BEST IMAGE AVAILABLE yy ENAZHE CERCUTT COURT”OF” NGO BREVARD COUNTY FLORIDA’ EDNA JANE FAVREAU yl Plaintift cane - a Y ® “CASE NO. 97418976 cA T WALTER F, FAVREAU Defendant ‘ / : MOTION TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD URON THE COURT NUNC PRO" TUNG. UNDER RULE 1,540. (b), AND REQUEST 70 HAVE CORRECT LAW APPLIED FOR ORDER OF PROTECTION NUNC PRO TUNC COMES NOW, Plaintiff Edna Jane Favreau, without counsel due to court misinterpretation of F.S.§61.16; on previous case. This is an independent action to show the fraud upon the court. And as grounds and reason and cause states as follows: 1 On the document on page 9 of this MOTION is exhibit where Attorney Linsey Moore was found to be guilty by the Supreme Court of Florida (it plainly states the attorney did not tell the defendant {Jane Favreau) of her court date on the order of protection.) Because that attorney neglected the case- (neglect is a crime when done to disabled elderly citizens) this court has the power to correct the injustices. Doc on page 10 ayi1 should be signed Nunc pro tunc. (to be sure the court is not giving the appearance of neglect or gender discrimination of a disabled female [ this neglect should be corrected immediately.) Case #f 05-1997-CA.018976-XXXXXX Document il OA 2 "28231982"10. All the Law books say what Attorney Moore did is called neglect and needs attention by the court to correct the mistake and neglect. Defendant (victim) can’t understand what is so hard for the court to understand about that order of protection and why it is needed. — Exhil Under the laws it should have been given back then. The first attorney for victim failed duties and the second attorney failed duties. See Exhibit on page 9. The court knew or should have known it was unlawful to give the victim a mutual order of protection in the first place. It is actually against the Florida Statutes. F.S. §741.30 aim. This is a Motion for an emergency hearing so I can ask the judge again for the unlawful order of protection to be made void and a proper one be granted nu pro tunc. When there is fraud upon the court the successor Judge can change those orders if there are special circumstances. Domestic Violence and victim becoming impaired and her attorney selling out to the other side not once but twice would give a reasonable man to say these are special circumstances enough to give a full evidentiary review of all things concerning these issues of material facts. This court not only has the power to bring justice it has a duty to a disabled elderly citizen of the State of Florida.eos The following was wtten to be read in open court by the Victim of domestic violence, but the judge said no, (under ADA title II, III, V and VII the victim request this now.) Your Honor, You said you read my records. Did you read where I said I was ill and needed an attorney before the trial ? Why did the court not go under § F. S. 744. ( at our last meeting I said to you I’m not able to do this with out effective counsel. I told you in the presence of my son, (who came to see what was taking so long with this case), that I am disabled in my abilities, and also in that the court took my funds ( ordered them taken } and that I need my funds to hire counsel. I ask you if you received the fax from my doctors stating I am not capable of making quick decisions with out being able to go over and over a document. I have brought this to the Honorable Courts attention many times. ( I pray doc. 206 in case 93-9107 to be applied) not to hold pro se in the strict standards of attorneys. Post Trial Orders have not been before any court.....maybe if those Orders the Honorable Judge left would have been allowed to come properly before the court all this would be over. ( before I pass on from a stroke or old age) 1 need my funds or Ineed § F.S. 744. I was wondering just how many R. C. P. an attorney must break - before the Honorable Courts will look closely at: was the attorneys conducting themselves (as to being an officer of the court). and in connection to their professionalism to the Honorable profession ?In case 88180 - Supreme Court of Florida shows the attorneys do not go by the rules( Oct 2, 1997 ), and please see case no 96-31,284 (18C) Attorney Linsey Moore's case, on Nov. 25, 1996 he was found guilty by the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee. Then the Florida Supreme Court found him guilty and suspended him for one year for the neglect of this victims case. From the very first of this case things have not been by the Rules. So is there a number ( or limit } the attorneys have before the Court actually does something