The Florida Bar v. Saul Cimbler

SC04-2050 | SC05-948

NEXT CASE ON THE CALENDAR IS
FLORIDA BAR v. SAUL CIMBLER.
GOOD MORNING.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS BARNABY MIN AND I AM
COUNSEL FOR THE FLORIDA BAR.
YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ASKING THIS
COURT REJECT RECOMMENDATION AND
INSTEAD SUSPEND THE RESPONDENT
FOR THREE YEARS BASED ON THE
FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASES
THAT ARE BEFORE YOUR HONORS
TODAY AS WELL AS THE
AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOUND BY
THE REFEREE.
AND IN PARTICULAR THE
RESPONDENT'S PRIOR DISCIPLINE.

GOING RIGHT TO THE HEART OF
THE MATTER, WHAT WOULD THE BAR
SAY IS THE MOST EGREGIOUS
VIOLATION THAT HAS BEEN FOUND
HERE.
THE VIOLATION IS THE
RESPONDENT FAILING TO NOTIFY
MR.^-- IT CAUSED GREAT HARM TO
THE CLIENT THAT HE WAS UNAWARE
OF --
WELL IN THIS CASE -- EXCUSE
ME.
IN THIS CASE ISN'T IT TRUE THAT
AN ATTORNEY APPEARED AND
SUBSTITUTE FOR COUNCIL.
THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

AND WHATEVER -- WAS THE
CLIENT EVER INFORMED OF THAT.
NO, HE WAS NOT, YOUR HONOR.

THE CLIENT WAS NEVER INFORMED
BITE MR.^--
I APOLOGIZE, WAS THE CLIENT
INFORMED BY SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL
THAT THAT COUNSEL WAS NOW
REPRESENTING MR.^CIMBLER'S
FORMER CLIENT.
NO, NOR NEITHER OF THEM
INFORMED HIM THAT HE HAD A NEW
ATTORNEY.
THE FIRST TIME HE KNEW HE HAD A
NEW ATTORNEY WAS WHEN HE WEPT
TO COURT IN SEPTEMBER 2002 AND
WAS INFORMED BY THE TRIAL COURT
THAT MR.^CIMBLER WHO
MRS.^MOREJON THOUGHT WAS HIS
ATTORNEY WAS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE
TO PRACTICE LAW.
WHAT HARM CAME TO THE CLIENT
AS A RESULT OF THAT?
THIS IS WHERE THE CASE WENT
BACK, RIGHT?
BECAUSE OF THE EMOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL OR REHEARING OR WHATEVER
IT AND IT TURNED OUT THAT
THERE, THERE HAD SOME BEEN
SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, SO WHEN
I'M ASKING YOU, YOU KNOW,
THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION IS, IS IN
SOME CASES ALMOST TANTAMOUNT TO
DISBARMENT, AND THE, THE
FAILURE TO NOTIFY THIS CLIENT
WHEN THE CLIENT IN FACT HAD THE
SUBSTITUTE LAWYER, YOU KNOW,
APPEAR AND EVERYTHING, ON ITS
FACE IT AT LEAST THREE YEARS
SUSPENSION SOUNDS A LITTLE OUT
OF BACK.
-- WHACK, YOU KNOW FOR THAT
FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
YOUR HONOR, IF YOUR HONOR
CONSIDERS JUST THE FACTS, THEN,
NO, A 3-YEAR SUSPENSION IS NOT
APPROPRIATE.
WELL -- WHAT I AM LOOKING
FOR IS THAT THREE-YEAR
SUSPENSION IS A POWERFUL
SANCTION.
AND SO I'M LOOKING FOR THE, THE
WHERE'S THE MEAT?
IN THE THING HERE AND I WANT
YOU TO ARTICULATE FOR US HERE
IS, IS A GOOD SENSE ARGUMENT
FOR WHY YOU SHOULD IMPOSE THIS
VERY SEVERE SANCTION.
IN THIS CASE.
YOUR HONOR, THE REASONS THIS
COURT SHOULD IMPOSE A 3-YEAR
SANCTION IS NOT JUST BECAUSE OF
THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR
CASES BUT BECAUSE OF THE
AGGRAVATING FACTORS THAT WERE
FOUND AND IN PARTICULAR THE
PRIOR DISCIPLINE THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN HAS
COME BEFORE THIS COURT FOR.
WELL BEFORE WE GET TO THE
AGGRAVATION I WOULD LIKE TO
FOCUS ALSO ON THE FACTS OF
THESE CASES.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTOR
HOME CASE IS -- MOREJON CASE IS
NOT JUST THAT HE SUBSTITUTED
COUNSEL WITHOUT TELLING
HIS CLIENT BUT HE HAD TO SUBMIT
A LIST TO THE FLORIDA BAR OF
THOSE CLIENTS HE HAD TO INFORM
ABOUT HIS SUSPENSION, AND
MOREJON WAS ON THAT LIST SO IT
WAS A FRAUD ON THE BAR.
IT WAS A, A LIE.
THAT HE HAD INFORMED MOREJON
BECAUSE HE HAD NOT.
THAT IS CORRECT.
NOT JUST MR.^ MOREJON HE LIED
ABOUT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT HE
PROVIDED TO THE FLORIDA BAR IN
OCT2002 HE INDICATED HE
INFORMED MRS.^MOREJON OF THE
SUSPENSION HE INDICATED HE TOLD
OPPOSING COUNSEL OF SUSPENSION
HE SAID HE TOLD TRIAL COURT
UNDER OATH.
HE NEVER INFORMED MR.^MOREJON,
THE RESPONDENT NEVER INFORMED
OPPOSING COUNSEL HE NEVER
INFORMED TRIAL COURT OF THE
SUSPENSION.
I'M A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE YOU
ARE GOING TO HAVE LIMITED TIME
HERE YOU ANSWERED
JUSTICE ANSTEAD'S QUESTION BY
SAYING THAT'S THE MOST
EGREGIOUS VIOLATION.
GLARING TO ME IS RECEIVING A 5
$00,000 FEE AND NOT REPORTING
IT OR FILING INCOME TAX
RETURNS.
IS -- WHAT IS THE BAR'S VIEW OF
THAT?
I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME IS THAT
S THAT, THAT'S IN THIS CASE,
CORRECT.
THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

WHY ISN'T THAT THAT THE MOST
EGREGIOUS VIOLATION.
WHAT'S MITIGATING ABOUT THAT
ONE THAT I AM MISSING.
THERE IS NOTHING MITIGATING.

WELL WHY ISN'T -- A LAWYER
GETS A FEE OF $500,000 AND
DOESN'T -- DOESN'T REPORT IT TO
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
DOESN'T PAY TAXES ON IT.
THAT ALONE, WOULDN'T THAT
WARRANT A SUBSTANTIAL
SUSPENSION UNLESS THERE WAS
MITIGATING ENACTORS.
ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR, THE
ONLY -- FACTORS.
ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR, THE
ONLY REASON I RESPONDED TO THE
JUSTICE'S QUESTION ABOUT
MR.^MOREJON BEING A MORE
SERIOUS ONE BECAUSE A CLIENT
WAS AFFECTED OR A SITUATION
BEING AFFECTED.
WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME
TAXES, RESPECTFULLY NO ONE
REALLY WAS AFFECTED OTHER THAN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH IS
--
WELL I GUESS ALL OF US ARE
AFFECTED SINCE WE ALL PAY TAXES
WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T PAY -- BUT
I MEAN, I JUST AM HAVING A HARD
TIME SEEING THE, THE BAR'S
GRADATION HERE IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY THAT THEY
DIDN'T DO -- HE DIDN'T NOTIFY
OR FOLLOW EVERY RULE BUT GINN
HOW IS THE CLIENT HURT?
THERE WAS ANOTHER ATTORNEY THAT
SHOWED UP AND WAS SUBSTITUTED
AT THE HEARING.
WHAT WAS THE HARM TO THE
CLIENT?
RESPECTFULLY, YOUR HONOR, I
ADMIT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL HARM
TO THE CLIENT.
THE CLIENT WAS PUT IN A
POSITION WHERE HARM COULD'VE
ACTUALLY OCCURRED FOR A PERIOD
OF TIME THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT
REPRESENTING MR.^MOREJON AND
NEITHER WAS MS.^THOMPSON.
HOW DOES THE TAX MATTER
INTERRELATE WITH THE PRIOR
1-YEAR SUSPENSION?
IT DOESN'T RELATE.
THE 1-YEAR SUSPENSION IS A
PRIOR CASE THAT HAD NOTHING TO
DO.
