie also made misrepresentations to the Bar during its investigation of this matter.
(Case No: SC20-974)
No Jail Nor Criminal Charges for Microcap Fraud
Lawyer Diane Harrison Disbarred and her Non-lawyer Husband a Co-Conspirator
Diane Joy Harrison, 6719 Bobby Jones Ct., Palmetto, ($570k homestead) disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission effective immediately following a May 5 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2000)
Harrison was involved in one disciplinary matter pertaining to an SEC judgment entered against her.
(Case No: SC22-386)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Diane J. Harrison, et al.,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-01003
(M.D. Fla., filed April 25, 2018 before Judge Steven Merryday)
SEC Charges Lawyer and Two Others in Microcap Fraud Schemes
Litigation Release No. 24122 / April 30, 2018
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action on April 25, 2018, against a lawyer and two other individuals relating to two microcap schemes involving undisclosed “blank check” companies. In separate, settled administrative proceedings, the SEC charged another individual and two public companies related to one of the schemes.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that attorney Diane J. Harrison, Esq. and her husband, Michael J. Daniels, both of Palmetto, Florida, manufactured at least five microcap issuers with the undisclosed intent to sell them based on their status as public companies with purportedly unrestricted shares available for resale in the public markets.
According to the complaint, Daniels and Harrison created the false appearance that the companies were pursuing specific business plans with independent management and shareholders by installing friends and family (including defendant Catherine A. Bradaick-Zolla of Sarasota, Florida, who also provided other assistance to the fraud) as purported officers and shareholders.
The SEC alleges that, in reality, Daniels and Harrison controlled the shares.
According to the complaint, Daniels and Harrison sold four of the five companies to Andy Z. Fan of Las Vegas, Nevada and, along with Bradaick-Zolla, continued to provide support to Fan.
For example, the SEC alleges that Daniels, Harrison, and Bradaick-Zolla prepared false SEC filings, Harrison submitted false legal opinion letters, and Daniels and Bradaick-Zolla entered manipulative trades to artificially set the price of the stocks in the public market.
The SEC previously issued a stop order on the public offering of the fifth company in Daniels and Harrison’s pipeline.
The SEC’s complaint also alleges that Harrison participated in a separate fraudulent scheme involving at least 11 undisclosed blank check companies secretly controlled by Alvin S. Mirman and Sheldon R. Rose.
The SEC previously filed enforcement actions against Mirman and Rose, who were also convicted of criminal charges and sentenced to prison based on the same alleged conduct.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Harrison provided at least 21 false legal opinion letters in furtherance of Mirman and Rose’s scheme.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleges that Harrison and Daniels violated
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)
and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
and
Rules 10b-5 and Rule 13a-14 thereunder,
and
aided and abetted violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act
and
Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13 and 13a-14 thereunder.
The complaint also alleges that Daniels violated Section 9(a) of the Exchange Act, and that Harrison also violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.
The complaint further alleges that Harrison and Bradaick-Zolla aided and abetted violations of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
and
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, penny stock bars, and officer-and-director bars against each defendant.
In separate orders instituting settled administrative proceedings, the Commission charged Fan and two public companies under his control, AF Ocean Investment Management Company and ChinAmerica Andy Movie Entertainment Media Company, with issuing false press releases and making false SEC filings regarding their purported revenues.
The Commission also charged Fan with manipulating the price of both companies’ stock and fraudulently selling his controlling interest in another public company.
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Fan and the two companies agreed to the entry of cease-and-desist orders.
Fan further agreed to entry of an order barring him from participating in penny stock offerings, barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and ordering him to pay $140,000 in civil penalties.
AF Ocean and ChinAmerica each further agreed to entry of an order revoking their securities registrations.
The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Jeffrey T. Cook in the Miami Regional Office.
The investigation was supervised by Eric R. Busto. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Amie Riggle Berlin.