or can the attorneys get away with things forever ? In the very first of the case Attorney Kalbac wrote a letter to Victor (who was told to prematurely give over my funds immediately to my former abusive husband ) I have the original letter and it is dated April 25 1994. ( Victor had not paid me for May or April's payments ) Those payments were for my mortgage payments and the bills on the rentals etc. Then the unethical attorney told the court I was not making the payments and for the court to take the funds and give them’to the abusive husband and that he would send victim her 1/2. what would cause a judge to even consider the abusive man who had tried to kill the lady already what would cause the judge to think he would send her her share of the funds? PoliziyPolizi..... Now you know and I_know that was wrong for the Attorney to do. ( but because the court is so over worked and some of the Judges are being moved around and my second Judge ( Hon. Judge Stein } did not know ( the Judge said right out = “I don’t know what to do“ = “I don’t think I can to this.....” - “ where is that rule book 2272” THIS WAS SAID IN OPEN COURT ON July 11, 1994, Rule 9,600¢ says he could haveruled for me to have § 61.18. _Black » Blair 145 Cal App 2d 524 302 P2d 609 My problem is that I was too ill and incapacitated to know what I was doing ( and this attorney was able to get these things past the Judge. . .) Because there is a law that covers a person being ill or incapacitated. And I told the Judge that around Feb. 1994, + I still have letter they returned ) and If you were to take time to look at doc. 000203 (48) you would see on April 12 of 94 ( trial was later ) the husband had not even complied with the discovery. What does the Honorable Court have to say about the “ officer of the court” that was supposed to put that on Judge’s paper work leaving it off 2 Was it a mistake? Does the victim lose her funds from a mistake made by a clerk? Today I come to you and request a proper Order of Protection be signed as per your assurance I could have that permanent perpetual order of protection ( last open court hearing you stated I could have the one I asked for- the one in the file - signed. } I retyped the last page with your name because the one in the file says the Hon. Judge Pound. See page 11 this doc. I admit to being confused about the court rules but if a person was to fully look at my file they would soon see things were done that would confuse most people. .. And The point of this letter is to request the Order of Protection because it looks like I need the protection of the court because the abusive former husband and his attorney are again refusing to go by the rules. See case 88180 Supreme Court of Florida I feel the Honorable Court sees the problems but because victims are not supposed to get through the system things move very slow. If this not be true why did Ann Landers mention in her ENCYCLOPEDIA vol 2 on page 1286 line 6 . . . . women have no way to . . contrary tomyth, American divorce settlements are meager. . . . and on page 1291 as a result of a long and intensive effort by women’s coalition, a greatly improved divorce bill... The statement of intent includes the following sentences: It is the intent of the legislature that a spouse who has been handicapped socially or economically by his or her contributions fo a marriage shall be compensated for such contributions at the termination of the marriage, insofar as this is possible, and may receive additional education where necessary to permit the spouse to become self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. Credit: National Commission on the Observance of International Women’s Year, Office of Public Information, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. I know I should have been allowed to have the lawful Order of Protection and I do wonder how the Judge was able to sign a document I had never seen (resulting in miscarriage of justice ) how could I object if I never had it to go over ? See affidavit of Rose in record The last thing the Honorable Trial Judge said to me was nothing was finial. . . then the next thing I knew I got a letter in the mail saying the Judge signed a finial document. . . how could that happen ?