RIGHT BUT THE TIMING OF IT
AS I UNDERSTAND THIS TAX
FAILURE TO FILE THE TAX RETURNS
HAPPENED PRIOR TO 2000.
THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

AND THE SUSPENSION HAPPENED

APRIL 9 2008 WED
FLORIDA BAR VS SAUL CIMBLER
(CONTINUING FROM MIDDLE OF SENTENCE?)
REPORTING THAT TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT
UNTIL 2002 WAS THE FLORIDA BAR
INFORMED THAT RESPONDENT
COMMITTED CRIMINAL
VIOLATIONS.
ONCE INFORMED
OF THAT MATTER WHEN WE
STARTED WITH THE --
SANCTION.
GIVE AS YOUR FURTHER
THUMBNAIL SKETCH
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
FAILURE TO REPORT NOT ONLY
FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, BUT
ALSO THESE WERE CASH
PAYMENTS; IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.
THE CRIMINAL STATUTES
THAT WERE INVOLVED DID THEY
INCLUDE MONEY LAUNDERING
STATUTES?
MR. CIMBLER WAS NEVER
CHARGED WITH ACTUAL CRIMINAL
STATUTES, ALSO IN THE BAR
COMPLAINT THAT THE
RESPONDENT -- THE BAR HAD
ALLEGED THE RESPONDENT
COMMITTED A NUMBER OF
VIOLATIONS, NUMBER ONE HE
HAD FAILED TO FILE INCOME
TAXES; NUMBER TWO, HE HAD
RECEIVED CASH PAYMENTS OVER
$10,000 AND FAILED
TO FILE INCOMES, TRANSACTION
REPORTS; NUMBER THREE, THERE
WAS OUTSTANDING -- ORDER BY
THE FEDERAL JUDGE THAT
PROHIBITED THE DEFENDANTS
AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS,
FOR FORWARDING
PAYMENTS FROM ILLEGAL
SOURCES.
WERE THESE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL STATUTES CITED TO
THE REFEREE?
NOT -- NOTICE, YES, THEY
WERE, YOUR HONOR.
WERE THERE ANY UNDERLYING
CIRCUMSTANCES, OF WHY HE
WASN'T PROSECUTED?
IT CAME OUT
DURING THE FINAL HEARING
OF THIS MATTER AS WELL AS
RESONDENT'S TESTIMONY
DURING THE FEDERAL TRIAL,
THAT HE RECEIVED IMMUNITY
FOR TESTIMONY.
HE TESTIFIED AGAINST
SOMEBODY ELSE OR WHAT?
YES, SIR.
HE WAS
TESTIFYING I BELIEVE ON
BEHALF -- AGAINST -- ON
BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AGAINST
AN ACCOUNTANT, THE -- I DON'T KNOW
FOR SURE IF AN ACCOUNTANT --
ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED
IN THE TRIALS.
ONE OF THE ISSUES
WE'LL HAVE TO FACE HERE HE
WAS SUSPENDED IN 2002 AND
REMAINS UNDER SUSPENSION
RIGHT UP TO TODAY; IS THAT
CORRECT?
THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.
ALL RIGHT.
SO HOW DOES
THE BAR WHAT -- ANY
SUSPENSION THAT THE BAR
ADVOCATES THAT WE SHOULD
IMPOSE?
WHEN DOES THE BAR
ADVOCATE THAT WE WOULD MAKE
THAT -- SUSPENSION
EFFECTIVE?
PRETTY RECOMMENDED IN THE
REPORT EFFECTIVE FROM DATE
OF REPORT WHICH THE BAR HAS
NOT CHALLENGED THAT ASPECT.
THE ONLY ASPECT THE BAR
CHALLENGED IS LENGTH OF
SUSPENSION.
WAS THAT WHAT, ABOUT A YEAR
AGO OR WHAT --
I BELIEVE THE REFEREE FIRST
REPORTED IN 2005, WHICH IS WHEN
HE RECOMMENDED --
MR. CIMBLER HAD A TWO-YEAR
SUSPENSION EFFECTIVE
DECEMBER 2, *'92 A FILED
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OCTOBER
2006, AMENDED TO A ONE-YEAR
SUSPENSION FROM THE --
AND THE BAR IS ASKING FOR
WHAT?
THREE YEARS.
SO IF WE FOLLOW THAT, THAT
WOULD RUN UNTIL DECEMBER OF
2008.
THAT IS CORRECT.
DECEMBER THIS YEAR, REALLY
WHAT WE HAVE, THE TAX
MATTERS, AND THE THINGS
SURROUNDING THAT WITH REGARD
TO THE CURRENCY THE
MOREJON CASE, A RESTITUTION
ORDERED FOR THAT, CORRECT.
THAT IS CORRECT.
REALLY TWO THINGS WE ARE
LOOKING AT.
CORRECT,
YOUR HONOR.
SO THOSE
THINGS I GUESS REALLY ARE
NOT IN DISPUTE, WE'RE LOOKING
AT WHAT?
THE PENALTY IS THE
DISCIPLINE I -- I GUESS IS HOW I
SHOULD PHRASE IT, WITH
REGARD TO THOSE.
AND WHY ARE THE CASES THAT
THE REFEREE CITED NOT MORE
APPLICABLE OR THE ONES WHICH
THE REFEREE RELIED UPON
THAN SOME OTHER -- UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES?
BECAUSE, WE HAVE SOME --
SOME SHORT-TERM SUSPENSIONS,
VERY SHORT TERM, DO WE NOT,
FOR TAX ISSUES, AND DON'T
THOSE SORT OF RUN THE GAMUT
FROM SOME THAT ARE
VERY, VERY SMALL UP TO SOME
THAT WOULD MAYBE EVEN REACH
DISBARMENT.
YES, YOUR HONOR THIS
COURT HAS RESPECTFULLY -- AS
FAR AS HOW -- FAILURE TO PAY
INCOMES TAX HE SHOULD BE
DISCIPLINED --
THERE IS A TREND OVER THE
YEARS THAT YOU DO SEE, A TREND
THAT SOME OF THOSE OLDER
CASES TREATED MORE LIGHTLY
THAN THAT HAS BEEN TREATED
IN RECENT YEARS.
YES, YOUR HONOR,
SPECIFICALLY THE FLORIDA BAR
VERSUS -- THIS COURT, ALL
ATTORNEYS ON NOTICE STATED
ANY ATTORNEY FROM NOW ON
WHO COMMITS WHO FAILS -- TO
FILE INCOME TAXES SHALL
RECEIVE A REHABILITATIVE
SUSPENSION AT A MINIMUM, AND
THE BLANKLEY CASE ATTORNEY HAD
NO PRIORS GOOD CHARACTER,
UNDERGOING FINANCIAL
DISABILITY MITIGATING
FACTORS FOUND BY THIS COURT
NEVERTHELESS STATED
REHABILITATIVE
SUSPENSIONS ARE APPROPRIATE
SUSPENDED THAT ATTORNEY
SIX MONTHS THE -- BAR'S
POSITION AT A MINIMUM WITHOUT
CONSIDERING ANYTHING,
AGGRAVATING FACTORS, AT A
MINIMUM RESPONDENT SHOULD GET
A SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION FOR
FAILURE TO PAY TAXES.
STARTING IN --
CORRECT.
HOW DOES THIS CASE -- I'M
SORRY.
ON TOP OF THAT WE HAD A
SECOND CASE WHICH MRS. --
HOLMES CASE, I WOULD POINT
YOUR ATTENTION TO --
D'AMBROSIO.
THIS COURT
SUSPENDED AN ATTORNEY ONE
YEAR WHERE THAT ATTORNEY
FAILED TO NOTIFY HIS CLIENT
OTHER INDIVIDUALS OF
SUSPENSION -- APPLYING THE
BLANKNER CASE THE D'AMBROSIO
CASE A MINIMUM WITHOUT
CONSIDERING AGGRAVATING
FACTORS, INTENT, SHOULD
RECEIVE AN 18-MONTH SUSPENSION.
CAN I ASK AS FAR AS --
WE WILL HEAR FROM
MR. CIMBLER, BUT JUSTICE
CANTERO SAID THERE WAS A
LIST -- A LIST THAT LISTED
ALL THE DIFFERENT CLIENTS.
DID HE NOTIFY ALL THOSE
OTHER CLIENTS?
THE FLORIDA BAR IS ONLY AWARE OF
MR. -- HOLMES MR. --
THEY DON'T CHECK TO SEE
WHETHER THERE IS -- DID HE --
YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, DID
HE NOTIFY EVERYONE ELSE?
WE DON'T KNOW THAT FROM THIS
RECORD.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT FROM
THIS RECORD.
IN TRYING TO DECIDE
WHETHER THERE IS EGREGIOUS,
OR INADVERTANT WOULDN'T IT BE
HELPFUL FOR US TO KNOW IF
THIS WAS -- AN OMISSION, OR
IT WAS -- A KNOWING, A
KNOWING ACT OF TELLING THE
BAR ONE THING AND DOING
SOMETHING ELSE?
I MEAN, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT
HE DIDN'T NOTIFY ANYBODY ON
THAT LIST UNTIL THE BAR
HAD, THEN WOULD BE PROBABLY
SAYING THIS YOU KNOW, DISBARMENT?
ABSOLUTELY.
BUT, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE BOUND
BY THE REFEREE'S
FACTUAL FINDINGS THE REFEREE
FOUND ALTHOUGH MR. CIMBLER
DID SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT
THAT WAS A FALSE
STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN FACT
FALSE --
BUT HE -- IT WAS FALSE
THAT HE HAD TOLD THE --
PROSECUTOR, OR THE ATTORNEY
FOR THE OTHER SIDE AND THE
COURT THAT -- DIDN'T HE FIND
THE AFFIDAVIT SAID HE HAD,
WHAT HE HAD NOT --
THAT IS CORRECT.
IT WAS MORE THAN JUST
MR. MOREJON.
CORRECT.
THERE WAS A -- NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS -- HOWEVER, THE
REFEREE FOUND THE AFFIDAVIT
ALTHOUGH IT WAS FALSE, UNDER
OATH, THE REFEREE FOUND IT
PERHAPS WAS DUE TO
MR. CIMBLER'S -- RUSH TO
CLOSE OUT PRACTICAL -- HIS
MISUNDERSTANDING ALTHOUGH
RESPECTFULLY I'M NOT QUITE
SURE HOW YOU CAN
MISUNDERSTAND AN
AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS "AT THE
TIME THAT I RECEIVED THE
COURT'S SUSPENSION I
INFORMED THE FOLLOWING
INDIVIDUALS" --
NEVERTHELESS, THE REFEREE FOUND
PERHAPS -- IT WAS A
MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH IS WHY
THE REFEREE DID NOT FIND
UPON REHEARING, OR
REMANDING --
SO GOING BACK TO THIS IF
WE ONLY KNOW THERE IS JUST
THE ONE, EVEN THOUGH THERE
ARE OTHER -- WHY IS THAT IN
THE SAME CATEGORY AS OF
WHERE SOMEBODY DOESN'T YOU
KNOW NOTIFY A LOT OF
CLIENTS?
I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, WHY
STANDING ALONE -- WOULD YOU
SAY STANDING ALONE THAT HE
SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A YEAR?
ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.
SO THAT IS -- SO IT IS YOUR
POSITION SIX MONTHS AND A
YEAR, HOW DO WE GET TO THREE
YEARS THEN?
BASED ON AGGRAVATING
FACTORS BECAUSE AS I STATED
ONE YEAR PLUS SIX MONTHS IS
AT A MINIMUM 18 MONTHS WITHOUT
CONSIDERING ANY -- ANYTHING
ELSE.
HOWEVER, THE REFEREE
FOUND THAT THERE WERE SIX --
AGGRAVATING FACTORS THE
BAR'S POSITION, THE REFEREE
DID NOT GIVE ENOUGH WEIGHT TO
THOSE AGGRAVATING FACTORS
SPECIFICALLY THE REFEREE
FOUND THE RESPONDENT
CONSISTENTLY HAS COME BEFORE
THIS COURT TO BE DISCIPLINED
YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR.
RESPONDENT CAME HERE 1993,
RECEIVED EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION, FOR TRUST
ACCOUNT VIOLATION 95 A
90-DAY SUSPENSION.
CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION ON
THOSE.
DO WE HAVE RULES HOW
FAR WE GO BACK?
AND LOOKING AT THESE HOW DO
THOSE FALL INTO THAT
CATEGORY?
YES, THE -- RULE THE
STANDARDS FOR FLORIDA
STANDARDS, SANCTIONS SAY
PRIOR TO -- GOING BACK SEVEN
YEARS --
'93 IS MORE THAN SEVEN, '95
IS MORE THAN SEVEN.
SO KEEP GOING.
DO WE HAVE ANY WITHIN THE
SEVEN?
ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR.
IN 1999, RESPONDENT RECEIVED --
ADMONISHMENT FAILING TO
COOPERATE WITH FLORIDA BAR
DURING AN INVESTIGATION AND IN
2002 THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED
A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION, FOR
-- NEGLECTING HIS CLIENT
FAILING TO COMMUNICATE TO
THE CLIENT AND FAILING TO
COOPERATE WITH THE FLORIDA BAR.
LAST TWO WE COULD
CONSIDER AGGRAVATION BUT NOT
PRIOR --
AS FAR AS PRIOR DISCIPLINE,
YES, BUT SECOND AGGRAVATING FACTOR
FOUND BY THE REFEREE TO PATTERN
OF CONDUCT THE RESPONDENT
ENGAGED IN OVER AND OVER AND
OVER AGAIN, HE HAS VIOLATED
THE RULES OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, HE
NEGLECTED HIS
RESPONSIBILITIES TO CLIENTS
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THIS COURT HAD TO DISCIPLINE HIM
HE CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED --
JUST SINCE YOU ARE OVER
YOUR TIME, AND I'M -- AGAIN
I'M -- THIS TAX THING
BOTHERS ME, AND I'M GOING TO
NEED AN EXPLANATION.
OTHER THAN THAT, IF WE CAN'T
GO BACK MORE THAN SEVEN
YEARS, YOU'VE GOT AN
ADMONISHMENT, HARDLY IN ANY
KIND OF TERRIBLE CATEGORY,
ADMONISHMENT, YOU'VE GOT THE
2001 INCIDENT, THAT -- AND
HE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED ALL
THESE YEARS.
ONE THING ARISES
OUT OF BECAUSE HE WAS
SUSPENDED, SO WHERE IS THIS
-- I MEAN WE HAVE THIS
TERRIBLE PATTERN OF
MISCONDUCT, THAT HE COMES
BACK YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER
YEAR.
WHERE IS THAT?
HE DOES KEEP COMING BACK, 93,
HE HAS HAD TO BE
DISCIPLINED.
AGAIN, IF WE ARE -- IF WE
ARE FAITHFUL TO WHAT WE
ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WE CAN'T
LOOK AT -- CAN WE LOOK AT 93
AND 95?
NOT AS PRIOR
DISCIPLINE BUT AS FAR AS A
PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT,
ADDITIONALLY IN THE INCOME TAX
CASE, RESPONDENT IS RETAINED
IN 1991, AND THE CASE WAS
FINISHED IN 1997.
THAT ENTIRE TIME PERIOD,
CERTIFIES RESPONDENT
DID SIX YEARS DECIDED NOT
TO PAY INCOME TAX YEAR AFTER
YEAR AFTER YEAR RESPONDENT
VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW IN THE
MOREJON MATTER FAILED TO
INFORM MR. MOREJON
RESPONDENT FAILED TO INFORM
TRIAL COURT RESPONDENT
FAILED TO INFORM OPPOSING
COUNSEL SPOT COMMITTED FALSE
AFFIDAVIT FILED ENGAGED IN
PATTERN MISCONDUCT EACH
INDIVIDUAL CASE AND A
PATTERN MISCONDUCT YOU
CONSIDER ALL CASES TOGETHER.
BUT WOULD YOU ADDRESS HOW
THIS CASE IS OR IS NOT
SIMILAR TO DELFINO CASE OUT
OF THIS COURT WITH REGARD TO
SOME OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED
HERE?
I'M SORRY.
FAMILIAR WITH DELFINO.
I HAVE READ IT NOT
FAMILIAR YOUR HONOR, FRESH
MY RECOLLECTION TO THAT A
CASE THERE WAS A THREE YEAR
SUSPENSION, AND DI
DEVELOPMENTAL TAX ISSUES
ALSO OTHER SFOOSHZ LET THE
ME ASK ONE FINAL QUESTION
THIS CONTRACT WITH FLY, IYTH
TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THAT.
FLY, INC.
ENTER --
YES, YOUR HONOR THE
TESTIMONY DURING THE FINAL
HEARING WAS RESPONDENT WAS
SUFFERED FROM DEPRESSION A
NUMBER OF YEARS ISSUE HE HAD
TO DEAL WITH.
CAN WHEN DID THAT COME UP
FIRST?