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:18-cv-01003-SDM-TGW
| Securities and Exchange Commission v. Harrison et al Assigned to: Judge Steven D. Merryday Referred to: Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson
Cause: 15:0077 Securities Fraud |
Date Filed: 04/25/2018 Date Terminated: 06/16/2020 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 850 Securities/Commodities Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2021 | 150 |
ORDER–NOTICE: COMPLIANCE WITH NEW LOCAL RULE 1.08. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 1/11/2021. (BK) (Entered: 01/11/2021) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 06/03/2022 14:23:33 | |||
| PACER Login: | bloggerinc | Client Code: | |
SEC Charges Florida Attorney with Investment Fraud
The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a civil injunctive action against a Florida lawyer accused of investor fraud.
The federal agency alleged that attorney Diane J. Harrison and her husband, Michael J. Daniels, manipulated share prices to inflate the public market value of stock they controlled.
Harrison is a business lawyer licensed to practice in Florida and Nevada.
She specializes in business planning, securities regulation, Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance, public offerings and private placements, according to her website.
Her firm, Harrison Law, is based in Parrish, in the Bradenton–Sarasota–Venice metropolitan area on Florida’s southwestern coast.
Harrison has a degree in chemical engineering from West Virginia Institute of Technology, and once held an engineering position with the U.S. Department of Energy, according to her online biography.
Her business holdings include a plumbing company that tests and repairs residential backflow systems.
But the SEC claimed Harrison also had another line of work:
alleged scams that ran for about four years and violated anti-fraud, registration and reporting provisions of federal securities laws.
“From no later than July 2010 through August 2014, Harrison participated in two separate fraudulent schemes to manufacture public companies for sale, fundamentally premised on a deceptive public float of purportedly ‘free-trading’ securities,” according to the complaint the SEC filed April 25 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
“The creation of that deceptive public float was dependent on false and misleading statement and omissions to the Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Depository Trust Co. and others.”
The alleged fraud involved “microcap” companies — publicly traded companies with market capitalization or value of around $50-$300 million.
The SEC alleged Harrison and her husband launched at least five microcap companies to issue stock based on these firms’ ability to issue unrestricted shares on the over-the-counter market.
But the companies had no real value, according to the complaint.
Instead, the SEC alleges Daniels and Harrison created the false appearance that the companies were viable businesses with independent management and shareholders.
Instead, they used friends and relatives to pose as officers and investors.
One friend, Catherine A. Bradaick-Zolla of Sarasota, was named as a co-defendant in the SEC action.
“Harrison and Daniels’ scheme followed a consistent pattern,” according to the complaint.
They “acquired a small local business, and gifted its privately held securities to approximately 30 friends and family by providing them with all the money to ‘purchase’ the shares.”
Once the “investors” completed the acquisition, Harrison then prepared and filed paperwork with federal agencies to take the company public and offer its shares for sale. “Daniels and Harrison used the identity of a friend — sometimes without his or her knowledge — to be a fellow officer, to create a mirage of not just independent investors, but also independent management,” according to the SEC complaint.
“Each registration statement made false and misleading statements concerning the officers, the company’s business purpose and the ‘selling’ shareholders.” Harrison’s Florida Bar file shows admission in 2010 and no disciplinary history over the last 10 years.
Her Nevada file shows no disciplinary actions, and membership since 2004.
Harrison did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday on the federal charges, and no appearance was immediately entered on her behalf.
OUTRAGEOUS IN PHILLY
SEC Fines Ex-SEC Attorney $125K In Half-a-Billion Dollar Unregistered Stock Fraud Case BUT fails to disclose in their Press Release he’s a former SEC STAFF ATTORNEY and his Law License is in IMPECCABLE STANDING. https://t.co/TILf3XLrQp@SECGov @DBoardPA @ABC— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 8, 2022
Jamindar’s Unacceptable Excuses Are Covered by Florida Bar Attorney Immunity and As Such, Accepted
Nirav Mahendra Jamindar, 17555 Nature Walk Trail, Unit 305, Parker, CO, suspended for 90 days effective 30 days following a May 5 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2008)
In one matter, Jamindar failed to timely and properly withdraw from an appellate matter, causing delay in the appeal.
In a separate instance, Jamindar represented he was “Of Counsel” for a law firm for a period of time in which he was no longer working for the law firm.
Jamindar inadvertently filed notices of appearance reflecting his “Of Counsel” designation.
In second, third, and fourth matters, Jamindar failed to properly supervise his wife, who solicited legal business for Jamindar without his knowledge.
(Case No: SC21-507)
Chris Lim Should Have Been Disbarred. Lim’s Part of the Allan Campbell Series of Articles.
Christopher A. Lim, P.O. Box 568163, Orlando, suspended for one year effective 30 days following a May 19 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2005)
Lim became involved with two separate “private member associations” that were run by nonlawyers.
The first company marketed itself to individuals wanting to fight foreclosure cases without directly hiring an attorney.
Lim and another attorney provided legal services to the customers of the company.
After the company ceased operations, Lim joined another law firm that, in effect, was run by another “private member association” that marketed itself to individuals wanting to defend their foreclosure cases without directly hiring an attorney.
The law firm also was used by another nonlawyer’s company that directly solicited individuals who wanted to cancel their timeshare contracts.
The nonlawyer company owners controlled the operations of the law firms and had considerable input into what actions the attorneys took.
The manner in which the law firm was run caused considerable confusion as to which attorney was representing a particular client.
All fees were paid by the customers directly to the companies which then paid the attorneys a salary.
Lim also was sanctioned by the Fifth District Court of Appeal for failing to respond to two Orders to Show Cause for pursuing a meritless appeal.
(Case No: SC21-1666)
Lucente Decided that a Suspension Could be Blanked. That Didn’t Go Down Well.
Janet Peralta Lucente, 1525 N. Park Dr., Suite 102, Weston, disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years effective immediately following an April 28 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1997)
Lucente engaged in the practice of law after being suspended for 91 days by filing pleadings furthering litigation and held herself out as an attorney in said pleadings.
Lucente failed to provide notice of her suspension and a copy of the order to a client and failed to withdraw from the matter prior to the effective date of her suspension.
Lucente also made a misrepresentation in her affidavit to The Florida Bar when she stated she had no clients when the order of suspension was issued.
(Case No: SC22-352)
Two brothers who operated multiple South Florida addiction treatment facilities were sentenced to prison. They were also Florida Lawyers.
Daniel Markovich, 1151 Poinciana Dr., Pembroke Pines, indefinitely suspended effective 30 days following an April 28 court order
(Admitted to practice: 2017).
Markovich was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud;
two counts of health care fraud;
one count of conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks;
and two counts of payment and offer kickbacks in exchange for use of services.
Markovich was sentenced to 97 months and 60 months of incarceration, all terms to run concurrently.
(Case No: SC22-566)
Jonathan Markovich, 250 95th St, Surfside, indefinitely suspended effective 30 days from an April 28 court order (Admitted to practice: 2013).
Markovich was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care and wire fraud;
eight counts of health care fraud;
one count of conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks;
one count of payment and offer of kickbacks in exchange for use of services; one count of soliciting and receiving kickbacks;
one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering;
eight counts of money laundering; and two counts of bank fraud.
Markovich was sentenced to 188 months, 120 months, and 60 months of incarceration, all terms to run concurrently.
(Case No: SC22-570)
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, March 21, 2022
Addiction Treatment Facility Operators Sentenced in $112 Million Addiction Treatment Fraud Scheme
Two brothers who operated multiple South Florida addiction treatment facilities were sentenced to prison Friday for a $112 million addiction treatment fraud scheme that included paying kickbacks to patients through patient recruiters and receiving kickbacks from testing laboratories.
“These substance abuse treatment facility operators, through brazen tactics driven by greed, took advantage of vulnerable patients seeking treatment,”
said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
“These sentences demonstrate the department’s unwavering commitment to protecting patients and prosecuting fraudulent substance abuse treatment facilities through our Sober Homes Initiative.”
