Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2022-559 Petition 80029 Petition2dsuspension2028emergency29
2022-559 Petition 80029 Petition2dsuspension2028emergency29
______________________/
This petition of The Florida Bar seeks emergency relief and requires
the immediate attention of this Court under Rule 3-5.2 of the Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar. The Florida Bar seeks the emergency
suspension of Bruce Jacobs, Attorney No. 116203, from the practice of law
in Florida based on facts that establish clearly and convincingly that Bruce
Affidavit of Mr. Arthur Gill, Staff Investigator for the Florida Bar, and the
exhibits and court orders attached to his Affidavit. (A copy of Mr. Gill’s
1
2. Respondent, Bruce Jacobs, is and at all times mentioned
herein was a member of The Florida Bar, subject to the jurisdiction and
and 2022-70,402(11H).
has been made for the same and/or similar misconduct and rule violations,
as that which will be addressed in this petition. (A true and correct copy of
doing so, filed frivolous pleadings, abused the judicial process, made
was placed on notice, and sanctioned, in the trial and appellate courts
2
refuses to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his actions and proudly
day.
the trial and appellate courts. The style of the case is Carrington Mortgage
Services, LLC. v. Nicolas et. al., Third District Court of Appeal Case No.
3
3D21-1300, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Case No.18-37059. (A true and
correct copy of the 3d DCA Docket for Case No. 3D21-1300 is attached
hereto as Ex A-2).
proceedings against the opposing party. On June 14, 2021, the opposing
party filed its Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Third District
10. On November 24, 2021, the Third DCA issued the Writ of
En Banc in the Third DCA. (A true and correct copy of the respondent’s
was replete with disparaging comments against the Third DCA, The Florida
1 Respondent’s disparaging remarks and attacks on the judiciary are evident on the face of the motion.
As but a few examples of same: “This Court Routinely Granted the Extraordinary Remedy of Prohibition
to Block Fraud Prosecutions of Powerful Parties” at p.8 of the Motion; “In addition to this case, and the
Hudson case, this Honorable Court exercised the extraordinary remedy to block Judge Butchko from
upholding the highest standards of conduct in her courtroom so many times it almost seems personal.” at
p. 8 of the Motion (citations omitted); “The judicial canons require any Honorable Court with actual
knowledge of the fraud ongoing through these appeals ‘shall take appropriate action’ to ensure fraud
does not deprive people of their constitutional right to due process before a fair and impartial court. . . .
4
containing 604 pages in support of his Motion for Rehearing En Banc.
12. On January 11, 2022, the Third DCA issued its order striking
the Appendix, treating the Motion for Rehearing En Banc as if it had been
filed with a Motion for Rehearing, and Denying the Motion for Rehearing En
13. On the same date, the Third DCA sua sponte issued an Order
filing the Motion for Rehearing En Banc, along with the separately filed
Appendix. (A true and correct copy of the 3d DCA’s Order to Show Cause
A fraudulent foreclosure is not due process. Whatever Mr. Jacobs may have done wrong in challenging
these violations of the constitution does not excuse what’s happening in Florida’s Courts.” at p. 16; and
“There is no equal protection under law when only foreclosure defense counsel is punished for forgery
and fraud while Bank counsel [sic] to commit the same forgery on a much greater scale with impunity.” at
p. 21 (See Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, Ex A-3).
5
b. The Motion improperly impugns the integrity of this
Court, opposing counsel, and the Florida Bar, among
others without any relevance to the legal matter at
issue in a motion for rehearing en banc;
Cause Related to Impugning the Integrity of This Court and Others.” (A true
6
and correct copy of the Notice of Filing, with Attachment, dated February 1,
trial court in the underlying case, just fifteen days after the Third DCA
issued its Order to Show Cause. The motion was entitled “Amended
respondent sought to disqualify the trial judge after the court denied
17. Far from taking heed of the notice and warning contained in the
attacks on the judiciary. In the motion filed in the trial court, respondent
affirmatively represented:
• “All of this raises objective reasons to fear the Court will not
be fair and impartial in this case. The Court has made it clear
it intends to rubberstamp the fraudulent foreclosure with the
expectation that the Third DCA will allow the fraud to deprive
the defendant of their property without due process of law.”
(para 14).
(Ex A-5).
respond to the order to show cause issued by the Third DCA on January
11, 2022, and thereafter filed his Response on March 7, 2022 and his
and disposition by the Third DCA on its Order to Show Cause. (True and
Composite Ex A-6).
following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims
8
and Contentions); 4-3.3 (Candor Towards the Tribunal); 4-3.4(c)(Knowingly
or Misrepresentation).