FIRST CAME UP IN PRIOR
INTLIRNGS WAY BACK WHEN I
BELIEVE 39 OR 59.
RESPONDENT CONSISTENTLY OVER
AND OVER AGAIN IT STANDS
THAT THAT IS MITIGATION THAT
FACT HAS BEEN DEPRESSED THE
FACT.
DID YOU GET MEDICAL
RECORDS WHAT DO WE KNOW
ABOUT THIS.
YOUR HONOR EXPERT WITNESS
TESTIFIED IN PRIOR EXPLAIN
PREPROCESSING THE REPORT OF
REFEREE AS WELL AS THE
ACTUAL PIN ISSUED BY THIS
COURT SUSPENSIONIVELY
DISCUSSED RESPOND'S
MITIGATING FACTORS, CALLING
IT -- FINAL HEARING RATHER
THAN CALLING WITNESSES
RESPONDENT RELIED UPON
DOCUMENTS.
HOW CAN WE DO THAT
BECAUSE IS IT A -- IS THIS A
CONDITION JUST GOING ON
FOREVER, AND HAS BEEN UNDER
TREATMENT THIS ENTIRE TIME?
THERE ARE A LOT OF GAPS HERE
AS I'M LOOKING AT WHAT IT IS
GOING ON, WITH THE PERSON.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
RESPONDENT FAILED TO
PARTICIPATE IN DISCOVERY ALL
RESPOND DID INTRODUCE
REPORTS OF REFEREE SUPREME
COURT OPINION STATED WHAT
THE PERSONAL PROBLEMS WERE
THAT RESPONDENT WENT THROUGH
RESPONDENT TESTIFIED ABOUT
THE PERSONAL PROBLEMS HE HAS
GONE THROUGH, BUT DL HAS
BEEN NO ACTUAL WILL
DOCUMENTATION, THERE HAS
BEEN AGO IN THAT ACTUALLY
SUBSTANTIATES WHAT IN FACT
IS GOING ON.
OKAY.
THANK YOU YOUR HONOR.
MR. CIMBLER.
CHIEF JUST, MEMBERS OF
THE CURT WITH MISSION GOING
REPRESENT MYSELF PRO SE.
TO BEGIN, I WOULD -- CALL
THE COURTS ATTENTION, TO THE
ORIGINAL FIND BY JUDGE
SIEGEL REFEREE IN THE CASE
STATED THE REFEREE LEFT WITH
IMPRESSION THE BAR WISHES TO
PUNISH REHE RESPONDENT
BECAUSE HE WAS ONE OF THE
LAWYERS REPRESENTING FALCON
AND LAGUDA.
THIS COURT IS NOT HERE TO
PUNISH ANYONE FOR SOMETHING
ELSE REPRESENTING A CLIENT
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS CASE.
BUT THAT IS EE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS
CASE.
JUDGE SEALING LEARNED
LOOKED -- SIEGEL LOOKED AT
ALL THE EVIDENCE ALLEGATIONS
INCLUDING, FAILURE TO FILE
WHICH JUDGE PARIENTE BROUGHT
UP.
WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS
THAT WITH JUSTICE PARIENTE
GIVE HAVE HER YOUR
EXPLANATION.
YES FIRST OF ALL, THE
FACTUAL FINDING WAS NOT THAT
IT WAS FOUR OR FIVE 00,000 I
WAS CALLED TO TESTIFY FROM
AT 5:00 AT NIGHT THE NEXT
DAY, BY THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, IN A CRIMINAL
CASE, I HAD NO TIME TO
PREPARE.
AND IN THE FLORIDA BAR TOOK
ONE SNIPPET OF WHAT I SAID,
AND USED THAT AS A
SPRINGBOARD TO ONCE AGAIN
BRING ME BACK IN TO A
EXPLAIN PREPROCEEDING --
DISPLINARY PROCESSING ONLY
FACTS SHOWN PULLED OUT OF
FLORIDA BAR VSHZ RICHARD
MARTINEZ THE FALL WILL KONA
CASE UP HERE MANY TIMESES AS
LAWYERS ANYBODY FAMILIAR
WITH THE CASE IN MIAMI KNOWS
THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, HAS GONE AFTER
EVERY ATTORNEY EXCEPT TOP
TIER ATTORNEYS I WAS LOW
TIER ATTORNEY, THE EVIDENCE
THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE
MARTINEZ CASE WHICH I
BROUGHT INTO THIS CASE, WAS
THAT OVER -- COURSE OF SEVEN
YEARS, I WAS PAID 197,000
DOLLARS THAT IS WHAT THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PROVED BECAUSE THEY
DEBRIEFED EVERYBODY THEY
CONVICTED EVERYBODY WHO HAD
COMMITTED A CRIME.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN
HERE THAT YOU RECEIVED 400
TO 500,000 DOLLAR CASH
PAYMENTS?
, NO THAT WAS A SNIPPET IN
THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH PAT
SULLIVAN THE ATTORNEY ASKED
ME HOW MUCH DID YOU MAKE,
AND I PUT MY HANDS UP,
BECAUSE I WAS THERE FROM ONE
NIGHT TO THE NEXT I DIDN'T
KNOW, AND I THREW OUT A
NUMBER, AND I JUST GUESSED.
THAT WAS NOT 109,000 IT
IS 400 TO 500,000.
IS THE GUESS THAT IGAVE.
YOU TESTIFIED UNDER OTHER
ZMUT EXCUSE ME.
WAS YOUR TESTIMONY UNDER
OTHER THE?
YES MY TESTIMONY UNDER OECH
I UNDER STATES OVERSTATED
MAY HAVE BEEN UPWARDS I ALSO
GOT PAID MONEY FOR EXPENSE I
DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GO BACK
FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS INTO
DID YOU ADMIT THAT YOU HAD
NOT FILED STATEMENTS THE
CASH PAYMENTS THAT YOU ARE
REQUIRED TO FILE.
ABSOLUTELY, YES
ABSOLUTELY.
YOU ADMIT THAT HAD.
I ADMITTED THAT.
ADMIT THAT YOU DID NOT
FILE INCOMES TAX RECURRENCE
ON THE MONEY THAT YOU HAD
RECEIVED.
IN 1991 YES, THAT IS
CORRECT.
IS THAT THE ONLY YEAR.
THAT IS CORRECT.
WHAT DID THE REFEREE FIND
INTO THE REFEREE FOUND
NUMBER ONE, THAT MY ANALYSIS
OF THE LAW WAS CORRECT, UP
UNTIL 199 --
I'M SORRY WHAT KID
REFEREE FIND AS FACT ABOUT
WHAT YOU HAD LIS EITHERED OR
NOT LISTED IN THE 10,000
DOLLAR CASH THAT YOU
RECEIVED AND IN THE YEARS
YOU HAD NOT FILED TAX
RETURNS?
AS TO THE YEARS LET'S
NARROW THAT DOWN FIRST, THE
REFEREE FOUND A VIOLATION
FOR 1991.
AS TO THE OCCURRENCEY
TRANSACTION REPORTS, THE
REFEREE AGREED AND ACQUITED
ME OF THOSE CHARGES, FINDING
THAT I WAS CORRECT IN MY
APPLICATION OF THE LAW, AND
WE THE THIS WAS NOT A FIVE
MINUTE HEARING THIS WAS
HEARING AFTER HEARING ON
THESE TAX ISSUES IN FACT THE
REFEREE, EMPLOYED HIS OWN
TAX EXPERT CHARLES RUFFNER
DID NOT OBJECT TO THAT
BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS THE
RIGHT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM
OF THE JUDICIAL CANNONS
PERMIT IT AND FLORIDA LAW --
EMANATING FROM THIS COURT
FINDS JUDGE HAS WIDE
LATITUDE UNDER DISBAR MEANT
PROCESSING TO GET DOWN TO
THE TRUTH, AND THIS WAS A
CASE THAT I KNEW PROVERBLY
WHERE THE TRUTH WOULD SET ME
FREE ON MOVE TO OF THEE
ISSUES THE COURT FOUND I WAS
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT IT
WAS PROHIBITED FROM FILING
OCCURRENCEY TRANSACTION
REPORTS BECAUSE IT WAS UNTIL
1994 THAT THIS COURT
CLARIFIED TO THE CRIMINAL
LAW COMMUNITY, ATTORNEYS,
THAT IS, THAT THEY COULD
FILE A BLIND FILING.