Jonathan Markovich, 37, and his brother, Daniel Markovich, 33, both of Bal Harbour, were sentenced in the Southern District of Florida to 188 months and 97 months in prison, respectively.
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, the defendants conspired to unlawfully bill for approximately $112 million of addiction treatment services that were medically unnecessary and/or never provided, which were procured through illegal kickbacks at two addiction treatment facilities, Second Chance Detox LLC, dba Compass Detox (Compass Detox), an inpatient detox and residential facility, and WAR Network LLC (WAR), a related outpatient treatment program.
The defendants obtained patients through patient recruiters who offered illegal kickbacks to patients, including free airline tickets, illegal drugs, and cash payments.
The defendants shuffled a core group of patients between Compass Detox and WAR in a cycle of admissions and re-admissions to fraudulently bill for as much as possible.
Patient recruiters gave patients illegal drugs prior to admission to Compass Detox to ensure admittance for detox, which was the most expensive kind of addiction treatment offered by the defendants’ facilities.
In addition, therapy sessions were billed for but not regularly provided or attended, and excessive, medically unnecessary urinalysis drug tests were ordered, billed for, and paid. Compass Detox patients were given a so-called “Comfort Drink” to sedate them, and to keep them coming back.
Patients were also given large and potentially harmful amounts of controlled substances, in addition to the “Comfort Drink,” to keep them compliant and docile, and to ensure they stayed at the facility.
“To manipulate and exploit patients seeking help in their most vulnerable state is unacceptable,”
said Assistant Director Luis Quesada of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.
“These individuals orchestrated a scheme that sought profits over the well-being of patients, and they will be held accountable for their actions. With the help of our law enforcement partners, the FBI continues to investigate, bring down these criminal enterprises, and protect our citizens.”
After a seven-week trial in November 2021, both defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud. Jonathan Markovich was convicted of eight counts of health care fraud and Daniel Markovich was convicted of two counts of health care fraud.
They were also both convicted of conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks and two counts of paying and receiving kickbacks.
Jonathan Markovich was separately convicted of conspiring to commit money laundering, two counts of concealment money laundering, and six counts of laundering at least $10,000 in proceeds of unlawful activities.
He was also convicted of two counts of bank fraud related to fraudulently obtaining PPP loans for both Compass Detox and WAR during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The FBI’s Miami Field Office, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, and the Broward County Sherriff’s Office investigated the case.
Senior Litigation Counsel Jim Hayes and Trial Attorney Jamie de Boer of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section prosecuted the case.
The National Rapid Response Strike Force, Miami Strike Force, and Los Angeles Strike Force lead the Department of Justice’s Sober Homes Initiative, which was announced in the 2020 National Health Care Fraud Takedown to prosecute defendants who exploit vulnerable patients seeking treatment for drug and/or alcohol addiction.
Topic(s):
Coronavirus
Disaster Fraud
Health Care Fraud
Component(s):
Criminal Division
Criminal – Criminal Fraud Section
Press Release Number:
22-270
PENDING CRIMINAL DIVISION CASES
Sober Homes Takedown
United States v. Jonathan Markovich et al. (21-CR-60020)
All hearings will be held before Judge William P. Dimitrouleas United States Courthouse, 299 East Broward Blvd. #108, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 unless otherwise noted.
Latest Updates:
On March 24, 2022 defendant Jose Santeiro was found guilty by a federal jury. His sentencing hearing has been set for June 17, 2022 at 01:30 PM.
The arraignment hearing for defendant Jeffrey Draesel has been reset for June 19, 2022 at 11:00 AM.
The sentencing hearing for defendant Waserstein has been reset for June 27, 2022 at 01:15 PM.
The sentencing hearing for defendant Bosch has been set for June 30, 2022 at 01:15 PM.
On May 10, 2022 defendant Lieberman was sentenced to 13 months of imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $1,851,538.51 in restitution.
On March 18, 2022 defendant Jonathan Markovich was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $2,122,500 in restitution.
On March 18, 2022 defendant Daniel Markovich was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $1,850,000 in restitution.
