Jason Halle v. Peter Halle; Judge David French claims that Trust Documents are NOT important and Judge David French Awards attorneys HUGE legal fees though it seems clear that Judge French knows they all lied to him about MATERIAL FACTS.

" More than 9 years ago Peter Halle a powerful and wealthy retired Washington attorney and his wife Carolyn Lamm, a former President of the American Bar Association (2009-2010), began stonewalling the disbursement of Jason Halle’s inheritance. They were well aware of Jason’s HIV+ status, his multiple heart attacks and his many bouts of three different types of cancer.

As attorneys licensed to practice in Florida, they knew that according to the four corners of the Edward Halle Trust document, Peter Halle was violating at least a dozen Florida laws and committing alleged felonies including Grand Theft and Perjury which are being investigated.

Judge French of the Palm Beach Probate court ruled against the qualified beneficiary that had never been challenged and he ruled in favor of Peter Halle from Washington, DC, who is part of the judicial establishment and has deep pockets.

Judge French stated in court that the Trust document was not important and that the Trustee (Peter Halle) could do whatever he wanted with the Trust.

Judge French then awarded the ten attorneys that had lied to him about material facts that influenced his decision and awarded $183,811.48 in legal fees to the predator attorneys at Richman Greer.

 It was OUTRAGEOUS!

As a result of the malicious actions of his brother and his sister-in-law Jason has already lost his home. His father had left him money with the wish that he would be able to stay in his home as long as possible and so that he could have sufficient funds to obtain good medical treatment and a high quality of life including stress free living while he was battling so many life threatening condition as a senior citizen.

Jason continues to seek justice from the Florida Courts.

Most recently he filed a personal injury suit against Peter Halle, Carolyn Lamm, Charles H. Johnson, John G. White III, Michael J. Napoleone and the Richman Greer Professional Association in the Broward County Civil Court to recover damages for the harm and financial ruin they have caused him.

The defendants gave the Court false information to get the case dismissed. Judge Michael Gates dismissed the case after the predator attorneys involved committed alleged perjury which is being investigated. "

Source
http://jasonhalle.com/press-release/

Ever Wonder how to Use a TRO to Steal Online Content, Intellectual Property, Someone's Work Product and Proprietary Methods? And completely IGNORE the First Amendment? Wonder No More. Let Attorney Marc Randazza Show you the Way.

How to Side Step that Pesky First Amendment by using an Unconstitutional TRO, inspired by my former Unconstitutional, First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza, Attorney Ronald Green and the Randazza Legal Group Law Firm.

Detailed Step By Step How To Coming Soon

Check out the Court Ruling Below whereby Randazza successfully WON is argument that A TRO is Unconstitutional.

"No. 3D12-3189 Lower Tribunal No. 11-17842,

Irina Chevaldina, Appellant,
vs.
R.K./FL Management, Inc., et al.,Appellee"

http://3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-3189.op..pdf

Absolutely Unconstitutional TRO Motion filed by my former attorney Marc Randazza. He was successful in using this Unconstitutional TRO to steal my intellectual property, my work product, my search engine placement, my online content, and flat out steal blogs and domain names with NO First Amendment Adjudication whatsoever

Click Below to Read, and You too Can STEAL Content, Search Engine Placement and Intellectual Property via a TRO.
Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Document 2 Filed 11/28/12

Also Check Out links below for Tips and Trick to use the Power of the Courts to your Benefit. No worry about those bad reviews or Gripe Sites, just get a TRO and WaLa you OWN the Constitutional Rights and Property of anyone you please. 

"First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group SAYS that Preliminary Injunctions are unconstitutional, they are unlawful prior restraint, they are "patently unconstitutional", they are clearly an "unconstitutional remedy". Especially if there was no prior First Amendment Adjudication."
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/first-amendment-attorney-marc-randazza.html

"Pro Se Litigant Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Pokes a BIT of FUN at the OUTBREAK of Preliminary Injunctions, Sweeping Rapidly, Seemingly Out of Control, through the District of Nevada, yet Granny Goose Alleges these RULINGS are an "extraordinary remedy". Crystal Cox Calls BULLSHIT. ViaView , Inc. Plaintiff v. BLUE MIST MEDIA; ERIC S. CHANSON; KEVIN C. BOLLAERT; CODY ALVIAR; ROY E. CHANSON; and AMY L. CHANSON ~ Randazza V. Cox, Who Will be NEXT?"
http://unethicalscumattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/pro-se-litigant-investigative-blogger.html

"Marc Randazza Defends Rush Limbaugh in ALLEGED Free Speech Rights, While Marc Randazza TAKES away the Rights of Free Speech and First Amendment Rights of ALL Bloggers and Citizens Journalists."
http://whistleblowermediacrystalcox.blogspot.com/2012/03/marc-randazza-defends-rush-limbaugh-in.html

First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza SUES blogger Crystal L. Cox to Suppress her Speech. 5 years later wants her to pay his legal fees for his Unconstitutional Retaliatory Lawsuit against her. $350,000 to SUE a Blogger over a $10 Domain Name that Trademark Attorney, Domain Name, First Amendment Expert Marc Randazza was to damn dumb to buy. WOW. Check out these BILLS folks. All to suppress the speech of someone speaking critical of big baby Marc Randazza.
http://unconstitutionalattorney.blogspot.com/2017/10/first-amendment-attorney-marc-j.html

A Trademark Attorney, First Amendment Expert SUES a former client claiming a Trademark Infringement on Gripe Sites.
https://unconstitutionalattorney.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-trademark-attorney-first-amendment.html


Oh and Don't Miss the Infamous Kaplan Letter where Hypocritical Attorney Marc Randazza and his law firm Randazza Legal Group really lay it on thick. (The opposite argument he made in suing me, Crystal Cox, his former client.)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiZEFJQW95MXNFQUU/view?usp=sharing

Much more Details Coming soon, so that you to Can use the Power and Privilege of our Court System to get a TRO against your enemy speaking critical of you and not have to concern yourself with the First Amendment or any kind of actual factual due process. 

Predatory Guardian Elizabeth Savitt, Judge Martin Colin's wife "asked that her guardianships be in front of Judge Howard Coates, who recently ruled in her favor. Coates blocked efforts to remove her"

"A year ago, the chief judge booted the cases of controversial guardian Elizabeth “Betsy” Savitt out of the South County Courthouse over apparent concerns about favoritism and conflict of interest involving her husband, a judge, after an investigation by The Palm Beach Post.

This month, out of the public’s view, Savitt lobbied the chief judge to allow her to move her cases back to Delray Beach, saying her wards would save money if she and her lawyer didn’t have to drive to Palm Beach Gardens, where the cases are now.

She asked that her guardianships be in front of Judge Howard Coates, who recently ruled in her favor. 

Coates blocked efforts to remove her as a guardian in a case where her ward’s former lawyers have alleged that $400,000 of the ward’s assets are missing.

Coates, a former Wellington councilman, recently was transferred to the South County Courthouse.

She made the request to Chief Judge Jeffrey Colbath in a Jan. 18 letter from her attorney, Ellen Morris, that was obtained by The Post.

After inquiries by the newspaper, Colbath on Tuesday wrote to Savitt’s attorney to say her current six guardianship cases will remain in the North County Courthouse in Palm Beach Gardens. However, he said Savitt would be allowed to have new cases, appointed at random, in the south courthouse.

Colbath transferred Savitt’s cases in February 2016 after The Post’s investigation, Guardianships: A Broken Trust.

The Post reported that thanks to Savitt’s job as a professional guardian, the life savings of incapacitated seniors flowed into the household of her husband, former Circuit Judge Martin Colin, who sat in the Probate & Guardianship Division in south county.

Savitt took thousands of dollars in fees prior to a judge’s approval and families complained she manufactured legal work to increase her fees, among other criticisms.

They said the judge’s wife appeared to be bulletproof.

Savitt worked most of her cases in the same courthouse where Colin was a powerful judge. Though she didn’t appear in front of her husband, most of her cases were in front of a family friend: Circuit Judge David French. It was French who routinely dismissed concerns about her work from families of her wards.

Savitt’s guardianship attorneys appeared in front of Colin in other cases and he approved their fees.

After The Post’s investigation, the chief judge acted quickly. He transferred Colin out of south county and out of the Probate & Guardianship Division.

Colbath required the judges in south county to recuse themselves from Savitt’s cases and he moved her cases north. Colin announced his retirement and did not seek reelection in November.

Then in October, Colbath announced sweeping changes to the county’s guardianship system, addressing many of the complaints that families had about Savitt — including taking so-called “retainer” fees.

This month, after French was transferred to the Civil Division in West Palm Beach, Savitt’s attorney sent her letter to Colbath asking that the six guardianship cases be sent back to south county and be consolidated in front of Judge Coates.

Coates had presided over Savitt’s cases in north county before replacing French in Delray Beach.

In December, Coates said he would dismiss a motion with prejudice to remove Savitt as guardian for Frances Berkowitz.

The senior’s former attorneys wanted to know what happened to the estimated $400,000 that was in the senior’s savings account at the time Savitt became her guardian. Savitt has said no such amount was in the account.

The former attorneys said they wanted Coates to allow the case to go forward so they could get bank statements and other evidence in discovery.

Donna Solomon Greenspan, one of Berkowitz’ former attorneys, asked Coates point-blank why there appeared to be many roadblocks.

“We wanted to protect our client and we put our client in the hands of the court, saying please give her a guardian who would protect her,” she said. “But this client — who we had been working with for years — was put in the hands of Betsy Savitt.”

Solomon told The Post that the chief judge did the right thing by denying the request to transfer the six cases back to south county.

“Cases are not transferred based on an ex parte letter from an attorney,” she said. “Transfers should be requested by proper motion, under the rules, with notice and the opportunity to be heard.”

Berkowitz died on Dec. 31. Her probate case initially was assigned early this month to south county, but the Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller’s Office transferred it to Palm Beach Gardens last week.

Attorneys representing two men who have fought Savitt in guardianships said they, too, are concerned that the professional guardian attempted to go outside a courtroom to get the cases moved back to Delray Beach in front of Coates.

This is called ex parte communication, they say.

West Palm Beach attorney Valentin Rodriguez is not involved in any cases involving Savitt, but as a criminal and civil litigator, he says there are only a few situations where ex parte communications are appropriate. He said if the issue is general rather than case-specific, it is often more acceptable — especially if the other attorneys in the case were notified.

“Generally speaking, the one rule of thumb is that lawyers from either side never discuss ongoing litigation with the judge assigned to the case without it being done in the presence of the other lawyer,” Rodriguez said. “Justice is blind, and sees only the truth, but when one side gets the ear of the judge in the case, then that notion of justice withers away.”

Morris said in her letter that she already had spoken on the phone with the offices of Colbath and Circuit Judge Rosemarie Scher, who is currently assigned the six cases. Morris’ letter said that the chief judge’s office told her to put her request in a letter and also said that Coates had agreed to take back the cases.

“Fundamental and basic rights for litigants in the American legal system consists of notice and the opportunity to be heard,” attorney William J. Maguire wrote Colbath on Jan. 20. He represents a Boca Raton man who has steadfastly opposed Savitt in a guardianship for a stroke victim.

Attorney Thomas Dougherty said his client, who opposes Savitt’s actions in the guardianship of Albert Vassallo Sr., doesn’t feel the issues in south county are resolved in regard to the professional guardian.

“Savitt created the circumstances that required the cases to go to north county,” Dougherty said. “The move back to south county could be considered judge shopping.”

Morris said there was no ex parte communication or judge-shopping because all of the lawyers were copied on her letter to the chief judge.

“Just trying to reduce fees for going to north county by returning to original courthouse I was assigned to,” she wrote in an email response.

Neither Judge Colbath nor Coates responded to requests for comment for this story.

Savitt hasn’t received an appointment to a new guardianship since The Post’s investigation was published in January 2016. But she may get new cases as one of about 30 professionals who are now part of a new assignment wheel, a random method of assigning cases, established by Colbath to eliminate any appearance of favoritism. Judges who appoint a professional guardian must now rely on the wheel to make their choice.

Morris, representing Savitt, argued to Colbath that the cases should move to Coates because of additional time it takes for her and Savitt to travel to the North County Courthouse — time that translates into fees charged to the senior.

Maguire rejected this notion in his own letter to Colbath on Jan. 20. He represents Daniel Schmidt, who litigated for months to force the resignation of Savitt as guardian for stroke victim Carla Simmonds. Schmidt is now Simmonds’ guardian and is fighting Savitt’s fee requests in court.

His lawyer told Colbath that Savitt and Morris could have saved Simmonds thousands of dollars in fees by resigning but instead chose to vigorously litigate with Schmidt for months.

“Now Ms. Savitt and her counsel request ex parte relief to transfer the guardianship to a single judge, ignoring the court’s administrative orders regarding judicial assignments and rotations,” Maguire said.

“All of which ostensibly are in place to avoid the appearance of favoritism, forum shopping, etc.”Source

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/chief-judge-thwarts-guardian-effort-move-cases/ZaZVtV6VF14GpUqMl3bJML/

July 26, 2017 Fourth District Appeal: Linda W. BOTTA, Bethany B. BOYD, Nancy D. COLACHICCO, Appellants v. CIKLIN, LUBITZ & O’CONNELL and BRIAN M. O’CONNELL, ESQ., individually.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Linda W. BOTTA, Bethany B. BOYD, Nancy D. COLACHICCO, Appellants,

Vs.

CIKLIN, LUBITZ & O’CONNELL, a Partnership of Professional
Associations, and BRIAN M. O’CONNELL, ESQ., individually,
Appellees.

No. 4D17-379

July 26, 2017

Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez, Judge; L.T. Case
No. CACE15019284AXXXCE.

Michael C. Sasso and Michael A. Sasso of Sasso & Sasso, Winter Park,
for appellants.

Brian M. O’Connell, Ashley Crispin Ackal, and Zachary Rothman of
Ciklin Lubitz & O’Connell, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

"The appellant daughters appeal from the circuit court’s order denying
their amended motion to transfer the underlying actions from Broward
County to Seminole County based on forum non conveniens. The
daughters argue the court erred because their evidence showed that
Broward County was not a convenient forum while Seminole County was
the most convenient forum. We agree with the daughters’ argument. We
reverse and remand for transfer of all pending actions to Seminole County."

"The law firm, as the drafter of the 2002 POA, filed an action in Broward
County seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2002 POA was valid as
“freely and voluntarily executed” by the mother, with “the requisite
capacity” and “free from duress, coercion and undue influence.” The law
firm named all three daughters as defendants.

The law firm alleged that daughter Botta resided in Connecticut, daughter Boyd resided in Broward
County, and daughter Colachicco resided in Seminole County.

The law firm alleged that it named all three daughters as defendants to the action based on their “antagonistic and adverse interests.”

"However, by the time the law firm filed its lawsuit, the three daughters
had resolved their differences. Daughters Botta and Boyd then filed a
malpractice counterclaim/third-party complaint against the law firm and
the attorney who drafted the POAs. 
Botta and Boyd claimed to be intended third party beneficiaries of the law firm’s and the attorney’s services for their mother. According to Botta and Boyd, but for the law firm’s and the attorney’s drafting of the 2002 POA, they would have withheld their consent to certain expenditures if they retained the “veto” power of the 2000 POA, and the removal of the “veto” power in the 2002 POA was the proximate cause of losses to them.

The three daughters also united to file an amended motion to transfer
venue from Broward County to Seminole County. In their motion and
affidavits, they alleged the following. Daughters Boyd and Colachicco
reside in Seminole County, more than 200 miles from Broward County.
Daughter Botta resides in Brevard County, more than 135 miles from
Broward County. Round trip travel for all three daughters would require
several hours and would be extremely inconvenient. The mother resided
in Seminole County when she executed the 2002 POA. The mother’s
affairs were managed in Seminole County until she died. The mother’s
estate was in probate in Seminole County. Any property being probated
was in Seminole County. No connection existed to Broward County."

"As for daughters Botta’s and Boyd’s malpractice action against the law
firm and the attorney, the daughters argued that action accrued not where
the legal services were provided in Palm Beach County,"

https://edca.4dca.org/DCADocs/2017/0379/170379_DC13_07262017_101101_i.pdf

Brian O'Connell is one of a Gang of Co-Conspirating attorneys and Judges who put families against each other for their own financial gain, as far as I see it, because I can READ.