BEFORE THAT THE PRACTICE AND
I RELIKELIHOOD ON ARTICLE
THAT SAM RAVEN VERY WELL
RESPECTED CRIMINAL ATTORNEY
WROTE IN THE FLORIDA BAR
JOURNAL IN 1939,SAYING THAT
WE -- 1993, SAYING WE COULD
NOT FILE I WAS ACQUIT FIND
THAT ALSO ACQUIT FIND
OBSTRUCTION JUSTICE CHARGE
HE ALLUDED TO OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE CHARGE RELATED TO
THE FACT THAT THE HONORABLE
JUDGE MORENO IN THE FALCO
CASE PUT OUT AN ORDER THAT
NOBODY COULD RECEIVE MONEY
FROM THESE DEFENDANTS.
THE GOVERNMENT TOOK THE
POSITION AGAINST SOME
LAWYERS THAT THEY SHOULD
HAVE KNOWN THAT THAT MONEY
WAS THERE.
THE JUDGE FOUND THAT I DID
NOT VIOLATE THAT MONEY WAS
NOT TAKEN IN ANY VIOLATION
OF THAT HAVE COURT ORDER.
SO THE BAR STARTED OUT WITH
THIS -- CASE WHICH WE SPENT
YEARS LITIGAING THAT IS WHY
WHETHER I WAS READING THAT
PART OF THE REFEREE'S
OPINION THE REFEREE FIGURED
OUT WHAT HAPPENED I WAS
BEING PARDON FOR SOMETHING
THAT HAPPENED IN 1991 ON THE
HEELS OF JUST BEING
SUSPENDED IN 2002, ALLEGEDLY
FOR CLIENT MISCONDUCT WITH
THE COURT'S PERMISSION
UNLESS ANY OTHER ISSUES ON
THE TAX.
ONE QUICK QUESTION, YOUR
REPRESENTATION -- OF FALCON
MACLU D.A. BEGAN IN 91
PROSECUTION WAS NOT ENDED IT
WILL NINE .
PROSECUTION DIDN'T END
UNTIL 2005 BECAUSE OF
APPEALS AND STUFF BUT THE
TRIAL IF THAT IS THE PART
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
SO DID YOU COLLECT, FEES
ONLY IN 91?
BECAUSE TLEEFRY FOUND YOU
RECEIVED 400 TO 500,000
DOLLARS, FOR SERVICES INTO
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE
SNIPPET I INVITE THE COURT'S
ATTENTION TO GO BACK TO THE
TRANSCRIPT --
-- THAT SNIPPET AT THE
HEARING IN THIS CASE.
YES, I DID.
AND THE -- REFEREE FOUND
IT WAS 400 TO 500,000.
CORRECT BECAUSE OFF THEED
OF THAT I BROUGHT IN WAS THE
MIAMI HERALD ARTICLE BROUGHT
INTO IT A LIST WHICH IS IT
IS IN THE RECORD MY DIRECT
APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED
BECAUSE I MISSED THE MARGIN
REQUIREMENTS.
-- YOU GOT -- 197,000
DOLLARS JUST FOR 1991 AND
YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING AFTER
91 IN REPRESENTING THESE TWO
DEFENDANTS.
O I REPRESENTED THEM,
THROUGHOUT.
YOU GOT PAID THROUGHOUT.
THROUGHOUT THE
REPRESENTATION?
YES.
YES DID THE TOTAL SUM WAS
100 --
NO PART OF THIS TIME DID
YOU EVER REPORT ANY OF THAT
INCOME.
NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE
REFEREE FOUND THE REFEREE
FOUND IT WAS JUST A
VIOLATION OF 1991.
THAT WAS THE FACTUAL RECORD.
-- I'M CONFUSED ABOUT
SOMETHING I THOUGHT YOU SAID
THAT THE REFEREE EMPLOYED
HIS OWN ACCOUNTANT.
ACTUALLY A TAX EXPERT.
TAX EXPERT TO FIGURE THIS
OUT, AND THAT YOU SAID THE
TRUTH WOULD SET YOU FREE.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AS TO
THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THEN
THAT YOU NOWED.
O, NO, JUDGE.
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
THE, ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAD A
REPORTING OBLIGATION INTO
CORRECT.
SO THE YOU ARE -- YOU ARE
SAYING THAT THE FLORIDA
500,000 -- -- 4 TO 500,000
NOT BASED ON DOCUMENTS ONLY
BASED ON WHAT YOU STATED
UNDER OATH -- NOT ONLY BUT
WHAT YOU STATED UNDER OATH
IN A FEDERAL PROCEEDING.
WHAT I GUESS MATED IF YOU
LOOK AT RENNING 4 TO 500 I
WAS NOTES SURE WHAT QUESTION
WAS THE QUESTION ASKED A
LITTLE INARBITRATE I
TOOKILATE HE DIDN'T BREAK IT
DOWN I THOUGHT WOULD HE GO
FURTHER INTO IT HOW MUCH WAS
FEES HOW MUCH WAS EXPENSES,
BUT THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY
KNEW WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS
EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY HAD
DEBRIEFED EVERYBODY --
MR. CIMBLER LET ME REMOVE
TO YOU THE -- MOVE TO YOU
THE MATTER OF THE LENGTH OF
SUSPENSION HERE.
MY CONCERN IS THAT AS YOU
WERE WELL AWARE, THIS COURT
HAS AN OBLIGATION TO IN
LAWYER DISCIPLINE CASES TO
HAVE SANCTIONS THAT ARE
GOING TO BE FAIR TO THE
LAWYER THAT ARE ALSO GOING
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
COURT IS CONCERNED ABOUT
VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF
JUDICIAL -- OF THE
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION.
AND HERE, YOU HAVE SINCES
THE 90'S, HAD ESCALATING
PROBLEMS WITH DISCIPLINARY
MACHINERY OF THIS COURT IN
WHERE THERE HAS BEEN PRIOR
SUSPENSIONS TO WHAT WE HAVE
DONE IN THIS COURT IS HIS
SAY THAT THERE IS GOING TO
BE INCREASING SANCTIONS WITH
-- AND I JUST -- WONDER WHAT
WHAT IS THE REASON THAT THAT
SHOULDN'T APPLY IN THIS
INSTANCE, THAT THERE HAS TO
BE SINCE THERE WAS A
SUSPENSION FOR ONE YEAR, IN
2002, THAT THERE HAS TO BE
AN INCREASE OF THE
DISCIPLINE IN THIS INSTANCE.
LET ME ADDRESS THAT TO
BEGIN, RESPECTFULLY MR. MIN
MISSTATED THE DISCIPLINE
PRERECORD IN 1993 I WAS
SUSPENDED ON EMERGENCY
BASIS, WHEN A CLIENT WAS
DEVELOPER, WHO COULDN'T MEET
HIS OBLIGATIONS TO HIS
CLIENTS, SAID OH, THE REASON
I CAN'T FINISH CONSTRUCTION
MR. CIMBLER STOLE TWO
MILLION DOLLARS FROM HIS
TRUST ACCOUNTS, THE BAR
SWOOPED IN, DID AN AUDIT,
AND INITIALLY CAME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A
53,000 DOLLAR SHORTFALL, 90
DAYS LATER, THIS COURT
REKRINLD THAT HAD EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION WHEN IT WAS
ESTABLISHED THERE WAS
ABSOLUTELY NOT -- A PENNY
MISSING FROM THE TRUT
ACCOUNT THE ADJUDICATION
THAT HAVE CASE IN 1995, 1939
AND 1959 CASE THE OTHER SAME
CASE.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 95
CASE.
THE JUDGE FOUND THERE WAS
NO MONEY MISSING YES, I WAS
NOT THAT GREAT IN
DOCUMENTING MY TRUST
ACCOUNT, USING THE RIGHT
LEDGERS THE RIGHT THINGS,
AND I WAS FOUND FOR --
TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE
RECORD-KEEPING.
WHAT WAS YOUR THE
SANCTION.
IT WAS A 90 DAY
SUSPENSION WHAT HE BASICALLY
DID WAS SAY, YOU ARE
SUSPENDED 90 DAYS DURING THE
EMERGENCY PART OF THIS CASE
OF THAT CASE WHICH YOU
SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, I'M
JUST GOING TO MAKE IT NONPRO
TURNING TO 90 DAYS -- NONPRO
TURNING.
YOU WERE SUSPENED FOR
ACCORDING TO THE REFEREES
REPORT, PRACTICE FOR ONE
YEAR, ON NOVEMBER 1, 4202.
