The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

The Florida Bar v. Victor Joseph Labruzzo

SC06-1834

ALL RISE.
EAU YEA,EAU YEA,EAU YEA.
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IS NOW IN SESSION.
ALL THOSE HAVING BUSINESS
BEFORE THIS COURT, DRAW
NIRBSH GIVE ATTENTION, AND
YOU SHALL BE HEARD.
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES,
THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA,
AND THIS HONORABLE COURT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING, FRIENDS.
WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT AND THE ORAL
ARGUMENT CALENDAR FOR
DECEMBER FIFTH.
THE FIRST CASE IS FLORIDA
BAR v. LABRUZZO.
>> I'M JOHN WEISS.
I REPRESENT VICTOR LABRUZZO.
WE.
MY CLIENT BE SUSPENDED FOR
THREE YEARS.
WE ALSO ALSO ASK THIS COURT
TO REJECT HER RECOMMENDATION
THAT HE BE REQUIRED TO PASS
ALL PARTS OF THE FLORIDA BAR
EXAM AND THAT WE, WE ASK THE
COURT TO SUBSTITUTE
THEREFORE A ONE-YEAR
SUSPENSION AND THAT MY
CLIENT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE
THE MPRE, THE ETHICS EXAM.
>> AFTER GOING, MR. WISE,
AFTER GOING THROUGH THE
BRIEFS IN THE CASE I HAVE
REAL ANOT HAD A CHANCE TO GO
INTO TRANSCRIPT YET BUT THE
CONCERN ABOUT THE BACKGROUND
ON THE, THE, THE WHYES OF
THE, I KNOW HE WAS ORDERED
TO TLAS THE -- OR TOLD THE
PLACE TO MONEY IN A
PARTICULAR ACCOUNT.
BUT IS THERE, I MEAN, JUST
TO ME IT JUST DIDN'T STRIKE
ME THAT THERE'S A CRIME
GOING ON AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
WE HAVE A PLEA TO A CRIME OR
SOMETHING.
I'M A LITTLE CLOUDY ON THAT
S. THAT NOT IMPORTANT FOR
WHAT WE ARE DOING.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S
ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT, YOUR
HONOR.
AND WE ARE NOT COMING BEFORE
THIS COURT SAYING MY
CLIENT'S CONDUCT IS DOES NOT
WEREN'T DISCIPLINE.
THE GRAND THEFT STATUTE,
WHICH I'M SURE THIS COURT IS
MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THAN
I AM IS BROAD.
AND A TEMPORARY DIVERSION OF
FUNDS CONSTITUTES GRAND
THEFT UNDER THE FOUR CORNERS
OF THAT STATUTE.
THE REALITIES OF A FACING A
JURY TRIAL MUST NOT BE LOST
ON THIS COURT.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU'RE
FACING WITH AN OPTION OF
GOING TO TRY OR GET
AGWITHHOLD OF ADJUDICATION
SIX MONTHS ADMINISTRATIVE
PROBATION THAT SOMETIMES YOU
TAKE THE BIRD IN THE HAND.
>> WELL LET ME -- I'M
FOLLOWING UP ON THIS BECAUSE
THAT'S NOT.
MY CONCERN IS WE SEE TRUST
ACCOUNT VIOLATIONS ALL THE
TIME.
AND IT'S RARE THAT YOU SEE A
CRIME CHARGE NO LESS THAN A
PLEA TO A CRIME.
SO GIVING IN THE LIGHT MOST
FAVORERABLE TO THE BAR, WHAT
WAS IT OTHER THAN IT SOUNDS
LIKE, WELL, HE PUT IT INTO
THIS OTHER ACCOUNT.
HE WASN'T INTENDING TO USE
T. IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE
THERE.
THE WRONG ACCOUNT.
IT'S MORE THAN THAT.
CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE
MORE IS THAT WOULD'VE CODSED
THE STATE TO --
>> JUSTICE PARIENTE, IT IS
NOT MORE THAN THAT.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
MY CLIENT, AS MANAGING
AGENT.
THERE IS A MISSTATEMENT IN
THE REPORT THAT HE WAS
MANAGING THE STAKE HOLDER.
DEPOSIT AGAN ESCROW OF 355
INTO ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS'
ACCOUNTS.
CONTRARY, AND THIS IS WHY HE
PLID, CONTRARY TO THE
CONDOMINIUM AGREEMENT THAT
THE MONEY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
DEPOSIT UNDER TO THE BED SO
CORN ESCROW ACCOUNT.
>> WHY WOULD SOMEONE CARE?
>> I BEG YOUR PARDON?
>> WHY SOMEONE CARE WHAT
ACCOUNT IT WAS PUT IN IF IT
WASN'T DIVERTED?
>> YOUR HONOR, THE RECORD IS
BY AND LARGE SILENT ON THAT.
THERE WAS AN INCREDIBLE
BROUHAHA BETWEEN MR. SIDLER
AND MR. YOUNG AND MY CLIENT.
MR. SIDLER BEING ONE OF THE
OWNERS AND MR. YOUNG BEING
THE OWNER OF SBI, SOUTH
BEACH INVESTMENTS.
>> WELL, SPEAKING OF SBI,
WHO, WHO ARE THE PRINCIPALS
TO SBI?
AS I UNDERSTAND THIS, YOUR
CLIENT SHARES IN THE --
SHARE IN THE LAW IS WHAT WAS
USED TO FORM SBI, SO IS YOUR
CLIENT A PRINCIPAL IN SBI?
>> NO, MA'AM.
HE IS NOT.
HIS SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED,
FRANKLY, THE RECORD'S SILENT
WHETHER THEY WERE
TRANSFERRED WHETHER TO SBI
OR WHETHER THEY WERE
TRANSFERRED TO MR. YOUNG.
MY CLIENT HAD NO OWNERSHIP
INTEREST IN SBI.
MY --
>> -- SELL THESE LOFT SHARES
TO MR. YOUNG OR TO, SEE, IT
SEEMS TO ME THERE IS SOME
KIND OF, JUST MISCONNECT
HERE.
AS TO WHO ARE REALLY THE
PLAYERS IN, IN,.
>> YES, MA'AM, I UNDERSTAND.
>> -- IN SBI.
>> AND IT IS CONVOLUTED AND
THE THIRD DCA IN THE
LABRUZZO DECISION
SPECIFICALLY NOTED SOMETHING
EFFECTIVE TO CONVOLUTED
RELATIONSHIP HERE.
MY UNDERSTANDING --
>> -- MAKES A DIFFERENCE AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT YOUR
CLIENT HAS SOME REAL
INTEREST IN SBI WHEN THOSE
FUNDS WERE IN FACT DIVERTED
TO THE SBI ACCOUNT.
>> IT'S CRUCIAL, JUDGE.
IT'S CRUCIAL.
AND HE HAD NO INTEREST.
HE HAD NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST
IN SBI, HEED NO INTEREST IN
SBI.
THE MANAGING SHAREHOLDER
MR. YOUNG DIRECTED HIM TO
PLACE THE CHECKS INTO THE
SBI ACCOUNT.
NOW, MR. YOUNG PLED ALSO TO
ONE COUNT IN VIOLATION OF
THE CONDOMINIUM LAW OF, OF
PLACING DEPOSITS INTO THE
WRONG ESCROW ACCOUNT.
HE TOO GOT SIX MONTHS
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBATION AND
A WITHHOLD.
SO THERE IS A VIOLATION OF
THE COND MINIUM LAW AND FOR
THAT REASON --
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE
STRUGGLING WITH, MR. WEISS,
IS THE FACT THAT THE REFEREE
HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON
THE BASIS OF THE PLEAS HERE
OF WHICH THERE WERE PLEAS TO
TWO FELONIES.
AND RECOMMENDED THREE YEARS
SUSPENSION AND THAT THE
RESPONDENT, NOT GET, NOT BE
READMITTED UNTIL HE'S PASSED
THE BAR EXAM.
NOW THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL
DISCIPLINE.
AND IF THERE IS SOME
EXPLANATION AS TO WHY YOUR
CLIENT WAS NOT, SHOULD NOT
BE HELD TO A STANDARD OF
THIS TYPE OF FELONY BEING
CONVICTED OF THESE KIND OF
FELONIES, WE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT HE DID.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND YOU'RE NOT EXPLAINING
IT TO US.
WHAT DID HE DO THAT WOULD
GIVE RISE TO HIS BEING
WILLING TO PLEA TO TWO
FELONIES?
>> YOUR HONOR, HE PLED
BECAUSE HE HAD A BIRD IN THE
HAND.
HE WAS NOT CONVICTED,
JUSTICE WELLS.
AND FORGIVE ME FOR BEING
SOMEWHAT PUDANTIC ON THIS.
HE WAS NOT CONVICTED.
THAT'S IMPORTANT.
UNDER THE GRAND THEFT
OMNIBUS STATUTE, A TEMPORARY
DIVERSION --
>> I DON'T MEAN TO -- IT
DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT
YOU'RE REALLY RESPONDING TO
THE QUESTION AS FAR AS WHAT
HE DID.
>> I'M TRYING TO.
>> YOUR, YOUR ARE COMING
BACK AND IT SEEMS TO ME SORT
OF TAKING A POSITION HERE,
HE WASN'T REALLY GUILTY OF
ANYTHING.
BUT HE HAD A BIG RISK OUT
THERE.
OKAY.
I'M INTERESTED JUST AS
JUSTICE WELLS IS, IF IT
LOOKS ON THE FACE OF IT HERE
AS IF HE EITHER
MISAPPROPRIATED OR
MISDIRECTED SUBSTANTIAL
FUNDS, AND HE'S A LAWYER.
OKAY, AND HE WAS CERTAINLY
INVOLVED IN THIS, THE LOFTS
AND THE REST OF THIS ENOUGH
TO KNOW BETTER.
ALL RIGHT.
SO, I THINK WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO FIND OUT IS EITHER
WHAT WAS HE ACCUSEF D OF
DOING -- ACCUSED OF DOING
AND THEN WHAT DO YOU SEE AS
THE UNDERLYING ACTS IN THE
CHARGES THAT HE PLED TO.
OKAY?
NOT A STATEMENT THAT HE
WASN'T REALLY GUILTY OF
ANYTHING AND HE JUST DID
THIS OUT OF A PLEA OF
CONVENIENCE.
>> JUSTICE ANSTEAD YOU HAVE
NOT HEARD ME SAY HE WAS NOT
GUILTY OF ANYTHING.
I HAVE NOT SAID THAT.
I DIDN'T SAY IT IN THE BRIEF
--
>> HE WAS GUILTY OF
MISDIRECTING --
>> MISDIRECTING FUNDS NOT
FOR HIS BENEFIT CONTRARY TO
THE, CONTRARY TO THE
CONDOMINIUM AGREEMENT THAT
MANDATED THAT THE FUNDS
WOULD BE DEPOSIT UNDER TO
THE BED SO CORN ACCOUNT.
RATHER THAN DOING THAT, HE
DIRECTED THE FUNDS IF THE TO
THE SBI ACCOUNT.
HE HAD NO OWNERSHIP
INTEREST.
HE HAD NO MOTIVE FB.
NO FINANCIAL MOTIVE TO DO
THAT.
>> AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE
GETTING AT IS THE REFEREE
DID NOT MAKE A FINDING AS AN
AGGRAVATOR THAT IT WAS A, A
FINANCIAL, A SELFISH MOTIVE.
>> THERE WAS -- SHE DID FIND
THAT, JUSTICE CANTERO.
SHE FOUND HE HAD A DISHONEST
MOTIVE AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
POINTS I'M ASKING THIS COURT
TO REJECT.
DISHONEST MOTIVE --
>> -- IN THE LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE TO THE BAR SINCE
THAT WAS THE FINDING.
WHAT EVIDENCE DID THE BAR
PRESENT THAT THERE WAS A
SELFISH MOTIVE OR WAS IT
JUST THE FACT THAT HE HAD
REDIRECTED THE FUNDS INTO A
--
>> NONE.
NONE.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD WHATEVER THAT --
WHATSOEVER THAT HE IN ANY
WAY BENEFITED FROM THIS
EITHER FINANCIALLY OR IN ANY
OTHER MANNER OTHER THAN
FOLLOWING HIS, HIS MANAGING,
SHAREHOLDERS INSTRUCTIONS.
>> AND AGAIN I THINK I'M
ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS AS
JUSTICE PARIENTE.
I'M CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE
MOTIVE WOULD BE TO DO THAT.
WAS HE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
FEUD BETWEEN THE PARTNERS
AND HE TOOK SIDES IN THAT
FEUD AND THAT'S WHY HE WAS
PROSECUTING?
>> YERD.
-- PROSECUTED.
>> YES, SIR.
YES, SIR.
THAT'S IT EXACTLY.
CIVIL LITIGATION WHICH THIS
COURT, WELL AT LEAST THE
OPINION IS BEFORE THE COURT
HE WON THE CIVIL LITIGATION
HANDS DOWN WITH MR. SIDLER.
>> SO HE TOOK -- SO GOING --
SO FOLLOWING UP, AT LEAST
WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE
HERE.
RATHER THAN IT PERSONALLY
BENEFITING HIM AS, WAS HE
ACTING AS A LAWYER WHEN HE
WAS DOING THIS?
>> NO, MA'AM.
HE WAS ACTING AS A REAL
ESTATE, AS AN AGENT FOR THE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION.
MY CLIENT WADS NOT
PRACTICING INLY -- LAW IN
ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IN
ANY TIME.
>> ONE PARTY WOULDN'T HAVE
CONTROL TO ANOTHER COUNT
THAT ANOTHER PARTY HAD
CONTROL OF, IS THAT IT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
AND HE, HE, DISREGARDED THE
CONSMINIUM AGREEMENT.
AND FOR THAT, HE SHOULD BE
DISCIPLINED.
HE SHOULD NOT RECEIVE THE
MAXIMUM SUSPENSION.
HE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
TAKE THE BAR EXAM.
AND, AND FRANKLY, THE, THE
DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED BY
THE REFEREE IS, IS JUST, IS
ONE STEP SHORT OF
DISBARMENT.
WE COME BEFORE THIS COURT
ACKNOWLEDGING AND ACCEPTING
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WRONGDOING.
WE DO NOT COME BEFORE THIS
COURT ACKNOWLEDGING AND
ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR
STEALING MONEY.
>> YOU'RE ARGUING FOR A
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION?
>> SAY AGAIN, SIR.
>> YOU'RE ARGUING FOR A
ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION?
>> WE ARE, SIR.
A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION.
AND THE REJECTION OF THE
RECOMMENDATION OF TAKING THE
BAR EXAM --
>> IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER
EVERYTHING GOT STRAIGHTENED
OUT IN THE END, DID, DID THE
MONEY END UP IN THE RIGHT
PLACE OR DID EVERYBODY THAT
MAY HAVE BEEN HARMED BY THIS
TRANSACTION GET COMPENSATED
OR WHAT HAPPENED WITH
REFERENCE TO THE TWO
TRANSACTIONS AS FAR AS THEM
NOW GETTING TO THE RIGHT
PLACE AND THE RIGHT PEOPLE
THAT WERE ENTITLED TO THOSE
FUNDS.
>> EVERYBODY GOT THEIR MONEY
BACK.
>> EVERYBODY GOT THEIR MONEY
BACK?
>> THE THIRD DCA RULED THAT
SBI, THE 375 WAS IN THE SBI
ACCOUNT.
MR. SIDLER, REFUNDED
MR. SUCRE HIS FUNDS.
AND BASICALLY, WHAT THE DCA
SAID IS SIDLER SHOULD LOOK
AT SBI.
NOW, THERE WAS LITIGATION,
AND THIS IN THE RECORD
THROUGH MY CLIENT'S
TESTIMONY, THERE WAS
LITIGATION BETWEEN SIDLER
AND YOUNG, AND THEY SETTLED.
THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO US AND
ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THIS
COURT BUT THEY SETTLED.
THE 15,000 ON KLEIN WAS
REFUNDED TO MR. KLEIN.
THE 7500 TO MR. SUTTER,
WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE
CASE BEFORE YOU TODAY BUT IS
ALLUDED TO IN THE RECORD, HE
GOT A, HIS MONEY WAS
REFUNDED AND MY CLIENT GOT A
CREDIT WITH THE FUNDS THAT
MR. SIDLER LOST IN THE
LITIGATION WAS OR -- OR MY
CLIENT WAS AWARDED IN THE
LITIGATION FROM MR. SIDLER.
MR. SIDLER BROUGHT CRIMINAL
CHARGES, REAL ESTATE
COMMISSION CHARGES, BAR
CHARGES, AND A CIVIL SUIT
AGAINST MY CLIENT.
MR. SIDLER'S A CALIFORNIA
LAWYER.
MR. YOUNG'S A CALIFORNIA
LAWYER.
MY CLIENT IS A LAWYER.
IT WAS AS I USED THE WORD
BEFORE, QUITE A BROUHAHA.
I'D LIKE TO SAVE THE REST OF
MY TIME FOR REBUTTAL UNLESS
THERE'S AN IMMEDIATE
QUESTION.
THANK YOU.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
WILLIAM MULLIGAN ON BEHALF
OF THE FLORIDA BAR.
>> WOULD YOU BEGIN WITH
ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS OF,
ABOUT FIVE OF US, WOULD YOU
STILL EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED
HERE?
>> YOUR HONOR, WHAT HAPPENED
WAS THERE'S A TWO COUNTS
THAT MR. KLEIN, WELL
ACTUALLY --
>> WE UNDERSTAND THE
CRIMINAL COUNTS.
THE QUESTION FROM THE BENCH
THIS MORNING, CAN SOMEBODY
TELL US WHAT WAS GOING ON
HERE?
>> MONEY WAS BEING DIVERTED
FROM THE, MR. , LABRUZZO WAS
INVOLVED IN THIS BUSINESS
FROM THE ONSET.
>> SELLING, SELLING SHARES,
SELLING CONDOMINIUM SHARES,
PARKING PLACE FOR ONE AND
WHATEVER,.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THE MONEY ACCORDING
TO THE DOCUMENTS WAS
SUPPOSED TO GO INTO A
LAWYER'S TRUST ACCOUNT?
>> BED SO CORN ESCROW
ACCOUNT.
>> WHO DO THEY REPRESENT?
>> THEY WERE JUST
REPRESENTING THE LOFTS.
>> THEY WERE REPRESENTING
THE ASSOCIATION SO RATHER
THAN PUTTING THEM INTO THE
ACCOUNT THEY WENT INTO THE
MANAGING AGENT'S ACCOUNT FOR
THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION.
>> IT WENT INTO THE ACCOUNT
FOR MR. YOUNG, SBI,
MR. YOUNG, IT'S NOT THE LOFT,
IT WAS THE SEPARATE OWNER
DAUSCH.
>> BUT IT WAS NOT THE
MANAGING AGENT FOR THE
LOFTS?
>> MR. YOUNG, THERE'S
TESTIMONY, MR. YOUNG WAS A
MANAGING SHAREHOLDER IF THE
LOFTS BUT WENT INTO A
SEPARATE BUSINESS ACCOUNT.
>> OKAY.
>> YOUR HONOR --
>> THIS IS A ACCOUNT.
THE SBI HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, THEN?
>> IT'S NOT PART OF THE
LOFTS.
IT'S A SEPARATE BUSINESS.
>> I UNDERSTAND IT'S A
SEPARATE BUSINESS AGENCY BUT
WERE THEY HIRED AS THE
MANAGING BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF THE.
>> THERE'S NOTHING SAYING
THEY WERE THE MANAGING AGENT
FOR THE LOFTS.
>> THEY WERE NOT THE
MANAGEAL AGENT FOR THE LOFTS
THEN.
>> CORRECT.
WHAT HE, MR. WEISS IS
REFERRING TO IS MR. YOUNG
WORKED AS MANAGING AGENT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY
TESTIMONY THAT SBI WAS THE
MANAGING AGENT OF THE LOFTS.
>> OKAY.
THAT HELPS.
>> BUT SBI OWNS SHARES IN
THE LOFT?
>> MR. YOUNG OWNED SHARES IN
THE LOFTS, CORRECT.
MR. YOUNG IS THE MANAGING
AGENT OF, OF SBI.
>> ARE YOU CLAIMING OR IS
THE BAR CLAIMING THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS PART OF AN
ILLEGAL SCHEME TO EMBEZZLE
THESE FUNDS FOR THE BENEFIT
OF A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL
OR INDIVIDUALS?
IS THAT WHAT THE BAR'S
CLAIMING?
>> YOUR HONOR WE'RE
DEFINITELY CLAIMING THAT.
THERE'S TWO COUNTS OF GRAND
THEFT.
CLEARLY, MONEY WAS DIVERT
SAID TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT FOR
A REASON.
IT'S NOT OF RECORD WHAT THE
REASON IS, BUT CLEARLY IT
WAS AA, CRIMINAL REASON THAT
HE WAS DOING THIS, THAT THE
COMMITTINGED GRAND THEFT.
HE INTENTIONALLY PLED TO TWO
COUNTS OF GRAND THEFT, WHICH
ARE CLEARLY DISHONEST.
>> IN THE OTHER ACCOUNT, WHO
WAS IN CONTROL OR WHO
BENEFITED FROM THIS OTHER
ACCOUNT AS OPPOSED TO IT
BEING PUT INTO THE ESCROW
ACCOUNT?
IN OTHER WORDS, WHO, WHO
ENDED UP BEING THE
BENEFICIARY OF THESE
DIVERSIONS?
>> YOUR HONOR, ACCORDING TO
THE RECORD, MR. YOUNG WAS
THE OWNER OF SBI.
NOW, THERE'S NO, NOTHING OF
RECORD REGARDING
MR. LABRUZZO BEING AN OWNER
-- HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP
INTEREST OR NOT IN SBI.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT OF RECORD
BUT MR. YOUNG WAS THE ONE
THAT HAD MANAGING INTEREST
AND OWNERSHIP OF SBI
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD.
>> SO DOES IT APPEAR HERE
AND THE BAR IS CLAIMING THAT
MR. YOUNG IMPROPERLY OR
ILLEGALLY GOT FUNDS THAT HE,
MR. YOUNG WAS NOT ENTITLED
TO?
AND THAT THE, THE
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
ITSELF WAS ENTITLED TO?
>> CORRECT.
SBI GOT MONEY THAT IT WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO.
IT WAS SENT TO THAT ACCOUNT.
WHETHER OR NOT MR. YOUNG WAS
VOLVED IN THE LOFTS, THIS
MONEY WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO GO
TO SBI.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO --
>> AND THE CLAIM
MR. LABRUZZO'S RELATIONSHIP
TO THE TWO FUNDS THROUGH HIS,
AND THE STATUS THAT HE WOULD
BE ACTING IN, IN OTHER WORDS,
HOW DID HE HAVE THE MONEY,
JUST EXPLAIN THAT IN A WORD
PICTURE HERE.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. LABRUZZO WAS A MANAGING
AGENT AT THE LOFTS.
SO HE WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE IN
THE FIRST COUNT, MR. SUCRE,
HE DIRECTED MR. SUCRE
DIRECTLY TO PAY A $37,000500
AMOUNT INTO THE -- $37500
AMOUNT INTO THE ACCOUNT.
>> WHAT WAS HIS RELATIONSHIP
TO SBI.
>> YOUR HONOR, THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE RECORD
WHETHER HE HAD OWNERSHIP OR
NOT.
>> ISN'T THAT -- EARN INN
TERMS OF DECIDING THIS IS A
1-YEAR, 3-YEAR, OR EVEN
DISBARMENT, ISN'T THAT,
DOESN'T THE BAR THINK THAT'S
AN IMPORTANT FACTER?
