Monday, December 17, 2012

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida

Petition 12-7747 Writ of Certiorari, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida - Scribd

US Supreme Court docket page - Petition No. 12-7747
 Petition denied February 19, 2013; rehearing denied April 15, 2013

Evidence of a crisis in the practice of law in the State of Florida. 
   Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (r) to Scott Rothstein (l): "Scott - You are amazing!"

See U.S. v. Rothstein, 09-cr-60331, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
See The Florida Bar v. Scott W. Rothstein, TFB Case No. 2010-50,656(09B)

          Something is not right in Florida. Like Gillespie, the citizens of Florida also need the assistance and protection of an Article III federal judge.

             Unfortunately, every Article III federal judge in Florida is a member of The Florida Bar.

This is a case for The Supreme Court of the United States
 Disbar The Florida Bar

             Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975) held lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws.

          A pamphlet [fn1] published by The Florida Bar Public Information and Bar Services Department as a service for consumers states: "The Florida Bar disciplinary program has become the gold-standard for protecting the public." Yet somehow Scott Rothstein, at the time a member in good standing with the Florida Bar, was able to operate a massive 1.2 billion dollar Ponzi scheme from the law offices of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A. right under the Bar’s nose, and while serving on a Florida Bar grievance committee. Rothstein was also appointed August 25, 2008 by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to serve as a Commissioner on the Fourth Appellate District Judicial Nomination Commission, arguably at the height of his racketeering activities, to which he plead guilty and on June 9, 2010 received a 50-year prison sentence.

The Commerce Clause -Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
Constitution of the United States

          [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7; Section 1:

          Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.....

Clayton Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. § 12-27

          The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, codified at 15 U.S.C. 12-27, outlaws the following conduct: price discrimination; conditioning sales on exclusive dealing; mergers and acquisitions when they may substantially reduce competition; serving on the board of directors for two competing companies.

Section 5, FTC Act 15 U.S.C § 45 
15 USC § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

          From Gillespie’s Eleventh Circuit no. 12-11028-B, Motion to Reconsider: Lawyers, Judges, Courts, and Government Units - "Enterprises" Under RICO

9. Governmental units, such as the New York City Civil Court, may be "enterprises" within the meaning of RICO. United States v. Angelilli, 660 F. 2d 23 (C.A.2 1981). A court may be an enterprise within the meaning of RICO. United States v. Bacheler, 611 F.2d 443, 450 (3d Cir.1979) (Philadelphia Traffic Court). Judges and lawyers may be "enterprises" within the meaning of RICO. U.S. v. Limas, 1:11-cr-00296, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Brownsville (Indictment of Judge Abel C. Limas March 29, 2011). In this matter, Mr. Rodems, Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, Mr. Bauer and his law office, are "enterprises" within the meaning of RICO. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, The Florida Bar, the Hillsborough County Clerk, the Hillsborough County Sheriff, even the Florida Supreme Court, are "enterprises" within the
meaning of RICO, to which judicial immunity or other immunity does not attach.

The Hobbs Act
18 USC § 1951 - Interference with commerce by threats or violence

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) As used in this section (2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

(3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

Too Many Bad Apples Spoil a Profession

          A relative handful of bad lawyers and firms are responsible for an enormous amount of harm in Florida, lawyers like Scott W. Rothstein, David J. Stern, and Ryan Christopher Rodems.

          The American Bar Association in February 1992 issued a report by the McKay Commission entitled Lawyer Regulation for A New Century: Report of the Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement [fn2]. The Report made this warning 20 years ago:

"The incompetence and neglect of relatively few lawyers must not continue to sully the image of the rest. We cannot afford to let legitimate disagreements between lawyers and clients go unresolved. Without a mechanism to resolve these complaints and disputes, clients are harmed and the profession's reputation unnecessarily suffers."

"The consequences of continuing to ignore these problems are clear. The Federal Trade Commission has made several attempts to gain jurisdiction over some complaints against lawyers. State legislatures have made forays into lawyer regulation with increasing frequency. Legal consumer organizations have grown in membership and in political activism."

[fn2] One of the nine members of the McKay Commission that issued this Report to the ABA was John Berry, currently the Director of The Florida Bar’s Legal Division.

The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar Do Not Protect Consumers

          Florida fails to adequately protect consumers of legal and court services, and fails to properly regulate lawyers, law firms, the practice of law, and state judicial officers affecting interstate commerce as shown in this petition and elsewhere.

          The Florida Supreme Court has misused its monopoly over the practice of law, through malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, by and through its disciplinary arm, The Florida Bar, which unfortunately is being operated in a fashion as to protect itself and certain favored dishonest lawyers rather than the public and honest lawyers.

          The Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar have neglected their fiduciary duty to the public, the consumers of legal and court services.

          The Florida Supreme Court has improperly restrained trade by limiting the practice of law through the Florida Board of Bar Examiners and its requirements. This results in high costs to consumers, hourly rates of $200 or more, costs beyond the reach of many Floridians. 


           The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted, together with such other and further relief as The Supreme Court of The United States deems just and equitable.

           Respectfully submitted, December 10, 2012
                                                                               Neil J. Gillespie, petitioner pro se
Petition 12-7747 Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.