REALLY LIKE TO GET TO
THAT BECAUSE THAT IS REALLY
WHERE THIS COMES DOWN TO,
OCTOBER 10, 1996, I HAD A
HEART AATTACK, TWO YEARS
LATER HAD ANOTHER HEART
ATTACK IN BETWEEN THAT I HAD
16 BALLOON ANGIOPLASTIES,
THE FOCUS MIGHT HAVE MEDICAL
CONDITION ISN'T THE
DEPRESSION FOUND IN 1919
BECAUSE THANKS TO FLORIDA
LAWYERS SANS I RECEIVED THE
MEDICAL ATTENTION I NEEDED
HE HAD THAT HAS NOT BEEN AN
ISSUE IN MY LIFE FOR 10 OR
12 YEARS I HAVE HAVE SOLE
CUSTODY OF MY SON I ASSURE
THAT YOU DIDN'T HAPPEN
WITHOUT THE -- CIRCUIT COURT
IN DADE COUNTY MAKE SURE I
WAS FIT TO BE SINGLE PARENT
BUT THE ISSUES AROSE FROM
1996 TO 201 I WAS IN AND OUT
OF THE HOSPITAL ALL IN 2001
RECORD I WAS IN AND OUT OF
THE HOSTILITY OF I WAS 370
POUNDS, I HAD A -- FOOD -- I
WAS NOT -- FOCUSED
INJUNCTIVE TO DEAL WITH FOOD
ADDICTION KEPT HAVING HEART
ATTACKS ARTERIES KEPT
CLOGGING ONLY SO MUCH PASS
TRAMI UM HAVE BEFORE THAT
HAPPENS THAT IS WHAT
HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THAT
THREE CLIENTS MADE
COMPLAINTS WOULD I OVERSIGHT
THE COURT POVRS ATTENTION
BACK THEY -- INOVERSIGHT THE
COURTS ATTENTION BACK TO
RECORD IN THAT CASE YOU WILL
FIND OF THREE CLIENTS ONE
SAID HE WOULD HIRE ME
IMMEDIATELY THE OTHER ONE,
WAS JUST A CHECK DIDN'T GET
WRITTEN FROM THE FIRM THAT I
WAS DOING CLOSINGS WITH, AND
BECAUSE I SIGNED THE DEED,
IT WAS ON ME, AND THAT IS
RIGHTFULLY SO THE THIRD
COMPLAINT WAS A PERSONAL
FRIEND, WHO I HELPED FOR TWO
YEARS AVOID GETTING EVICTED
FROM A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISH
MEANT AFTER I HAD THE HEART
ATTACK SAID OH, THEY DIDN'T
KNOW -- THE JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED EVEN JUDGE KING IN
THAT IN THAT SAID THERE WAS
NO DAMAGE TO THE CLIENT.
SO THIS NOW SUSPENSION NOW
COMES IN IN 2001 CASE WE ARE
HERE ON THIS -- AND I WAS
REPRESENT BY A ALLOW
APPEARANCE BEFORE YOU QUITE
OFTEN PART OF HIS PRACTICE
REALLY GOT DOWN TO THE CORE
OF WHAT MY ISSUES WHERE HE
SAID -- AWAY, SO IN 2001, I
DECIDED TO HAVE THE GASTRIC
BYPASS SURGERY LAID SECOND
BOUT WITH GASTRITIS MY
INSURANCE COMPANY DECIDED TO
PAY TO I IN FEBRUARY 2002 NO
EVIDENCE ALL MY CLIENTS THAT
-- COME JOOUNL TEN KWLIESING
DOWN I WAS HAVING SURGERY
THE FACT THAT -- CLIENTS
NEEDEDED TO GET NO EVIDENCE
-- TO GET INNOVATIVED
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT
I RECEIVED A SUSPENSION FOR
THE FIRST TIME -- FOUR DAYS
BEFORE SUPPOSED TO HAVE
SURGE SENIORING LET ME
STRAIGHTEN O OUT ORDER OF
SUSPENSION 2002 DIDN'T COME
OUT TELL YOU NOVEMBER 14TH
FOR REASONS FOR THE CLEAR
AND NO ATTORNEY WHO
PRACTICES IN THE AREA OF
DISCIPLINARY O PROCEEDINGS
COULD EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR
IT, THIS COURT ISSUING AN
EMERGENCY ORDER ON JUNE 6TH,
SUSPENDING ME FOR PRACTICE
OF LAW, BY THAT TIME, ALL MY
LIENTS HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED I
FOR WAS HAVING MAJOR SURGERY
FOUR DAYS LATER I KNEW I WAS
GOING TO BE OUT A LONG TIME.
LET ME ASK YOU
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MOTOR
HOME CASE I'M NOT SURE YOU
HAVE ADDRESS THAT HAD.
JUST GRAB WATER.
SURE ABSOLUTELY.
THE REFEREE FOUND I
BELIEVE, AND THE BAR IS
CERTAINLY ARGUES THAT YOU
SUBMITTED A LIST OF CLIENTS
THAT YOU HAD INFORMED ABOUT
YOUR SUSPENSION, THAT
MR. MOTOR HOME WAS
MR. MOREJON WAS ON THAT LIST
YOU DID NOT INFORM MOREJON,
YOU DID NOT INFORM THE
PROSECUTOR IN MR. MOREJON
CASE OR THE COURT ABOUT YOUR
SUSPENSION INTO INITIALLY
THAT IS WHAT HE DID THE
INVITE THE COURT'S ATTENTION
TO THE FILE EVENTUAL I FILED
A MOTION FOR REMAND THIS
COURT DID GRANT THAT MOTION
FOR REMAND NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE WHAT HAPPENED THE
PROSECUTOR ON THAT CASE,IST
WAS NOT MR. MOREJON
ORIGINALLY, WAS MR. BROWN
BACKER ALSO COUNCIL IN THE
2001 CASE, SUBMITS TO THE
COURT THE TRANSA CRYPT THAT
SHOWS MR. MOREJON DOESN'T
SHOW UP FOR KRIEL ON THIS
CASE.
AS I READ THE ORDER
REFEREE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
IT SAYS THAT THE TRANSCRIPT
SHOWS THAT THERE WAS
SOMEBODY SUBSTITUTEING IN.
CORRECT.
-- THAT IS NOT MY
QUESTION, THOUGH MY QUESTION
IS DID YOU PUT MR. MOREJON
ON A LIST OF CLIENTS THAT
YOU HAD INFORMED OF YOUR
SUSPENSION, WHETHER IN FACT
YOU HAD NOT INFORMED
MR. MOREJON OF THE
SUSPENSION?
I DON'T THINK THAT IS PART
OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER.
LET ME ANSWER THAT TWO
PARTS, FIRST OF ALL, YES, HE
WAS ON THAT LIST.
AND WITH THE REFEREE FOUND
AND HE AGREED, WAS THAT AT
THE TIME THAT I SUBMITTED
THE AFFIDAVIT I HAD NO
CLIENTS, MR. MOREJON WAS NOT
ONE MIGHT HAVE CLIENTS
BECAUSE SYLVIA THOMPSON CAME
IN TO SUBSTITUTE.
AND THE WAY THAT HAPPENED
WAS BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE
CLIENT WAS BROUGHT IN I
EITHER GOT THEM A NEW CLIENT
OR A NEW ATTORNEY, AND IF
THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE LIST
THAT I GAVE THEM I REFUND
THIRD MONEY THERE WERE
SEVERAL THAT I DID.
WITH THE COURT FOUND WAS
THAT I INVERTSANTLY WHEN I
FILLED THE FORM OUT INSTEAD
OF PUTTING HITTING THE BOX
THAT SAYS AT THE PRESENT
TIME OF SUSPENSION I HAVE NO
CLIENTS I ACCIDENTALLY
LITTLE THE BOX BEFORE IT.
WHICH WOULD HAVE INVOKED
THEN A CRITERIA LOOKING INTO
WHETHER OR NOT ALL THE
CLIENTS WERE --
THAT WAS ALSO RESTITUTION
AS TO THIS MATTER INTO THERE
WAS ALSO RESTITUTION.
IT MUST BE AND BYING THAT
MONEY WAS TAKEN, FOR
REPRESENTATION NOPERMED,
JUSTICE NOT PERFORMED.
JUSTICE LEWIS IN THE CASE
I WAS ACQUITTED ON THE
COMPETENCECY ON DILIGENCE
ISSUE EVEN AFFIDAVIT ISSUE
IN CLOSING MR. MIN BROUGHT
UP TO THE COURT WHAT ELSE
CAN I DO, AND THE JUDGE JUST
THROUGH IN RESTITUTION,
RECENTLY THIS COURT IN THE
FLORIDA BAR VERSUS BROOM,
SAID THAT THAT IS ISES
INAPPROPRIATELY THAT ORDER
FOR A REFEREE TO DO THAT THE
REFEREE MUST MAKE FACTUAL
FINDINGS, AND WITH YOUR
PERMISSION I WOULD ADDRESS
THE DELFINO CASE I'M VERY
WELL FAMILIAR WITH DEL PINO
CASE READ EVERY DECISION THE
COURT IN ISSUED LAST THREE
YEARS IN PREPARATION FOR
THIS DEL PINO IS A DIFFERENT
CASE IN MY CASE, IF YOU LOOK
ALTER THE UNDERLYING CONDUCT
THE BAR CAN PROSECUTOR
PROSECUTE FOR UNDERLYING
CONDUCT WHETHER OR NOT THE
FEDERAL DOES OR NOT THAT IS
SKWOOED THAT IS NOT AN HE
CONCEDED NOT AN IN ISSUE MY
CASE THOUGH THE -- JUDGE
FOUND UNCONTESTED WAS A
FEDERAL MISDEMEANOR IF AT
ALL.
SO THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN DEL PINO, IN DEL
PINO, DEL PINO, WAS CHARGED
CONVICTED, AND ADMITTED THAT
SHE COMMITTED FIVE YEARS OF
FAILING TO FILE ACCURATE
FEDERAL TAX RETURNS, THE
REAL CRUX OF HER CASE THOUGH
UNDERLYING MORTGAGE
FORECLOSURE SCAM IN WHICH
HER AND HER HUSBAND ALTHOUGH
THERE WAS TESTIMONY OF
ABUSE, AND ALTHOUGH THERE
WAS TESTIMONY THAT THEY
WEREN'T LIVING TOGETHER,
FINAGLED FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS
A COUPLE YEARS LATERED WE
HAVE THE MORTGAGE MARKET --
SO THAT HE COULD TAKE THE
BENEFIT OF A FLIPPING A
CONTRACT FOR A 600,000
DOLLAR SALES PRICE, AND
FLIPPING IT FOR A MILLION 2
MAKING 600,000 DOLLAR PROFIT
SO MISS DEL PINEAU CAME TO
THIS COURT, FIRST OF ALL,
WITH THE FELONY CONVICTION
WHICH IS POLICY OF THIS
COURT THAT A PRIOR FELONY
CONVICTION UNLESS INCREDIBLE
SAY, THREE YEAR SUSPENSION
THAT IS WHY EVEN THOUGH DEL
PINO CASE WHICH YOUR HONOR
WAS REFERRING TO WAS
INSTRUMENT, MR. MIN CAN
COMPLETELY MISQUOTED BLACKER
IN BLACKER IN ISN'T A CASE
AFTER PIERS BLACKER IN CITED
IN 1984, 11 YEARS AFTER
PIERS WE ARE GOING TO LOOK
FOR THAT WHAT PRECEDENTS OF
THIS COURT HAS BEEN PIERS IS
MOST EXTREME SANCTION, THAT
THIS COURT HAS EVERY
ISSUING, FOR A MISDEMEANOR
FAILURE TO FAIL THE PLETHSRA
CASES PRESENTED TO REFEREE
WERE DECISIONS BY THIS
COURT, RECOMMENDING PUBLIC
REPRIMAND, I DID NOT
CHALLENGE THE 45 DAY BECAUSE
I HAD BEEN SUSPENDED SINCE
202 IT HAS BEEN MY POSITION
AND IN THERE AND THE JUDGE
SAW IT THERE WAS TENING --
PENDING I FILED STATUE
LIMITATION DEFENSE THIS WAS
VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION ON
BOTH CASES BECAUSE OF THE
MAGUDA CASE THE JUDGE MADE
FINDING OF THAT.
YOUR TIME IS WAY UP YOU
ARE CLEARLY A VERY SMART
PERSON YOU ARE A VERY GOOD
ADDITIVE, AND WHAT IF THE
COURT APROOVRZ THE REF
SUSPENSION ORDER WOULD YOU
BE IN POSITION TO PETITION
FOR REINSTATEMENT IS IT YOUR
PLAN TO TRY RESUMES PRACTICE
OF SPLU ABSOLUTELY YOUR
HONOR ABSOLUTELY, IT IS
EMBARRASS TO GO ME THAT YOU
KNOW I DIDN'T CONTEMPLATE IN
OCTOBER 9, '58 I GRADUATED
FROM UNIVERSITY MIAMI FIRST
APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS COURT
WOULD BE DISCIPLINARY
PROCESSING, TO GREAT STENT I
APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT FOR
THAT THE ISSUES THAT YOU
HAVE IS THAT SINCE 2002, I
HAVE HAD GASTRIC BYPASS
SURGERY THAT GASTRIN PRICK
BYPASS SURGERYIVE TO THING
MY ATTORNEY RICHARD BARON
REALM HELPED DIRECT ME IN
BETWEEN SUSPENSIONS NOT DEAL
WITH BAR ISSUES DEAL WITH
HUMAN ISSUES AND I WANT DID,
DURING THE COURSE OF THAT
SURGERY, ONE OF 34 CLIENTS
CAME UP AND SAID THAT HE
DIDN'T GET NOTICE I WOULD
INVITE THE COURT TO THE
RECORD, THAT CLIENT COULDN'T
REMEMBER WHEN HE CAME FROM
CUBA, WHEN HE HAD A HEAR IT
ATTACK WHERE HE LIVED NOW
I'M CUBAN-AMERICAN CAME HERE
EIGHT MONTHS OLD I KNOW I
CAME HERE OCTOBER 23, 1960,
I WAS A PROUD MOMENT FOR MY
FAMILY, WHEN YOU READ IT HE
COULDN'T REMEMBER A THING
YET SAYS, A YEAR I DIDN'T
GET NOTICE ALSO CLAIMS NEVER
GOT ONE --
I THINK YOU ARE GOING --
---ED MY FINDINGS THAT IS
JUST WANTED -- MADE FINDING
I WANTED TO WLND YOU FELT
YOU COULDN'T PETITION FOR
REINSTATEMENT BECAUSE OF THE
PENDING.
I COULDN'T I COULDN'T,
THE UNDERLYING CRITERIA IF
IN FACT THE FLORIDA BAR HAD
NOT TAKEN THE POLAR
POSITION, THAT DISBAR MEANT
DISBAR MEANT DISBAR MEANT,
WE COULD HAVE ENDED THIS
CASE FOUR YEARS AGO, BUT I
HAD TO DEFEND THE DISBARMENT
CASE TOOK FIVE YEARS TO GET
THROUGH THE SYSTEMS THAT IS
WHERE THE GREAT MANIFEST
INJUSTIS OF THIS CASE IS
BECAUSE AS JUDGE NEWMAN WHO
WAS THE JUDGE IN THE MOREJON
CASE SAID IN HIS DEPOSITION,
I WAS ON OF THE FINEST
ATTORNEYS TO BE IN HIS COURT
I WAS ALWAYS ON TIME I WAS
ON THE BALL, AND TO
CRYSTALIZE WHAT HE SAID I
WAS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS
THAT WAS WITH IT.
AND THAT IS THE SAME
TESTIMONY THAT JUDGE SIEGEL
IN HEARD FROM JUDGE MILLER
JUDGE -- WHO CAME IN SAID
THE SAME THING, I HAD A HIG
REPRESENTATION, SAME THING
14 JUDGES WHO TESTIFIED FOR
ME IN THE 2001 CASE, TOLD
JUDGE KING THAT IS WHY JUDGE
KING ORDERED A 09 ZA
SUSPENSION BUT THE FLORIDA
BAR KILLED THE 2001 --
APPEALED 2001 CASE IF THERE
IS ANYTHING I REGRET DURING
ALL PROCEEDINGS IS NOT
COMING HERE IN 201 ARGUING
MY OWN CASE BECAUSE THE
COURT WAS LED TO BELIEVE BY
FLORIDA BAR PROSECUTOR THAT
I WAS A WALK TIME BOMB WHICH
I'M NOT BECAUSE WHEN YOU
READ THE TESTIMONY OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES YOU WILL FIND
THAT MY REPUTATION IS
IMPECCABLE NEVER LIED TO A
COURT, I NEVER --
YOU ARE WELL OVER YOUR
TIME, AND LET ME SAY I HAVE
HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THE COURT
IS GOING TO GO ON ANY OF
THIS BUT I WOULD SUGGEST TO
YOU DON'T LET MONEY BE YOUR
MASTER.
IT NEVER HAS BEEN, JUDGE
-- I'M VERY SPIRITUAL PERSON
AND I THINK BECAUSE THAT
HAVE I ENDED UP WITH CUSTODY
MIGHT HAVE SON I COULD HAVE
MOVED TO VEG ON BUSINESS
OFFERS BUT MY SON WAS GOING
THROUGH CRISIS CAUSED BY HIS
MOTHER I STAYED HERE TO DO
IT DO I THANK THE COURT FOR
THE EXTRA TIME I WANT ONLY
TO ASK THE COURT, TO READ
NOT WHAT THE BAR SAID LOOK
WHAT REFEREE SAID LOOK AT IT
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THAT
ONE STATEMENT, WHAT WAS THE
MOTIF FOR THE BAR TO KEEP ME
FIVE YEARS OUT I'VE BEEN OUT
SIX YEARS, AND BY THE TIME
THE COURT MAKES A DECISION
THE FLORIDA BAR CAN SAY WE
DON'T AGREE SHOULD YOU COME
BACK IN, I WOULD BE OUT
ANOTHER 3 OR 4 YEARS THE
COURT -- THERE IS A WAY FOR
A COURT TO FASHION A REMEDY
AROUND, THAT I DON'T KNOW IF
THE COURT WANTS TO ENTERTAIN
THAT NOW BUT I THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME
ESPECIALLY 7 1/2 EXTRA
MINUTES TOO SO THANK YOU.
I WILL GIVE YOU A MINUTE
ADDITIONAL TIME YOU ARE OVER
AS WELL THERE SEEMED TO
EXTENDED IT OVER THIS
MORNING.
THANK YOU YOUR HONOR, I
WOULD THEY'LL LIKE TO
REITERATE THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS WERE
FOUND BY REFEREE IN ADDITION
TO PAD EARN MISCONDUCT PRIOR
DISCIPLINE THE REFEREE ALSO
FOUND THAT AS KEY STATED
RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THE
FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OTHER
AND ALSO FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT IS REFUSED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE WRONGFUL NATURE
OF HIS CONDUCT THE FIRST
TIME RESPONDENT TO EVER
APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT HE HAS
DONE IS TODAY, THE
RESPONDENT FAILED TO PAY
INCOME TAXES OVER AND OVER
AGAIN THE CONSISTENTLY
ARGUED THAT WAS FLORIDA BAR
PROSECUTING HIM UNREASONABLY
RESPONSIBLY FAILED TO NOTIFY
MR. MOREJON ON SUSPENSION
SWENLT ARGUE MR. MR.M
DISAPPEARED THAT IS WHY HE
WAS NOT NOTIFIED RESPONDENT
CONSISTENTLY ARGUED HIS
EX-WIFE HAD INVENTORY DID
DEBTA AGAINST HIM RESONDENT
CONSISTENTLY ARGUED PRIOR
BAR COUNCIL HAD INVENTORY
DATA AGAINST HIM SPENT NEVER
UNTIL DAY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
HE HAS IN FACT DONE
SOMETHING WRONG, HE NEVER
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE IS THE
WRONG ONE WHO FAILED TO FILE
INCOME TAXEX NEVER
ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL DAY HE IS
THE ONE FAILED TO NOTIFY
MR. MOREJON NEVER
ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL DAY HE
FAILED TO NOTIFY TRIAL COURT
HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL
DAY THAT HE FILED TO NOTIFY
O PESING KOUNLS NEVER
ACKNOWLEDGED NLT TODAY HE
SUBMITTED A FALSE AFFIDAVIT
OVER AND OVER UNDERSTAND
OVER AGAIN FAILED TO REFUSE
TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS WRONGFUL
NATURE, CONDUCT --
THE WAY I READ THE
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO CALL
IT THAT, IS THE JUDGE
CHANGED THE REFEREE CHANGED
THE RECOMMENDATION, AS TO
THE AFFIDAVIT, FROM GUILT TO
NOT GUILTY AS THE REFEREE
FINDS AT THE TIME HE FAILED
TO THE AFFIDAVIT THAT
PROSECUTOR PROCLAIM
MR. MOREJON WAS NO LONGER A
CLIENT.
AT THE TIME HE FAILED TO
THE AFFIDAVIT OCTOBER 2002
THAT IS CORRECT.
SO HOW CHAEN FILED FALSE
AFFIDAVIT IF AT THE TIME.
BECAUSE IF YOUR HONOR
LOOKED A AFFIDAVIT FLORIDA
BAR EXHIBIT 13, IT
SPECIFICALLY STATES, THAT AT
THE TIME I RECEIVED THE
SUPREME COURT ORDER ON
MAY 30TH OF 2002, I INFORMED
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MIGHT
HAVE CLIENTS I HAD THAT THE
TIME I INFORMED EVERY SINGLE
ONE MIGHT HAVE O PESING
COUNCIL I HAD AT THAT TIME I
INFORMED EVERY SINGLE TRIAL
COURT I WAS APPEARING IN
FRONT OF AT THAT TIMED, THE
RESPONSIBLY FILED THE
AFFIDAVIT LATE BUT --
MAY 30, 2002, WHEN THE COURT
ISSUING ITS SUSPENSION
ORDER.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING ABOUT THAT THE
REFEREE SAYS POINT OF A
CARELESS MISTAKE IS TOO
GREAT FOR THE REFRY TO MAKE
A FINDING THAT THE BAR HAS
PROVN BY CLEAR CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THE RESPONDENT MADE
A KNOWING FALSE STATEMENT.
SO THE REFEREE CONCEDES THAT
THE STATEMENT WAS FALSE
BECAUSE OF THE TIME, THAT
YOU PROVIDE BUT SAYS THAT
THE THAT REALLY WAS POSSIBLY
A CARELESS MISTAKE.
THAT IS CORRECT WHICH IS
WHY THE REFEREE DIFFICULT
OFFED NOT FIND THE
RESPONDENT HAS COMMITTED
DISHONEST OR COMMITTED SOME
TYPE OF CONDUCT OF
MISREPRESENTATION.
ISN'T THERE JUST AN END
TO THAT YOU KNOW, MAYBE
THERE IS SOME GOING TO BE
SOME REASONS THAT THIS --
MR. CIMBLER CAN'T BE
REINSTATE $BUT IS A LISTEN
EVERYTHING TO DAY I'M STRUCK
BY THAT THE BAR YOU KNOW,
WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING
HAVE A HAS BEEN UNDER
SUSPENSION SINCE 2001.
FOR WHAT THE REFEREE
APPARENTLY IN 2001 HAD ONLY
RECOMMENDED 90 DAYS, AND
ISN'T IT TIME TO SEE IF
MR. CIMBLER CAN SHOW THAT HE
IS REHABILITATED TO BE
ADMITTED BACK INTO THE BAR?
I HAVE NO O PROBLEM WITH
IN A YOUR HONOR BUT
RESPONDENT ISN'T GET CREDIT
FOR A -- SUSPENSION PRIOR
SWERNGS FLORIDAING TO DO
WITH INTLIN OF THEE TIECHTZ
MISCONDUCT SPLITTED THE
WHEEL REASON HAS TAKEN ALL
THESE YEARS TO COME BEFORE
YOUR HONOR NOT BECAUSE OF
ANYTHING THE BAR BUT THE IF
YOUR HONOR LOOKS ATCOURT
DOCKET OVER AND HE EVER DO
AND OVER AGAIN MR. CIMBLER
FILED BRIEFS STRIKEBIN THIS
COURT OVER AND OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, YOUR HONOR HAD THE --
DRAFTS ADDITIONAL TIME TO
COMPLY WITH RULES OF
APPELLEE PROCEDURE NOT THAT
BAR DELAYED THIS CASE THIS
CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DECIDED YEARS AGO UFRLTH
BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION,
THAT WE ARE IN IT HAS TAKEN
LONG TIME FOR IT TO COME
BEFORE THISCOURT AROUND I
ADMIT, THAT EVEN IF YOUR
HONOR -- AGREES WITH THE
FLORIDA BAR THREE YEAR
SUSPENSION IS OVER, IT IS
RESPECTFULLY -- THREE YEARS
IS ALMOST UP, I ADMIT THAT
THAT IT REALITIES OF THE
SITUATION WE'RE IN
NEVERTHELESS, NEEDED TO BE
DISCIPLINED FOR MISCONDUCT
COMMITTED IN THESE CASES,
AND THE AGGRAVATING PROPERTY
TAXES ORS THE REFEREE FOUND
NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED AS
WELL, CLOOIRGD THAT IS WHY
THE FLORIDA BAR BELIEVES
THREE YEAR SUSPENSION IS
SWEMENT INTO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH WE'LL TAKE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT COURT WILL TAKE
ITS MORNING REC
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY.