Another dangerously flawed family law reform bill has been once again submitted in the Florida Legislature. As this flawed legislation persists, Republican Sen. Tom Lee, who has been embroiled in his own past divorce and child support battles, has now introduced Senate Bill 250. Many marginalized members of the Florida Bar are saying enough is enough — it’s time for Florida Gov. Rick Scott to do the right thing and form a neutral “Family Law Reform Task Force” to carefully study this issue and recommend fair and equitable changes to our family law statutes that, if necessary, do not unjustly harm women and children.
The proposed Alimony/Family Law Reform bill contains as one of its greatest flaws an equal child timesharing provision, which creates a legal presumption that equal time splitting between parents occur. This legal presumption can only be overcome if the parent challenging the presumption enters into a legal fight and proves, with evidence, that it is not in the best interests of the child to have equal time with both parents.
There is no exception in the proposed statute regarding the age, physical or mental health of the child, or the physical or mental health of the parents. This will mean that unless a parent challenges the law, infants and toddlers would be exchanged between households on a nearly 50/50 basis. Alcoholic or abusive parents will be presumed to be entitled to 50/50 split timesharing with their children as well, including overnights.
Judge Robert M. Evans says another dangerously flawed “Family Law Reform” bill has been once again submitted in the Florida Legislature. Many marginalized members of The Florida Bar are saying “enough is enough.” Evans believes it’s time for Gov. Rick Scott to do the right thing and form a neutral Family Law Reform Task Force to carefully study the issue and recommend fair and equitable changes to our family law statutes that if necessary, do not unjustly harm women and children.
A nightmare development scenario playing out in Palm Beach County, which Sally Swartz says is bad news for proponents of local control statewide. The worst blow of all: Counties have no choice. Florida lawmakers allow the new development and counties are forced to go along.Dr. John H. Armstrong, Florida’s surgeon general, writes that unhealthy weight has affected children in the state well before his appointment in 2012.
Combating this epidemic would become his highest priority – and it was clear that doing so wouldn’t be as simple as changing the meals served in school cafeterias. While unhealthy weight among youth is still high, the strides the Armstrong and the state has made in recent years show promise for improving a previously bleak situation.Visit Context Florida to dig in.
SOURCE: TODAY ON CONTEXT FLORIDA: FAMILY LAW REFORM, NIGHTMARE DEVELOPMENT AND UNHEALTHY CHILD WEIGHT – SAINTPETERSBLOG
The judge rejected it without blinking.
But now, the Florida Bar, which sets the ethical standards for attorneys is accused of breaking its own rules, claims Tampa Attorney Scott Tozian. “The Bar acted in an improper manor in a prosecution of this case,” said Tozian.
Tozian has represented troubled attorneys for over 30 years.
He’s battled the Florida Bar hundreds of times, but this latest case has him shaking his head in disgust. “We felt like the prosecution was biased,” said Tozian.
This all came about during an insurance settlement dispute when one attorney complained to the Florida Bar about being left out of negotiations.
He wanted the bar to punish the opposing attorneys and strip them of their law license.
Emails show he even pressured the bar to hire an ouside attorney instead of using their own.
And in a rare move, the bar agreed, paying the newly hired attorney close to $400,000. “The bar had to actually amend its budget in order to pay that money. It’s not like the Florida bar has $400,000 sitting in a kittie,” said Tozian.
Tozian says that money could’ve been put to better use like funding Pro Bono cases. “Those organizations are always in need of extra funds for the people of the state of Florida who cant afford legal services,” said Tozian.
Even worse, says Tozian, is the bar’s tactics in this case, which he describes as “dishonest, deceitful, and unethical.”
In a motion to the Supreme Court, he accuses the bar of submitting fraudulant documents to the court, and then trying to cover it up, something that should be unheard of for the bar, writing “very simply this case represents cronyism at its worst.”
Tozian says dozens of e-mails and sworn testimony backs up his claims.
He is now taking his complaints about the bar misconduct to the Florida Supreme Court. “The vast majority of the men and women who represent the Florida Bar do so ably and confidently and ethically. In this case I question all of that,” said Tozian.
Tozian wants the high court to dismiss the case against his clients because of the bar’s misconduct.
Meanwhile, the bar sent FOX 13 a response to these allegations.
They concede that while some of the actions may look suspicious, they are adamant they never intended to deceive or hide anything from anyone.
Hello Everybody! This is Disbar The Florida Bar, the campaign which is uncovering the corruption at the Florida Bar....
Posted by Disbar The Florida Bar on Sunday, September 26, 2010
Disbar the Florida BarRules Regulating The Florida BarExcerpts from the Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities
We are uncovering the corruption at the Florida Bar. This regulatory agency is obstructing justice and denying honest services to many Floridians. This has a profound effect on all of us. When rogue attorneys use the courts and their profession to line their own pockets, the only line of defense is the Florida Bar. If the Florida Bar doesn't act properly to stop the criminality of it's member attorneys, the harm continues and becomes more prevalent. The radio show we are broadcasting tells the stories of victims of the Florida Bar's corruption. The purpose is to change the way lawyers are regulated and to bring down the corrupt leadership of this regulatory agency. Please help us by contributing any amount you wish at the website www.disbarthefloridabar.com
1949 transcripthttp://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27694568_ITM
Posted by Disbar The Florida Bar on Sunday, May 30, 2010
"The disturbing issue to me is the moms who FORCE dad's not to be around... and I know too many of them who are pro...
Posted by Parental Alienation & other Child abuse awareness/prevention on Monday, July 20, 2015
Bill Corbin's Supreme Abuse websitehttp://www.supremeabuse.com/
Posted by Disbar The Florida Bar on Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Reasonhttp://victimsofthesystem.org/myreason.html
Posted by Disbar The Florida Bar on Sunday, May 30, 2010
Posted by Children's Rights on Friday, September 4, 2015
A roundup of the "culture of corruption" has something for everyonehttp://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/gubernatorial/politics-at-heart-of-criminal-investigations-swirling-across-florida/1098422
Posted by Disbar The Florida Bar on Saturday, May 29, 2010
Family Court Judges Rubber Stamp Fraudulent Court Orders
unhappygrammy at Grandparents blog-Dedicated to Austin and Isabella
7 Steps for Managing Awful Opposing Counsel -
ReplyDelete“Honestly, based on the dealings I’ve had so far, I dislike the other attorneys more than the opposing spouse! Why do attorneys have to make everything so personal?”
The guy who said that practices family law in Florida, and I couldn’t agree more.
You’ve had the same experience. The opposing counsel is making you miserable. You are not alone.
My friend in Florida asked, “How do you deal with attorneys like that?”
I’ll attempt to answer. However, I’ll warn you now that there isn’t a secret formula for these situations. There isn’t a perfect solution for dealing with these difficult humans.
When I’m dealing with one of these lawyers, I assume that we’re in for the long haul. These folks typically drag out every element of the case.
How to Never Let Your Clients (Or Opposing Counsel) See You Sweat
Here’s my advice:
1. Accept it. Accept that they are who they are and that you can’t change that reality.
2. Be normal. Make every effort to resolve your cases as amicably as usual. Be yourself. Don’t let their anger, hostility, and bad behavior change you. Don’t spend any special time or effort coming up with some magic plan of action because it’s not likely to work, and it only raises your clients’ expectations.
3. Explain the increased expense. Tell your clients that you’re likely to go to trial. Explain to the clients how this sort of behavior works in these cases. Explain that it drives up the costs and that they’re in for a long, expensive battle unless they want to concede now and be done by taking a grossly unfair deal. Help your clients understand that a bad deal is a choice some people prefer when compared to letting opposing counsel drag things on forever. Do a cost/benefit analysis with your clients.
4. Inoculate yourself with your clients. Tell your clients they’re going to have doubts about the quality of your representation and the fairness of the process. Help the clients understand that opposing counsel is acting in an effort to have that impact. Explain that opposing counsel’s bad behavior undermines confidence in you, and that’s the intent. Explain that it makes clients feel out of control. Predict the future for your clients—a future filled with ugly comments, unpleasant interactions, and protracted litigation. Help your clients understand that ultimately, the outcome will still be fair and reasonable.
5. Avoid emotional counterpunching. Make no effort to psych out opposing counsel. Tell your clients why you aren’t going to bother. Don’t attempt to be a bigger jerk than they’re being. Try not to engage in the crazy behavior. Moving forward with the process is the only agenda.
6. Get ready for trial. Keep moving your cases forward. Always have an event on the calendar. Assume you’re going to try these cases, and don’t get sucked into the endless insanity of unproductive settlement discussions.
7. Get it over with. Try the cases. Your clients need finality. They need it to be over. You’ve prepared them for the inevitability of a long, hard slog, and they know it ends with the judgment of the court. Push it forward and get it finished. That way, neither you nor your clients will have to deal with these difficult humans any longer than necessary.
As I said earlier, there isn’t an easy solution for these most difficult lawyers. Just do the job and accept that they make the process inefficient, expensive, and unpleasant. By pushing forward and disconnecting from the aggravating insanity, you’ll survive this case and be ready for the next one. Unfortunately, you’ll likely have another case with these same lawyers and have to deal with their negative behavior again down the road.
If knowing that you’ll have to deal with these people over and over is something you can’t tolerate, then sadly, this work may not be for you.
http://divorcediscourse.com/2013/03/28/7-steps-managing-awful-opposing-counsel/?utm_source=feedburner
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~
ReplyDeleteLitigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~
"Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~
"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~
A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~
"Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~
Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~
"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~
Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~
The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~
It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~
"Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.~
"The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~
"The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
ReplyDeleteRedress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS