New Petition No. SC14-1637, Florida Supreme Court
The Smiling Faces of Evil
UPDATE February 18, 2015
Supreme Court records obtained show certain pleadings, letters and other documents filed in Petition No. 12-7747 were received by the Supreme Court January 24, 2013 (date stamped Received, Jan 24 2013 Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court, U.S.). But those pleadings, letters and other documents do not appear on the Supreme Court’s docket for Petition No. 12-7747.
Supreme Court records were provided by the National Archives and Records Administration,
and researcher Mark Leutbecker, Nicklason Research Associates.
Therefore a reasonable person could conclude that U.S. Supreme Court Petition No. 12-7747 was compromised. A reasonable person might also conclude that the compromise of Petition No. 12-7747 was due to "a special relationship with the Chief Justice of the Untied States" with former Florida Chief Justice Ricky Polston, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Claudia Rickert Isom, and former Florida Bar President Gwynne Alice Young.
______________________________________________________________________
UPDATE January 21, 2015
On information and belief, the foregoing is evidence of misconduct by former Chief Justice Ricky Polston, Judge Claudia Rickert Isom, and Florida Bar President Gwynne Alice Young. Presenting Claudia Isom the Distinguished Judicial Service Award while Isom was a Respondent in Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, along with the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, is conduct unbecoming a member of the bar that is prohibited by Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure because it implied "a special relationship with the Chief Justice of the Untied States".
In determining what conduct violates Rule 46, an earlier Supreme Court [In re Snyder 472 U.S. 634, 645 (1985)] found tribunals should consider "case law, applicable court rules, and ‘the lore of the profession,’ as embodied in codes of professional conduct," such as the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Judge Isom’s appearance January 31, 2013 in the Florida Supreme Court Chamber violated, inter alia, Rule 8.4(e) of the Model Rules, which says it is professional misconduct for an attorney to "state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law."
The Distinguished Judicial Service Award itself appears to be a sham anyway. Officially the
award "honors outstanding and sustained service to the public especially as it relates to support
of pro bono legal services". But for the past three years the award was given to judges or a
spouse who in my Hillsborough case denied me basic due process.
In 2012 Judge James M. Barton, II, got the Distinguished Judicial Service Award, presented by
the Chief Justice Polston in the Supreme Court. Barton presided over my case in Hillsborough
County (05-CA-7205) from February 13, 2007 through May 25, 2010. The record shows Barton
collaborated with Mr. Rodems and my lawyer Robert W. Bauer (a Bar referral) to undermine my
case. On January 13, 2006 I established by Order of Judge Nielson a cause of action against
Rodems and his firm in the theft of $6,224.78 ($7,143) through a closing statement fraud. My
motion and affidavit for summary judgment were filed April 25, 2006 and noticed for hearing.
Tellingly Bauer did not argue my summary judgment. Instead he assisted Rodems & Barton.
In 2013 Judge Claudia R. Isom got the Distinguished Judicial Service Award, presented by the
Chief Justice Polston, see attached. Isom presided over my case in Hillsborough County (05-CA-
7205) from November 22, 2006 through February 13, 2007.
In 2014 Judge Emily Peacock got the Distinguished Judicial Service Award, presented by the
Chief Justice Polston at a Jan. 30 ceremony at the Supreme Court of Florida. Emily Peacock is
married to Mike Peacock, the Public Defender who failed to represent me June 1, 2011 after he
was appointed to do so. Judge Arnold relieved the public defender from the counsel
appointment claiming no basis. But Arnold had other basis to appoint counsel, including the
ADA, and under Fla. Stat. § 29.007 (2011) "This section applies in any situation in which the
court appoints counsel to protect a litigant’s due process rights.", according to the ABA.
Request Senate Hearing, Nominee Arthur Lee Bentley