I MEAN, THIS IS JUST, YOU
HEAR THESE QUESTIONS, WE'RE
STRUGGING WITH WANTING TO
UNDERSTAND AND IF WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT HIS RELATIONSHIP
IS WITH SBI AND I GUESS
MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING HE
SHOULD'VE VOLUNTARILY
EXPLAINED, HOW DO WE DECIDE
WHAT THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY
IS.
>> YOUR HONOR, IN THIS CASE,
KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS WAS A
FELONY CONVICTION MATTER
THAT WAS UNDER THE PRIOR
RULE THAT WENT TO TRIAL ON
AN EXPEDITED BASIS.
THE CASE WAS INITIALLY
SUPPOSED TO GO TO TRIAL IN
30 DAYS AND ENDED UP GOING
TO TRIAL IN 90 DAYS SO FULL
DISCORVEY WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN EXPLORED IN THIS CASE
LIKE IT WOULD'VE BEEN IN
ANOTHER MATTER SO SOME OF
THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE
ADDRESSED MAY HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED IF IT WAS UNDER A
DIFFERENT TIME FRAME BUT THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THE
PRESUMPTION OF DISBARMENT IS
IN PLACE AND WE HAVE TWO
FELONY CONVICTIONS HERE AND
I KNOW MR. WEISS HAS MADE
THE POINT OF NOTICE THAT
THIS IS NOT -- NOTING THAT
THIS IS NOT A CONVICTION BUT
UNDER 3 -- 72 THE BAR RULES
SAY IT'S A CONVICTION
WHETHER IT'S A WITHHOLD OR
AN ADJUDICATION.
>> WHAT EVIDENCE WAS THERE
OF A SELFISH MOTIVE.
>> YOUR HONOR, WELL, WHAT I
WOULD POINT TO AS FAR AS THE
SELFISH MOTIVE IS THAT HE
TOOK A PLEA TO THE TWO
COUNTS OF GRAND THEFT AND IN
THE ELEMENTS OF GRAND THEFT
TINDICATES YOU'RE
INTENTIONALLY PERMITLY OR
TEMPORARILY DEPRIVING
SOMEONE THE USE OF A
PROPERTY.
ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT IS
THEY DID NOT SEEK REVIEW OF
4-8 .4 C.
IT WAS NOT SOUGHT FOR REVIEW
IN THIS MATTER.
HIS DISHONEST MOTIVE.
THERE IS NO WAY -- IT IS
INCONSISTENT TO SAY --
>> FROM WHAT I AM HEARING IS
HE DIVERTED FUNDS FROM
PERSON A'S ACCOUNT TO
PERSON'S B'S ACCOUNT AND HE
DIDN'T DERIVE ANY BENEFIT
FROM T. THAT SEEMS TO BE
WHAT THE EVIDENCE S. AND YOU
CAN STEAL SOMETHING FROM
PEATER TO PAY PAUL BUT
YOU'RE NEITHER PETER NOR
PAUL.
YES, YOUR HONOR, I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING, THE THING IS,
THERE'S NOTHING OF RECORD AS
TO WHETHER HE RECEIVE
ADBENEFIT, WHETHER FINANCIAL
OR ANY OTHER WAY.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT OF
RECORD.
>> BUT WE DID HAVE A THIRD
DISTRICT OPINION THAT SAYS
THAT, THAT THERE WAS NO
LOSS.
HERE.
CORRECT?
>> LET ME, YOUR HONOR,
ADDRESS THE LABRUZZO OPINION
IN THE THIRD DCA.
>> RIGHT.
>> THAT ONLY DEALT WITH THE
MONEY THAT -- WHAT IT IS WAS
THE MONEY WAS IMPROPERLY
DIRECTED.
THE DCA OPINION CLEARLY
SUPPORTS THAT.
>> WELL, IT FOUND THAT THE
LOSS CAN BE MADE WHOLE BY
THE TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM
SBI TO THE LOFTS.
THE LOFTS, WE DO NOT THINK
THE LOFTS SUFFERED ANY
INJURY FOR WHICH IT MUST BE
COMPENSATED BY LABRUZZO.
>> NOW TO ADDRESS THE
CRIMINAL CASE THEN IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, THE,
THAT ONLY DEALT WITH THE
SUCRE FUNDS.
SUCRE WAS COUNT 1, THE
$37500.
THERE'S ALSO IN COUNT 1 PART
OF THE RESTITUTION WAS
$7500.
IT WAS A TOTAL OF 45,000 IN
THE RESTITUTION FOR COUNT 1.
MR. LABRUZZO DID REIMBURSE
THE 7500.
SO MONEY HAD TO BE PAID
BACK.
HE SAYS IT WAS A CREDIT OUT
OF SOMETHING THAT WAS OWD TO
HIM BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS
HE HAD TO PAY MONEY BACK FOR
MR. SUITOR, THE 7500 IN THE
FIRST COUNT.
AS FAR AS MR. CLINE IN THE
FIRST COUNT THAT HE TOOK A
PLEA TO, IN THAT SITUATION,
MONEY WAS RETURNED AFTER
CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE FILED
TO MR. KLEIN.
SO MONEY WAS RETURNED
THROUGH EITHER MR. LABRUZZO
OR CO-DEFENDANTS IN
THISICATES.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I --
AS THIS THING FILTERS OUT AS
I'M BEGINNING TO SEE WHEN I
THE BRIEFS WERE SO SKETCHY
ON WHAT THE BACKGROUND WAS
WAS ON THIS.
THERE BAR APPROACHED THIS
THAT THERE WAS A CRIMINAL
CHARGE THAT TO WHICH A PLEA
WAS ENTERED AND BECAUSE OF
THE PROCEEDINGS, THE
PROCEEDINGS WENT RIGHT AHEAD
AND IF HE WANTED TO, IF THE
PERSON CHARGED WITH THE
VIOLATION WANTED TO CLARIFY
THE RECORD OR PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION TO MAKE SURE
THIS WAS CLEAR, IT WAS THEIR
BURDEN TO DO SO.
THE BAR PROCEEDED STRICTLY
JUST ON THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDS.
YOU DIDN'T GO BACK TO PROVE
ANYTHING ELSE.
IS THAT WHERE WE ARE HERE.
>> YES, SIR.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE.