__INTHERECORD Check out the transcript of May 18, 1994 - DOC. 000371- line 6 ( when someone really reads that transcript throughly it’s clear what happened to this incapacitated grandmother after being abused and beaten by the former husband. See 000388 line 17 to - 19 Hon. Trial Judge said to victim: * let me explain to you there has not been a final judgment entered... . And 000389 start: top of page. Each time I read this document I wonder why it is not clearto this Honorable Court what needs done in this case... . because there is a lot of fraud upon the court it is void. What is so hard to understand about that ? —can_you tell me_why the Judge said nothing was finial on the 18 th of May 1994 and_then_on the 31st of May 94 sent out a signed paper saying it was finial 2 If you can explain that to me maybe I could understand things more than I do now. Can you answer just that one question ( and sign the order of protection that was in the file before the trial ) ‘The request for the Order of Protection is numbered 000236 -39 placed in the records before 000240 - 42, and then see 000244 May 25 th ( just after the Judge said nothing was finial yet). . . + + + See 000245-47 When things are really gone over it becomes clear the trial Judge was moved right in the middle of my_most crucial moments of this.mess. Justice would require the Honorable Court to see the gross miscarriage of justice and grant the Order of Protection that was requested because the police records and the State Attorney records show cause for the victim to have that order signed. Like the trial Judge said in his statement on the Post Trial Orders......, Justice requires that the victim be allowed to come before the court and develop the issues of abuse.... and the abuser be allowed to answer the issues. Can I have it throughly explained to me why this did not take place ? And according to Rule 9.600 c you can not say to me this court lost jurisdiction. That is very clear this court did not lose jurisdiction. If I am wrong about that pleaseshow me the rule. An appeal attorney told me most Judges do not know that in Family Law the lower court has concurrent jurisdiction to rule on things that effect the welfare of the victims. I’m saying if there was error then what is reason that error can’t be corrected? Judges do have discretion to correct injustices. ( if they don’ t- they should have) Are you going to tell me nothing can be done even if there was error ? (can you get my back funds owed to me ? ) I have so many bills to pay. . . . and can you help me get the Gutters of Brevard Bill paid ? My former husband owes about 3,800 ( more now)in back court ordered funds. And his #% of that bill ( 619, 00 ) and he owes about 250.00 on the water leak. ( the _Hon, Judge Evander said he was to pay *% ) but the former husband just ignored what the judge said to do. Disregarding the Hon Judge’s orders. And also defying the Hon. Judge Rainwaters orders. The attorney changed what the judge said on the orders. Is that allowed in this County all the time or just in this case? Attorney Linsey Moore did many harmful things and told many fabrications to the court. No one knows just why but that it was done to harm people. Justice requires the judgment be made void because of the fraud upon the court. 1 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the above was furnished to Atty. Kalbac, who was the attorney for Walter F. Favreau at that time. Now it is Mr. Martocci. Who breaks the rules... see case 88180.ETE I ES fe me IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA cw (Before a Grievance Committee) — THE FLORIDA BAR, ( Complainant, Case No. 96-31,284 acyl Fa asa m ( _ @Ase LINSEY MOORE, \ Ne / NOTICE OF FINDING OF PRORABLE CAUSE FOR FURTHER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND RECORD OF INVESTIGATION TO: Mr. Linsey Moore Post Office Box 151341 Tampa, Florida 33684 ‘You are hereby notified that the Bighteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "C", at a duly constituted mee:ing on the 25th day of November, 1996, and ty majority vote of eligible members present, found probable cause for your violations of the following Rules: 4-1.1; 4-1.33 ue 414; 4-116; and 4-8.4(0), All matters of record considered by the grievance committee have been referred to the ‘undersigned staff lawyer for the drafting and filing of 6 formal Complaint pursuant to Rule 3- 7.40). ‘Your further attention is called to Rule 3-7.9. Please note that ples negotiations for consent judgments may be entered into until two weeks before the final hearing. After that date, bar policy prohibits further negotiations. Dated this 4th day of December, 1996, “ & Lee Ferguson , For Rate Ann DiGangi-Schneider Bar CounselIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA a [i THE FLORIDA BAR, Le Favrefle ease ase Nos. 96-3126 Case Nos. 9 4_(18c); & Complainant, 96-31, 293 ser¢—— and 96-31,706 (18) ve 96-31, 739 (18¢) LINSEY MOORE, 96-31,931 (18C) 97-30,886 (18C) Respondent . 