On March 10, 2022 defendant Elan Bakhshi was sentenced 25 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $2,904,187 in restitution.
On April 6, 2022, defendant Christopher Garnto was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $375,227 in restitution.
The sentencing hearing previously scheduled for defendant Kustura has been cancelled.
Please note that due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, courthouses may have different rules regarding in-person attendance. Please check the court’s website or contact us at Victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov if you are planning to attend.
Criminal Charges:
On or about September 25, 2020, ten defendants were charged by criminal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for their alleged participation in conspiracies to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, violate the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act, and money laundering offenses. Defendant Jonathan Markovich was also charged with bank fraud and false statements to a financial institution for seeking Paycheck Protection Program loans.
These defendants are owners, operators, doctors, and patient recruiters for two substance abuse treatment centers in Broward County, Florida:
Second Chance Detox, LLC, doing business as Compass Detox (“COMPASS”), a detox and residential inpatient facility,
and
WAR Network, LLC (“WAR”), a related outpatient program.
Eight of these defendants were indicted on January 19, 2021.
On November 4, 2021, Defendant Jonathan Markovich was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, health care fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks, payment and offer of kickbacks in exchange for use of services, soliciting and receiving kickbacks, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and bank fraud.
Defendant Daniel Markovich was also convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, health care fraud, conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks, and payment and offer of kickbacks in exchange for use of services.
For more information about the Sober Homes Takedown, please see below:
Assistance for those with medical needs who may have been impacted by the Sober Homes Takedown enforcement actions:
DOJ, DEA, HHS-OIG, HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Florida Department of Children and Families are deploying federal and state-level strategies to address patient harm and ensure continuity of care. Additional information regarding available treatment programs and where patients can turn for assistance is as follows:
Mental Health & Substance Abuse Resources in Miami-Dade County
Thriving Mind South Florida Brochure
Victim Impact Statement: If you would like to submit a Victim Impact Statement, you may do so by mailing the Victim Impact Statement to: Victim Witness Unit, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, 10th & Constitution Avenue, NW, Bond Building, Room 4416, Washington, DC 20530. You also may submit the Victim Impact Statement via email at VictimAssistance.fraud@usdoj.gov or by fax at: (202) 514-3708.
The information on this website will be updated as new developments arise in the case. If you have any questions, please call the Victim Assistance Line toll-free at (888) 549-3945 or email us at VictimAssistance.fraud@usdoj.gov.
Presumption of Innocence: It is important to keep in mind that an indictment contains allegations only, and that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That presumption requires both the court and our office to take certain steps to ensure that justice is served.
Crime Victims’ Rights Act and Right to Retain Counsel: The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) applies only to victims of the counts charged in federal court, and thus individuals may not be able to exercise all of these rights if the crime of which the individual is a victim was not charged. Section 377I(c)(2) of this Act requires that we advise you that you have the right to retain counsel. Although the statute specifically sets forth your right to seek advice of an attorney with regard to your rights under the statute, there is no requirement that you retain counsel. The Government may not recommend any specific counsel, nor can the government (or the court) pay for counsel to represent you. Government attorneys represent the United States.
If you elect to obtain counsel to represent your interests, please have your attorney notify this office in writing at: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, 10th & Constitution Avenue, NW, Bond Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20530, Attention: Victim Witness Unit; fax: (202) 514-3708; or email: VictimAssistance.fraud@usdoj.gov. If you elect not to retain counsel to represent your interests, you do not need to do anything.
Meadors Abhorrent Criminal Acts
Michael Jay Meadors, 500 E. University Ave., Suite B, Gainesville, permanent disciplinary revocation effective 30 days following an April 28 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2003)
Meadors is charged by criminal information with one count of child sexual battery
(Count I, Capital Felony),
and 21 counts of promoting 23-1 and possessing a sexual performance by a child
(Counts II-X, First Degree Felonies, and XI-XXII, Second Degree Felonies).
(Case No: SC22-245)
Mitchell’s Not Receivin’ First Amendment Protection for Bashin’ Outlaws in Dirty Black Robes
Raymond B. Mitchell, 3717 Del Prado Blvd. S., Suite 1, Cape Coral, suspended for 91 days effective 30 days following a March 28 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1994)
Mitchell was found to have engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice and of making disparaging statements which impugned the qualifications and integrity of a judge.
(Case No: SC20-1777)
Newman Needed to Top Up His Retirement, And His Wish Was Granted, Free of Criminal Prosecution
Lawrence Bruce Newman, (75), 1900 Glades Rd., Boca Raton [virtual address, the actual home address for Newman is 17100 Grand Bay Dr, Boca Raton, FL, 33496-2913], disciplinary revocation with leave to apply for readmission effective April 27 following a May 12 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1974)
Newman agreed to a disciplinary revocation concerning the misuse of funds.
(Case No: SC22-402)
Ramer Needs Coached
Alan Howard Ramer, 10602 S.W. 77th Terr., Miami, suspended for 91 days effective 30 days following a May 20 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1988)
This is a reciprocal discipline action stemming from a six-month suspension order by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that was to be rescinded if Ramer complied with remedial requirements.
To date, he has not complied.
Ramer repeatedly failed to timely comply with discovery requests and/or produce complete responses, failed to attend court-ordered mediation, failed to respond to opposing counsel’s emails, failed to comply with court orders, and failed to comply with the local rules for the Southern District Court of Florida.
Lawyer Rheinstein is Filin’ Frivolously and Makin’ Threats. Move to Texas, That Behavior is Deemed Zealous Advocacy.
Jason Edward Rheinstein, P.O. Box 1369, Severna Park, MD, disbarred effective 30 days following a May 20 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 2008)
Rheinstein was found to have filed numerous pleadings lacking merit in violation of rules of procedure in both federal and state cases.
Rheinstein also filed numerous frivolous pleadings and took positions unsupported by the facts or the law.
Rheinstein violated the rules by attempting to prove an elaborate conspiracy theory in order to force a settlement, as well as issuing unsubstantiated accusations against his legal opponent regarding a fraud scheme that led a court to believe the opponent was under federal investigation.
Rheinstein also engaged in a series of actions,
including threatening to report his opponent’s attorneys to the Attorney Grievance Commission if they refused to drop an appeal or withdraw from the case,
making accusations of ex parte communication with the clerk’s office in an effort to manipulate the trial record,
and
threatening opposing counsels with claims related to their clients’ alleged fraudulent conduct.
This is a reciprocal discipline action based on an order from The Court of Appeals of Maryland dated January 24, 2020.
(Case No: SC20-1614)
Sarbinoff is a Lawyer and a Criminal. Grant, You’re the Perfect Lawyer.
Grant Griffith Sarbinoff, 411 N.E. 53rd St., Miami, indefinitely suspended effective 30 days following an April 28 court order
(Admitted to practice: 2010). (Now showing as ‘RETIRED’, per Fl. Bar Profile).
Sabrinoff was adjudicated guilty of the following felony offenses:
two counts of criminal use of personal identification information;
one count of unlawful use of a two-way communications device;
and
16 counts of offenses against users of computers.
(Case No: SC22-573)
Siegmeister is a Prosecutor Who Requested and Received Bribes for Reduced Sentences Over Many, Many Years. His Criminal Trial is Currently Ongoing. Note: there’s not a Detailed Summary in this Disbarment by the Florida Judiciary, LIF knows Why.
Jeffrey Alan Siegmeister, P.O. Box 329, Live Oak, permanent disciplinary revocation, effective 30 days following an April 28 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1994)
On February 22, 2022, Siegmeister pled guilty to the following:
conspiracy to use a facility of commerce for unlawful activity,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1952(a)(3);
conspiracy to interfere with commerce by extortion,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a);
wire fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343;
and filing a false tax return,
in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).