>> IS THAT A PROPER PROSTURE,
IF THE MEMBER OF THE BAR HAD
WANTED TO GO BEHIND IT IN
SOME WAY TO SHOW THE PENALTY
IS TOO STRICT, THE BURDEN IS
ON THEM TO MAKE SURE THERE'S
RECORD EVIDENCE OF ENOUGH
INFORMATION SO IT GIVES US
SOMETHING TO DEAL WITH.
IS THAT --?
>> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR,
THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY AT
THE, AT THE, THE CRIMINAL --,
AT THE FELONY SUSPENSION
CASE AND THE TRIAL THAT WE
HAD.
>> THE REASON THAT WEIR WITH
ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IS
BECAUSE THE RECORD DOESN'T
CONTAIN THIS INFORMATION.
>> CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, BUT
WE DO HAVE THE PRESUMPTION
OF TWO FELONY CONVICTIONS.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> AND STANDARD 5.11
STANDARD INDICATES THAT THE
DISBARMENT IS APPROPRIATE
FOR A CONVICTION OF, OF
THEFT, PARTICULARLY.
SO CLEARLY THE, THE
PRESUMPTION IS IN PLACE.
IT'S FOR A RESPOND TONIGHT
OVERCOME THAT BIRDEN AND
IT'S THE BAR'S POSITION THAT,
THAT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE.
AND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION WAS
NOT CONSISTENT WITH
REASONABLE, IT WAS NOT A
REASONABLE BASIS IN EXISTING
CASE LAW BECAUSE OF THAT
PRESUMPTION.
USUALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE
CASES THAT WE SEE WHERE
THERE'S NOT DISBARMENT
ENTERED IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE A
SITUATION THAT THERE'S
EXTENSIVE MITIGATION.
THIS RECORD IS --
>> BUT ALL THE OTHER CASES
I'VE SEEN, AND MAYBE YOU CAN
POINT OUT ONE, IS ONE WHERE
THE NUMBER ONE, HE WAS
ACTING AS A, AN ATTORNEY AT
THE TIME HE DIVERTED THE
FUNDS, AND HE KEPT THE FUNDS.
THESE FUNDS WERE DIVERTED
FOR HIMSELF.
NOT FOR SOME OTHER PERSON.
CAN YOU POINT TO A CASE
WHERE SOMEBODY WAS NOT
ACTING AS A LAWYER AND
DIVERTED THE FUNDS FOR
SOMEBODY ELSE'S BENEFIT?
>> YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T, I
DON'T THINK I CAN POINT TO
EXACTLY THAT SCENARIO BUT I
CAN POINT TO THE FLORIDA BAR
v. ANDERSON WAS A CASE WHERE
THE PERSON WAS NOT ACTING AS
AN ATTORNEY, AND THEY
RECEIVE AD, A DISBARMENT
FROM MISAPPROPRIATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS.
YOUR HONOR, IT'S THE BAR'S
POSITION THAT WHETHER OR NOT
HE RECEIVED A FINANCIAL
BENEFIT, THAT'S NOT REALLY
RELEVANT BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN
THE, THE PRESUMPTION IS
DISBARMENT AND HE HASN'T
OVERCOME THAT BY PROVIDING
HARDLY ANYTHING OF ANY TYPE
OF MITIGATION.
REALLY THE ONLY MITIGATION
THAT'S SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS
CASE IS THE FACT THAT
THERE'S MOW PRIOR
DISCIPLINARY HISTORY THE
OTHER THING WOULD BE THAT HE
WENT THROUGH THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MAN
MATTER AND RECEIVED
SANCTIONED THERE BUT OTHER
THAN THAT --
>> LET ME ASK YOU BEFORE YOU
SIT DOWN ON THE ISSUE OF,
THEY'RE ALSO APPEALING THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER HE
SHOULD RETAKE THE BAR EXAM.
AND THE REFEREE RECOMMENDED
THAT, AND IT SEEMS LIKE ALSO
IN, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE
THERE WAS ANY INCOMPETENCE,
IT'S NOT A CASE WHERE HE WAS
ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY, WHY
SHOULD HE HAVE TO RETAKE THE
ENTIRE BAR EXAM AS OPPOSED
TO SIMPLY THE ETHICS PORTION
OF THE EXAM?
>> YOUR HONOR, THE, THE BAR
RULES PROVIDE FOR IT.
THE BAR RULES, RULE 3-5.1 E,
SUSPENSION OF MORE THAN 90
DAYS SHOULD REQUIRE PROOF OF
REHABILITATION AND MAY
REQUIRE PASSAGE OF ALL OR
PART OF THE FLORIDA BAR EXAM
AS WELL AS STANDARDS 2.58
OTHER SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES
WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED
REQUIRED TO TAKE THE BAR
EXAMINATION OR PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION.
>> I REALIZE LEGALLY WE
COULD REQUIRE HIM TO TAKE
THE ENTIRE BAR EXAM.
MY QUESTION IS WHY SHOULD WE
REQUIRE TAKING THE ENTIRE
BAR EXAM AS OPPOSED TO THE
ETHICS PORTION WHERE HE WAS
NOT ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY
AND HIS MISCONDUCT WAS NOT
RELATED TO LEGAL
INCOMPETENCE.
>> YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK
THERE IS ANY HEART HARD AND
FAST RULE WHEN THE REFEREE
CAN IMPOSE THE
RECOMMENDATION AND WHEN THE
COURT CAN IMPOSE THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BAR
EXAM AND IN THIS INSTANCE WE
HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CAY CASES
FLORIDA BAR v. GARCIA WHERE
THE COURT HAS IMPOSED
RETAKING OF THE FLORIDA BAR
EXAM IN IT'S ENTIRETY AS A
CONDITION OF A SUSPENSION.
AS WELL AS THE RULES --
>> WHAT DID WE DO IN GARCIA?
WHAT WATER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES?
WAS HE ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY
AT THE TIME?
>> YOUR HONOR, THE BASIS IN
THE GARCIA MATTER INVOLVED
AN ATTORNEY INITIALLY
CHARGED WITH AN AGGRAVATED
ASSAULT.
I BELIEVE IT WAS THEN PLED
DOWN TO TAMPERING WITH A
WITNESS CHARGE.
THAT'S WHAT HIS SUSPENSION
RESULTED FROM, HIS FELLANY
SUSPENSION.
>> IS THERE ANY RECORD
EVIDENCE THAT THIS LAWYER
WAS ADMITTED AT, IN 1970 AND
HASN'T BEEN A PRACTINGESTING
LAWYER FOR 30 YEARS AND THEN
NOW THIS IS GOING ON S THERE
ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO
INDICATION THAT MR. --
THAT'S ANOTHER THING,
MR. LABRUZZO DOESN'T APPEAR
TO BE PRACTICING LAW.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS.
>> SO THE RECORD'S SILENT ON
ALL THIS STUFF WE'RE ASKING
ABOUT.
>> MANY OF THE QUESTIONS,
YOUR HONOR ARE, SILENT.
>> EXCEPT THAT THE REFEREE
FOUND AS MITIGATING FACTORS
THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT'S
BEEN AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE
FLORIDA BAR FOR A VERY
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF YEARS
WITH NO PRIOR DISCIPLINARY
RECORD.
HE'S ADMITTED IN 1974, SO
FROM 1974 TIM THIS HAPPENED,
WAS HE PRACTICING LAW?
CERTAINLY HE WAS A, HE
WASN'T ON THE INACTIVE LIST,
CORRECT?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
>> DID HE HAVE A LAW OFFICE?
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
THERE'S NO INDICATION OF
THAT.
>> SO THAT WOULD BE THEN A
REASON THAT HE MAY NOT EVEN
BE INTENDING TO PRACTICE LAW
JUST WANTS TO SAY HE'S AN
ATTORNEY AND NOT PRACTICE
LAW?
I MEAN SHOULDN'T WE KNOW
THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE AN
INTELLIGENT DECISION ON THE
SANCTIONS?
>> YOUR HONOR, IN THE, AT
THE FINAL HEARING WHEN IT
WAS BROUGHT UP,
MR. LABRUZZO'S BACKGROUND,
HE MENTIONED THAT HE WAS A
BUSINESS MAN, BASICALLY, AND
THAT HE'S NOT PRACTICING LAW
AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION
THAT HE HAD BEEN PRACTICING
LAW IN THE RECENT FUTURE OR
RECENT HISTORY.
>> WOULDN'T THE BAR KNOW
WHEN THEY SUSPEND HIM AND
THEY HAVE TO SEND HIM HERE'S
HIS LIST WHAT HE'S DOING,
DID HE TAKE HIS NAME OFF OF
AN OFFICE.
DON'T YOU HAVE THAT IN
EVIDENCE INFORMATION?
>> YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS NO,
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO
LAW OFFICE.
>> OKAY.
WHAT ABOUT --
>> WAS HE UP TO DATE WITH
HIS CLE?
>> YOUR HONOR, ACCORDING TO
THE RECORDS THERE IS NO
DELINQUENCY.
>> IMPOSITION OF OTHER
INTELLIGENCE PENALTIES OR
SANCTIONS.
WERE THERE OTHER PENALTIES
OR SANCTIONS?
>> YOUR HONOR, THAT WOULD
AMOUNT TO THE CRIMINAL CASE.
THE SANCTIONS HE RECEIVED IN
THE GRAND THEFT, THE TWO
COUNTS THAT HE PLED TO, THE
CRIMINAL SANCTION THERE.
THAT'S WHAT THE REFEREE I
BELIEVE IS REFERRING TO IN
MY REVIEW OF THE RECORD.
BUT I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT
THE REFEREE NOTES SOME
MITIGATING FACTOR OF
ADMISSION OF GUILT AND
ADMISSION OF RESPONSIBILITY
TO ACCEPTANCE OF GUILT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN MUCH IN
THIS CASE BECAUSE BY
INHERENTLY THE PLEA TO THE
TWO GRAND THEFTS YOU CAN'T,
YOU'RE, IN THE BAR
PROCEEDING YOU HAVE TO
ACCEPT THAT.
IT'S CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF
GUILT.
YOUR HONOR, JUSTICES, I
WOULD JUST ARGUE THAT THERE
HAS BEEN ONCE AGAIN THE
PRESUMPTION IS WHAT THIS
COURT HAS SAID REPEATEDLY,
THAT DISBARMENT IS WHAT IS
IN PLACE IN THESE MATTERS
AND WE HAD NOT JUST ONE
FELONY.
WE HAVE TWO GRAND THEFT
COUNTS.
NOW, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE WE
DO NOT HAVE EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD OF THE FINANCIAL
BENEFIT, BUT ONCE AGAIN, I
DON'T THINK THAT'S A, A
POINT THAT SHOULD CHANGE THE,
THE PRESUMPTION.
AND THE FLORIDA STANDARDS
SUPPORT THAT.
CASE LAW SUPPORTS THAT.
AND IT'S GOING TO SET A BAD
PRECEDENT IF WE ALLOW
SOMEONE TO PLEAD TO TWO
FELONIES AND, AND REALIZE
THERE'S NO REPERCUSSIONS.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT BASED ON
THE PUHOLOS CASE REGARDING
THE THREE LAWS OF LAWYER
DISCIPLINE THAT WE PROTECT
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AND
WHETHER MR. LABRUZZO'S
ACTING AS AN ATTORNEY OR A
BUSINESS MAN, HE'S WEARING
THAT ATTORNEY HAT ALL THE
TIME.
AND YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY
CRUCIAL FOR THE PUBLIC'S
INTEREST THAT WE ISSUE
SEVERE DISCIPLINE IN THIS
CASE DUE TO THE NATURE OF
WHAT HAPPENED.
>> THANK YOU.
WITH OUR HELP, YOU'VE USED
ALL YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS WHY
THE FACTS AREN'T MORE
EXPLAINED IN THE RECORD ON
FELONY CONVICTION CASES,
IT'S THE, THE CONVICTION OR
DETERMINATION AS CONCLUSIVE
PROOF.