97-30,915 (18C) COMBS Now, the undersigned respondent, LINSEY MOORE, and files this Conditional Guilty Plea, This plea is filed pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.9(a), and tendered in exchange for a one (1) year suepension, and states as follows: 1. The espondent, Linsey Moore, ie and at all times _heveinafter mentioned, was a member of The, Florida Bar, and subject to the jurisdiction and disciplinary rules of the supreme Court of Florida. 2. The respondent is acting freely and voluntarily in this matter.3. The respondent 4s currently the subject of a disciplinary proceeding which has been assigned The Florida Bar file numbers 96-31,284 (18¢), 96-31,293 (16¢) ana 96-31, 706 (28C). Probable cause wae found by the Righteenth Judicial Circult Grievance Committee “c” concerning those three cases on November 25, 1996. 4, In addition, the respondent is the subject of three grievance matters which are pending before the Bighteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "Cc" and have been assigned The Florida Bar file numbers 96-31,739 (18C), 96-31,911 (18C) and 97-30,886 (18C). The Florida Bar file number 97-30,918 (18C) is also currently pending against the respondent at staff level. 5. For purposes of this conditional guilty plea only, the respondent waives probable cause on the cases listed in paragraph 4 above so that they may be incorporated herein, 6. The following constitutes a statement of the charges in the pending disciplinary case(s) which the respondent admite are true and accurate: aCCase No. 96-31.284 (180) A. In or around May, 1995, Edna Jean Favreau retained the respondent to pursue an appeal of the terms of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage; to attempt to avoid the sale of jointly owned property; and to obtain an injunction against Ms. Favreau’s former husband to prevent further domestic violence. B. Ms. Favreau had filed her appeal of the dissolution of marriage final judgement pro se to the Fifth District Court of Rppeals and the respondent provided assistance to her regarding the appeal [Case No, 94-01468), ©. ‘The respondent filed a suit on behalf of Ms. Favreau in thé United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Diviejon, on the grounds that the circuit judge who presided over Ms. Pavreau’s dissolution of marriage case failed to provide her with counsel even though she was indigent and was acting in pro se in the dissolution proceedings. [Case No. 95+ 408-Civ-Orl-19). The respondent filed the suit in the wrong court as the United States District Court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims filed by the respondent on behalf of Ms. Favreau, D, The respondent failed to provide Ms, Favreau with, adequate notice that he was moving to withdraw from representing her in case number 95-408-Civ-orl-19. EB. In the injunction matter, Ms. Favreau had attempted to obtain an injunction against her former husband pro se but the presiding judge denied her petition, In dune, 1995, the respondent pursued an appeal of the denial of Ms. Favreau’s petition for an injunction before the Fifth District’ Court of ‘ Appeal [Case No. 95-7940-FD-R]. ‘The respondent: failed to inform Ms. Favreau of a court date in August, 1995 and he failed to attend the hearing resulting in a dismissal of Ms, Favreau’s appeal. F, On or about December 5, 1995, the respondent filed a motion to withdraw in case number 96-7940-FD-R alleging perjury by Me, Favreau and threats made against him by Ms, Favreau and another client. apG. In xesponding to Ms. Favreau's grievances,. the respondent failed to adequately address her complaints and instead, made deceptive and misleading statements about Ms. Favreau, including that her grievances were a result of her alleged participation in xacial hate groups and/or para-military organizations. Gase No. 96-31,293 (19C) H. In December, 1993 Newton G. Ferguson filed a pro se civil suit against Joseph and Maria Kohlbrand and the Brevard Board of County Commissioners. The Kohlbrands filed a counterclaim alleging fraud by Mr, Ferguson. The case was eVentually set for trial but Mx. Fergugon was unable to attend due to medical xeasons. On August 4, 1995 the respondent entered an appearance on behalf of Mr. Ferguson and obtained @ continuance of the trial. I, From September to Ne-amber, 1995 the respondent filed three motions on behalf of Mx, Ferguson and issued two sets of deposition notices, On January 2, 1996 the respondent filed a motion to withdraw which was granted on January 10, 1996. J. Mr, Ferguson did not receive any notice of the hearing on the xeepondent’s motion to withdraw and was not aware of the reepondent’s withdra.a: until he reviewed the court file. Despite repeated requests, the respondent has failed and/or refused to return Mr. Ferguson’s file. case No. 26-21.706 (9c) Yk K The respondent represents the plaintiff in the case of jam G. Gridley, Clerk of the Cirouit Eagquira, Case No, 95-319-Civ-Orl-18, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Ad' ‘ G. In responding to Ms. Favreau's grievances,. the xespondent failed to adequately address her complaints and instead, made deceptive and misleading statements about Ms. Favreau, including that her grievances were a recult of her alleged participation in racial hate groups and/or para-military organizations. Gase No. 96-33,293 (18¢) H. In December, 1993 Newton G, Ferguson filed a pro se civil suit against Joseph and Maria Kehlbrand and the Brevard Board of County Commissioners, The Kohlbrands filed a counterclaim alleging fraud by Mr. Ferguson. The case was eventually set for trial but Mr. Ferguson was unable to attend due to medical xeasons. On August 4, 1995 the respondent entered an appearance on behalf of Mr. Ferguson and obtained a continuance of the trial. I. From September to Necember, 1995 the respondent filed three motions on behalf of Mr. Ferguson and issued two sets of deposition notices. On January 2, 1996 the respondent filed a motion to withdraw which was granted on January 10, 1996. J, Mx. Ferguson did not receive any notice of the hearing on the respondent's motion to withdraw and was not aware of the vegpondent’s withdrawal until he xeviewed the court file. Despite repeated requests, the respondent has failed and/or xefused to return Mr. Ferguson's file. Case No. 96-31,706 (180) K. The xespondent represents the plaintiff in the case of Noxma_Vaughn_v. The Hon, William ¢. Gridley, Clerk of the Cirouit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit and. Francis B.. Pierce. Il. Esquire, Case No. 95-319-Civ-Orl-18, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. L. The suit filed by the respondent improperly attempted to sue a circuit court judge and circuit court clerk in federal court. The respondent also was improperly attempting to assert 4 1996 order directing the filina Af a reanannin federal court that Ms, Vaughn's former attorney in a gtate court action had committed malpractice. M. On April 3, 1995, the court ordered the respondent to show cause within eleven days why sanctions should not be imposed against him for presenting claims unwarranted by existing law. The respondent failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause. On April 24, 1995, the court imposed sanctions of $1,000 against the respondent for filing a frivolous complaint. Sane No, 96-314739 (18C) N, The xespondent represents Carolyn Fankhanel and Norma Vaughn’ who’ have materially adverse interests. In an unlicensed practice of law matter, The Florida Bar v. Carolyn Fankhanel, Supreme Court Case No. 85,819, the respondent informed the court in a “Notice of Conflict of Interest” that a conflict in his xepresentation of Ms. Vaughn and Ms. Fankhanel exists. Despite the respondent’s awarenerm of the conflict of interest, he hre not moved to withdraw from the representation, Gase No, 96-34,911. (180 ©. On May 8, 41996, the Fighteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee "C” issued a subpoena duces tecum to the xespondent for his trust account records so tha: the bar can conduct a trust account audit, Although the respondent produced some records, his trust account records are incomplete and not maintained in accordance with The Florida Bar Rules Regulating Trust Accounts. The bax has been unable to complete its audit due to the respondent’s incomplete records. Cape No. 97-30, 686 (1.8C) P. In the case of Wanda J, Moore vy, Solomon Joseph Parrish, Case No. 96-02080, Fourth District Court of Appeal, the respondent was fined $250.00 on August 8, 1996. On October 11, 1996, the respondent's request for relief was denied and he was dixected to show cause within five days why sanctions should not be imposed against him for non-compliance with a September 25, 51996 oder directing the filing of a vesponsive affidavit, Q. On November 11, 1996, the appellate court found the respondent had not filed a response or affidavit and he was fined an additional $100.00 to be paid with the prior $250.00 fine within five days. The court also vequested the bar investigate the xespondent’s conduct in the matter. R. By order dated December 12, 1996, the appellate court found the respondent failed to comply with the November 11, 1996 ordex, Because it appeared to the court that the respondent will continue to ignore any further orders, the Nineteenth Judicial Ciroudt was directed to appoint a cixcuit judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing within 30 days regarding the respondent's failure to comply with the appellate court's orders and to xecommend an appropriate sanction, Nineteenth Sudicial Circuit Judge Paul B, Kanarek was appointed to conduct the evidentiary hearing S. The evidentiary hearing was scheduled for January 10, 1997 but on January 3, 1997 the respondent requested a continuance due to a scheduled hearing in his Chapter 7, bankruptcy case. Judge Kanarek’s office contacted the trustee in the respondent's bankruptcy case and requested their hearing be rescheduled, After the bankruptcy hearing was rescheduled gudge Kanarek's office attempted to contact the xespondent at the telephone number he had provided to inform him of the rescheduled bankruptcy hearing, Judge Kanarek’s office was unable to speak wata che avspondent or leave a message, T.. On January 7, 1997, Judge Kanarek entered an order denying the respondent’s motion to continue. ‘The order was forwarded by regular mail to the address the respondent had provided in his pleadings. The respondent failed to appear for the January 10, 1997 hearing before Judge Kanarek and has not contacted the judge’s office since he filed his motion to continue, U. By order dated January 14, 1997, gudge Kanarek xecotmended that the Fourth District Court of Appeal direct the State Attorney of Palm Beach County to immediately file a disciplinary proceeding againet the respondent pursuant to R, Regulating Fla, Bar 3-7.8 for his failure to appear for theJanuary 10, 1997 heaxing and his repeated failure to comply, with the orders of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. dudge Kanarek further recommended that The Florida Bar seek an emergency suspension of the respondent pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.2, Case No. 97-30.915 (18¢), ve In or around February, 1996, Tanya Ruffin paid the xespondent $500.00 to handle the probate of the estate of Sylvester Brock. Ms. Ruffin was the only beneficiary of the will and the respondent wae named the personal representative. Ms. Ruffin also wanted the respondent to file eviction proceedings against tenants who lived in property belonging to the estate. W. At the outset of the representation, the respondent failed to advise Ms, Ruffin that it would be a conflict of interest for the respondent to represent her in the probate matters and to also act as the personal representative. Ms. Ruffin believed the respondent was representing her and she repeatedly contacted his office over several months attempting to. determine whether the respondent had filed the necessary documentation and was pursuing the probate. X, In April, 1996 the xespondent met with Me. Ruffin at the courthouse to initiate the probate proceedings. The eviction action was never filed, ¥. From June, 1996 the respondent refused to return or accept Ms. Ruffin’s calls. Ms. Ruffin learned from the probate clerk's office that the respondent filed a motion to withdraw ‘on October 10, 1996 and a hearing was set; for Ockober 29, 1996. Ori. November 11, 1996 Ms, Ruffin learned the case was dismiesed because the respondent did not appear for the hearing on Oucober 29, 1996. 7, ‘The respondent admits that by reason of the foregoing he has violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:NED 2S BES ees Gabe No. 96-31,911 (180). 4-1.15(d) for failing to comply with The Florida Bar Rules, Regulating Trust Accounts; 5-1.1(¢) for failing to’ preserve or gause to be preserved the records of all bank and savings and joan association accounts or other records pertaining to the funds or property of a client or a third party maintained in compliance with rule 4-1.15 for a period of not less than 6 years subsequent to the final conclusion of the representation of a aisent xelative to such funds or property: and §-1.2 for failing to maintain the minimum required trust account records and record-keeping procedures, Cage No, 97-20,886 (18) 3-4.3 flor engaging in conduct that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice; and 4-8.4(¢' for engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that his prejudicial to the administration of justice. Cage No. _97-30,915. (19¢) 4-1,3 for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 4-1.4 for failing to keep a client xeasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and 4-1.16(d) for failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable upon termination of representation to protect a client’s interest, such as giving reasonable notice 9