Brian O'Connell  and Ashley Crispin have a CLEAR Pattern and History and I believe a civil and criminal RICO and Racketeering Complaint will be NEXT up and include the whole GANG.


eMail me any tip you have about the law "practices" of Brian O'Connell
 and / or  Ashley Crispin of CIKLIN, LUBITZ & O’CONNELL
ReverendCrystalCox@gMail.com 


South Florida Probate Court, 4th D.C.A, Florida Guardianship, Ted Bernstein, Attorney Alan Rose, Judge Marin Colin, Judge John Philips, Florida Corruption, Florida Predatory Guardianship, 

Florida's Guardianship Program is beyond SICK, it is a Horrific Human Rights Massacre. YOU have no RIGHTS under Florida's Predatory Guardianship Program

LOVE YOUR FAMILY? Stay Away from Florida.

"Florida Judge Sued for Marital Alienation by Forlorn Wife

Elizabeth Cunningham lives just 25 minutes from her husband David Napier Cunningham in Pensacola,Florida but she’s not allowed to spend time with him.

In fact, Ms. Cunningham hasn’t seen her 65 year old husband in nearly three years because she was restricted from setting foot inside the assisted living facility where the former commercial real estate developer now resides. Ms. Cunningham blames her husband’s guardian, a CPA who sued her for legal fees and won. Last week, Ms. Cunningham countersued in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division after the Honorable Family Law Judge Darlene Dickey reportedly issued ex-parte stay away orders denying the forlorn wife not only contact with her husband but also face to face visits. “Even criminals in prison are allowed conjugal visits with their wives but because Mr. Cunningham is a ward of the state of Florida, he has no such right and neither does Elizabeth,” said Dr. Sam Sugar, founder of the Americans Against Abusive Probate Guardianships (AAAPG) in Florida.

Ms. Cunningham is among a rising number of Americans seeking relief in federal courts nationwide from state guardianship-related proceedings that are alienating them from their loved ones. Other federal alienation suits include Bush v Goodall in Pennsylvania.

In most states, it is not uncommon for senior citizens, deemed incapacitated by a probate court,judge to lose their individual rights around residence, visitation, medical care, assets and property once they become a Ward of the state. However under federal law, experts claim that alienation of any kind, including spousal, parental and familial, is unconstitutional.

According to Ms. Cunningham’s federal suit, Judge Dickey’s stay away order was based on hearsay from the Guardian whom she claims has a financial interest in Mr. Cunningham’s inheritance, portfolio of shopping centers and land situated in Cherokee County, Georgia.

“I miss my husband,” said Ms. Cunningham. “Judge Dickey knew or should have known that this hearsay was false and fraudulent but instead she acted against my due process rights and my husband’s rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

Whether it’s husband, wife, sibling, uncle, aunt or parent, some 90% of family members report that the judge in their guardianship proceedings did not act in the best interest of the elderly, 80% suspected the judge was improperly influenced and 70% felt the retirement home did not act in their parent’s best interests, according to an AAAPG study. Ms. Cunningham alleges that she was unduly influenced while under duress by an attorney to sign papers that would assign a professional guardian over her husband and his financial affairs.

“Under guardianship, my husband cannot vote, he is prohibited from driving a car and as a couple we cannot sell any of our properties without permission,” Ms. Cunningham said. “The Guardian receives all the proceeds of any sale of property that my husband acquired through his hard work over the years. How can this be legal?”

Critics of elder guardianship say it’s historical.

“Probate courts in America have a sordid history,” said Dr. Sugar. “They were the primary mechanism for dealing with legal issues in the slave trade of African-Americans until slavery was abolished in 1865. These equity courts committed and continue to commit egregious abuse against the most vulnerable in society.”

In 2017, however, court appointed guardianships do not discriminate based on race.

“My husband and I enjoyed our Pensacola home until this posse of court workers came into our lives,” said Ms. Cunningham.

Ms. Cunningham is seeking damages in excess of $7 million. She is representing herself."

Source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-judge-sued-for-marital-alienation-by-forlorn_us_5980eb1be4b09d231a518229

Judge John Robert Blakey; Simon Bernstein Estate Insurance Trust Case June 19th 2017 Filing

Change of Circumstance, Law, Since Entry of Appeal

"beneficiary' with "standing" and lot's more, Click Below

Source and Full Document
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiMkVoQUlWR1daSk0/view?usp=sharing

AND Memorandum Filing, Read all of Both. Very Good Stuff
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkiSm9KbnR4alhQYVE/view?usp=sharing