EVERY TIME THE RESPONDENT
TRIED TO EXPLAIN THINGS, WE
GET OBJECTIONS SCREAMED AT
THE TOP OF BAR COUNSEL'S
LUNGS SAYING HE'S TRYING TO
GO BEHIND THE CONVICTION.
EVERY TIME A RESPONDENT
TRIES TO EXPLAIN IT, THAT'S
THE OBJECTION, AND THAT'S
WHY THIS COURT -- FORGIVE
ME.
I SHOULDN'T BE POINTING.
THAT'S WHY THIS COURT
FREQUENTLY HAS A DEARTH OF
FACTS IN ITS RECORD.
HAPPENS ARE THE TIME.
>> MR. WEISS.
IT'S OKAY TO BE EMOTIONAL AT
TIMES SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> I'M AN EMOTIONAL PERSON.
>> WELL, THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
HERE IS THE SITUATION WE ARE
GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS
RECORD AND IT'S GOING TO GO
THAT WE ARE GOING TO FIND
THAT YOU ATTEMPTED TO ELICIT
ALL THIS INFORMATION THAT
YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING ABOUT
AND IT WAS MET WITH AN
OBJECTION AND WAS SUSTAINED.
THAT YOUR POSITION SO YOU
NEVER GOT THE WHOLE FACTS
OUT.
THAT'S --
>> WE NEVER GOT ALL THE
FACTS IN.
>> OKAY.
>> I KNOW FROM PAST
EXPERIENCE --
>> THAT'S FINE.
--
>> OF TRYING TO GO BEHIND
IT.
>> BUT IT'S YOUR RIGHT ALSO
TO SEEK REVIEW OF, OF THE
JUDGE SUSTAINING THOSE
OBJECTIONS AND, AND MAKE IT
AN ISSUE IN THIS COURT THAT
YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO PRESENT
THAT EVIDENCE.
>> THERE IS A REALITY FACTOR
AT TIMES, YOUR HONOR.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT -- YOU
KNOW, THAT'S NOT FAIR
BECAUSE IT'S ONE THING TO
SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT
CHALLENGING GUILT AND YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO GO BEHIND THE
CONVICTION.
IT'S ANOTHER THING TO SAY
THAT IF YOU DIDN'T -- IF
YOUR RIGHT TO PRESENT
MITIGATION WAS ABROGATED BY
THE JUDGE'S RULING, THEN
THAT SHOULD BE, I MEAN, YOU
ARE EXPERIENCED COUNSEL,
THAT SHOULD BE SEPARATELY
APPEALED AND SO WHAT JUSTICE
LIEUSIS SAYING IS WE LOOK AT
THIS RECORD AND HE WANTED TO
PUT ON ALL THIS EVIDENCE
ABOUT WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID
AS MITIGATION AND IT WAS
OBJECTED TO.
THEN THAT WOULD' BEEN A
BASIS TO APPEAL.
BECAUSE WE NEED TO, WE NEED
TO KNOW THESE THINGS.
>> THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS HERE, JUSTICE
PARIENTE.
MITIGATION WERE NOT
PRECLUDED BUT GOING BEHIND
THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE
CONVICTION WE ARE.
THAT'S THE DISTINCTION.
>> THE ABSENCE OF A SELFISH
MOTIVE WOULD BE THE WHY.
WHY WAS IT DONE WOULD
CERTAINLY BE MITIGATION, AND
THAT'S NOT, YOU AGREE THE
RECORD'S SILENT AS TO THE
ONE PERSON THAT COULD'VE
SAID WHAT HIS RELATIONSHIP
WAS NEVER EXPLAINED IT IN
THE RECORD.
>> WE, WE, I THINK WE GOT
THAT IN, INTO THE RECORD,
JUSTICE PARIENTE.
AND I -- AND THE THIRD --
>> SO WHY DID HE DO WHAT HE
DID?
WHY DID HE ROB PEATER TO PAY
PAUL?
>> BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD TO BY
THE MANAGING SHAREHOLDER
MR. YOUNG.
>> OF THE LAW YOU'RE SAYING?
>> OF SBI.
>> THE THIRD DKA OPINION
SPECIFICALLY STATES SBI
ASSUMED THE ROLE OF MANAGING
SHAREHOLDER.
OF THE LOFTS.
MR. YOUNG OWNED SBI.
MR. YOUNG WAS AS MY CLIENT
SAID THE FACE OF THE LOFTS.
MY CLIENT AS MANAGERING AGE
-- MANAGING AGENT WAS
DIRECTED BY MR. YOUNG, THE
OWNER OF SBI AND ACCORDING
TO THE THIRD DCI OPINION,
WHICH WE SUBMIT IS CORRECT,
SBI WAS THE MANAGING SHARE!!!!!!!!!!
SHAREHOLDER.
MY CLIENT TESTIFIED --
>> WAIT A MINUTE.
SBI WAS THE MANAGING,
MANAGING AGEFRONT THIS
CONDOMINIUM?
>> THE MANAGING SHAREHOLDER,
YOUR HONOR.
THE MANAGING SHAREHOLDER.
OKAY, THERE WERE TWO OWNERS,
SIDLER, YOUNG.
YOUNG OWNED SBI.
SBI WAS A MANAGING
SHAREHOLDER.
>> FOR THIS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION.
>> IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF
MR. YOUNG.
MY CLIENT TESTIFIED HE HAD
NO OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE
LOFTS.
HE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY
TESTIFY HE HAD NO OWNERSHIP
INTERESTS IN SBI.
>> WELL, THAT'S A PRETTY
IMPORTANT FACT BECAUSE
THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY WAS
GOING, INTO SBI.
>> YES, MA'AM, BUT BECAUSE
SBI WAS AN OWNER OF THE
LOFTS, IF HE SAID HE HAD NO
OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE
LOFTS HE SAID NO OWNERSHIP
INTEREST IN SBI.
>> WELL I DON'T KNOW THAT
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS LEGAL --
>> WELL, I THINK IT DOES,
YOUR HONOR.
YES, IT DOES.
>> WITH OUR HELP, YOU'VE
GONE WELL BEYOND YOUR TIME.
>> YES, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
WE'LL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.