(Case No: SC22-307)
KC Wright’s Behavin’ Like a Normal Lawyer – Unfortunately, He Got Himself Arrested and is Now a Fugitive
Kenneth Carl Wright, 121 South Orange Ave., Suite 1500, Orlando, disbarred effective immediately following a May 12 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1988)
Wright was arrested for suspected shoplifting, for trespassing and resisting arrest without violence on March 10, 2020.
In August of 2020, Wright entered a plea to the trespass charge and received a time served jail sentence and a withhold of adjudication.
The resisting without violence charge was dismissed by the state pursuant to Wright’s plea agreement.
Wright failed to advise The Florida Bar of his criminal plea.
In September 2020, Wright was arrested in Denver, Colorado, for burglary.
Wright failed to appear for his court proceedings in relation to that charge.
He absconded and is subject to a warrant for arrest as a fugitive from justice.
Wright did not participate in the Bar’s disciplinary proceedings against him.
(Case No: SC21-1215)
NOPE, NOT FROZEN
Ochlocracy and Corruption arrives in the form of @MikeEngelhart https://t.co/1wIZl9NXSq
Tryin’ to make up to the judiciary for his ‘mistake’ in https://t.co/qSR46lpZ0f
He’s an Outlaw in a Dirty Black Robe. [Dis]Honorable Mike Engelhart.@SupremeCourt_TX pic.twitter.com/ALXkStPd2O
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 7, 2022
The Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 110,000 members of The Florida Bar.
Key discipline case files that are public record are posted to attorneys’ individual online Florida Bar profiles.
To view discipline documents, follow these steps.
Information on the discipline system and how to file a complaint are available at www.floridabar.org/attorneydiscipline.
Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined.
The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline.
Disbarred lawyers may not reapply for admission for five years.
They are required to go through an extensive process that includes a rigorous background check and retaking the Bar exam.
Attorneys suspended for periods of 91 days and longer must undergo a rigorous process to regain their law licenses including proving rehabilitation.
Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.
YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:
• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.
• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.
Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.
Mortgage Servicer PHH Ocwen: Scammin’ Homeowners Since 2008, with Government and Judicial Approval
A Message for Felon Francis Santa: We Cannot Be Bribed. Stop the Harassment
August 2022 List of Thievin’ and Lyin’ Attorneys In the State of Florida
Where Is He Now? Fraudster Francis Santa Was Sentenced to 88 Months for Conspiracy
Two Florida Foreclosure Lawyers Matt Fuqua and Clay Milton Commit the Most Abhorrent Act
Who is Catalina Azuero, a Liar Lawyer at Goodwin Procter LLP?
Disgraced and Disbarred: Why Are Former Judges and Lawyers Working as Mediators in Our Courts?
Lawyer Calvin Curtis Stole Over $13M Sentenced to 8 Years in Jail. He Wants a Favor from The Florida Bar.
April 2022 Foreclosure Stay Raises Serious Questions as to ‘Divorce Status’ Of Tim and Jennifer Howard
-
Editors Choice2 years agoWhere Is He Now? Fraudster Francis Santa Was Sentenced to 88 Months for Conspiracy
-
Bankruptcy5 years agoTwo Florida Foreclosure Lawyers Matt Fuqua and Clay Milton Commit the Most Abhorrent Act
-
Acceleration4 years agoWho is Catalina Azuero, a Liar Lawyer at Goodwin Procter LLP?
-
Editors Choice3 years agoJudge Barbara Hobbs Son is Arrested for Attempted Murder. Her ExtraJudicial Intervention is Granted
-
Editors Choice2 years agoA Message for Felon Francis Santa: We Cannot Be Bribed. Stop the Harassment
-
Federal Judges2 years agoSelective Justice: Law Firm Assistant Criminally Charged with $3M IOLTA Theft But Lawyers Who Steal Millions Are Not.
-
Eleventh Circuit4 years agoFlorida Insurance Defense Lawyer Curtis Lee Allen Faces Ethics Complaint Filed by the Florida Bar
-
Appellate Circuit4 years agoWho is Liar Lawyer Sabrina Rose-Smith of Goodwin Procter, LLP?