DCA Docket for Case Nos. 3D20-122 and 3D20-1712 are attached hereto
21. Following a trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in the bank’s
favor. On January 15, 2020, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal. (Ex A-7).
numerous extensions, respondent did not file an Initial Brief and the case
was dismissed on the court’s own motion on August 20, 2020. (Ex A-7)
to Fraud, pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), in the trial court. The trial court denied
9
23. Respondent appealed the trial court’s order denying his Motion
to Vacate Judgment Due to Fraud. This matter was assigned Case Number
A-8).
24. On September 15, 2021, the Third DCA per curiam affirmed the
trial court order, without writing an opinion. (Ex. A-8). Respondent was
Conflict, Request for Written Opinion, Motion for Rehearing, and/or Motion
2 On its face, respondent’s motion is replete with improper comments and argument disparaging the
judiciary. As but a few examples: “Judge Echarte deferred to this Honorable Court’s [the Third DCA’s]
shadow body of law that allows banks to commit fraud.” at p.2; repeated arguments that suggest the
panel nefariously blocked Supreme Court review by issuing a per curiam affirmance without opinion, at p.
3, 18-21; that the panel decision, “lacks integrity, creates uncertainty, and adds to the shadow body of law
which the Supreme Court warned about,” at p. 4; “The panel decision is already being paraded about by
attorneys engaged in this systematic fraud as controlling law that grants a privilege to commit systematic
fraud when it states no facts.” at p. 4; that Judge Bronwyn Miller, a member of the panel that PCA’d the
trial court decision, herself previously issued an order sanctioning the bank for similar acts of fraud, but
“vacated her sanctions order that called out willful bad faith by BANA and BONYM just before Governor
Rick Scott elevated her to the Third DCA.” and implying a “derisive and unsupported basis” for her
vacatur order, at p. 5-6 (see also the Third DCA’s Order to Show Cause dated January 26, 2022 Ex A-9
at footnote 1 and p 12-13); “This case is of exceptional importance because the panel ruling perpetuates
a shadow law that banks are above the constitution and can commit fraud with impunity.” at p. 10;
“Respectfully, this PCA is ‘an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard
of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice.’” and citing to Jones v. State, 477
So.2d 566,569 (Fla. 1985) which does contain that quote but it is taken entirely out of context and is
unrelated to any issue or procedure relevant to the instant case. The quoted language had nothing to do
with a PCA issued by an appellate court, and accordingly the cited language does not support the
contention for which respondent cited to it. This was merely a dishonest means by which to further
disparage the Third DCA.
10
Certify Conflict, Request for Written Opinion, Motion for Rehearing, and/or
3500 pages, in support of his motion. (Ex A-8). Both respondent’s motion
and the appendices were stricken by the court’s January 26, 2022, order,
because they violate the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. (A true and correct copy of the court’s
27. The Third DCA’s January 26, 2022, order encompassed the
court’s Order to Show Cause. The Order to Show Cause states that there
as follows:
(Ex A-10).
14
final review and disposition by the Third DCA. (A true and correct copy of
following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims
or Misrepresentation).
misconduct, on March 16, 2022, the Third DCA issued another oOrder to
Show Cause against respondent for the same or similar misconduct as that
described above, in a matter styled The Bank of New York Mellon vs. Regis
Bontoux, Third DCA Case Number 3D21-1869, lower court case number
two-day hearing, and issued a 21-page report containing her findings and
15
recommendations thereon. (See p. 2-3 of the Third DCA Opinion, dated
objections to discovery raised by the plaintiff lender, and found plaintiff did
13 at 3). Respondent did not furnish the trial court with a transcript of the
hearings before the magistrate, nor did he demonstrate any clear error on
33. Despite these defects, the trial court issued an order overruling
Significantly, the trial court order failed to address whether the general
for Writ of Certiorari to quash the trial court’s order, arguing the trial court
16
35. On November 24, 2021, respondent filed his Response to the
other unrelated actions, in some cases citing to orders that had been
unrelated case, claiming the order found fraud by the lender, when it did no
such thing. 3 (Ex. A-14 at 21; see also Section D at para 50, infra.). There is
3 As demonstrated in Section D below, in 2010, in an entirely unrelated case, Judge Jennifer Bailey
presided over a mortgage foreclosure against Ms. Maria Williams-James. After an initial judgment of
foreclosure was entered, both parties subsequently moved to vacate the order for different reasons. As
both parties agreed that the order should be vacated, Judge Bailey granted the motions and vacated the
order during her motions calendar, based solely on that agreement, and not on the merits of either
motion. She made no findings concerning fraud in her pro forma vacatur order. (See Section D, para 50,
infra, and Ex. A-18). Nevertheless, at page 21 of his Response to the Petition for Certiorari in the instant
case, respondent affirmatively misrepresented, “The Honorable Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge
17
no doubt that this misrepresentation was intentional, as just two days
before respondent filed the instant response in the Third DCA, the trial
court judge who entered the subject order specifically informed respondent
that she had not made any finding of fraud and the order was not entered
granting the Writ for Certiorari, and quashing the trial court order. (Ex. A-
13). The Third DCA found that the trial court departed from the essential
The Amended Motion for Rehearing En Banc, like those filed in the cases
Jennifer Bailey vacated the foreclosure judgment due to fraud because [Ms. Williams-James] paid
her mortgage.” (Ex. A-14 at 21)(emphasis in the original). There is no doubt that respondent’s
misrepresentation was intentional. His Response to the Petition for Certiorari in this case was filed on
November 24, 2021. However, just two days earlier, Judge Bailey herself reiterated to respondent at a
November 22, 2021 motion hearing that she had made no such findings of fraud when she vacated the
foreclosure judgment, and that the vacatur order was not done on that basis. (See Ex A-21 at p. 6, 11).
Respondent acknowledged Judge Bailey’s correction on that point during the hearing. (Ex. A-21 at p. 12
lines 16-20).
18
described above, is replete with disparaging comments that impugn the
integrity of the court, which are evident on the face of the motion, and are
containing it’s ruling on the Motion for Rehearing and an Order to Show
Cause. (A true and correct copy of the Third DCA Opinion dated March 16,
2022, is attached hereto as Ex. A-16). In the opinion, the court struck
they violated the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules
Show Cause, which it issued on its own motion, and pursuant to Florida
Banc, along with its Appendix, violate the Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure and the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar in the following
manner:
21
Mr. Jacobs also contends that Bennett v. Deutsche
Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 124 So. 3d 320, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA
2013) holds that section 673.3081(1), Florida Statutes,
“instructs that once an endorsement is challenged as a
forgery, discovery into the endorsement is proper.” Mr.
Jacobs’ Motion at 19. Our sister court in Bennett relied
on the Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 to
section 673.3081 which explains that “until some
evidence is introduced which would support a finding
that the signature is forged or unauthorized, the
plaintiff is not required to prove that it is valid.” Bennett,
124 So. 3d at 322. “The defendant is therefore
required to make some sufficient showing of the
grounds for the denial before the plaintiff is required to
introduce evidence.” Id. Our sister court found that the
bank was entitled to summary judgment on its
mortgage foreclosure action because the defendants
failed to make “some evidentiary showing to support
their claim.” Id. at 323. At no point does Bennett give a
defendant the right to discovery simply because they
challenge an endorsement by claiming it is a forgery—
it requires an evidentiary showing to support that claim.
24
judges have committed a violation of this Code.’”
Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 36–37.
42. In its opinion, the court noted that it has sanctioned respondent
pattern of misconduct:
27
Respondent engaged in the same misconduct as described in each of the
CONCLUSION
(A-17 at 92-93).
following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims
or Misrepresentation).
28
D. The Florida Bar File No. 2022-70,337(11H)
the procedural history of the case, and the events that occurred before,
during, and after, the November 22, 2021 hearing. (A true and correct copy
foreclosure action, but did not respond and was defaulted on September
19, 2012.
49. The case was set for trial, however Ms. Abitz appeared and
requested a continuance prior to trial. Significantly, Ms. Abitz did not move
at any time during the pendency of the case to vacate the default, nor did
she otherwise plead on behalf of her client. The matter proceeded and
final judgment of foreclosure was entered on April 22, 2013. (Ex A-18 at 2).
29
pleadings. Ms. Abitz, on behalf of Ms. Williams-James, countered with her
own motion to vacate the final judgment based on fraud. Rather than rule
parties. (Ex. A-18 at 3). The Order of Voluntary Dismissal did not award
attorney fees to either party, and did not reserve jurisdiction to address
52. Thereafter, on July 19, 2014, Ms. Abitz filed the Defendant’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees, which is the motion at issue in the hearing
fees on a prevailing party claim, and did not in any manner raise the issue
of fraud or argue for sanctions based on fraud. (Ex A-18 at 3; see also
Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, filed by Ms. Abitz on
July 19, 2014, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. A-
4 Although the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate for Fraud requested sanctions and attorney fees, same
were not granted, and the issue of fraud was not addressed in the court’s pro forma vacatur order. Upon
issuance of the vacatur order, all matters raised in those motions were concluded. (Ex. A-18 at 3).
30
19). Neither plaintiff nor defendant set this motion for hearing. Ms. Abitz
was subsequently disbarred three years after the motion was filed. (Ex. A-
18 at 1).
53. In the interim, the mortgage note that was the subject of the
Dade Circuit Court Case Number 2015-18433. (Ex A-18 at 2). That matter
was not assigned to Judge Bailey upon filing. Respondent did not move to
these situations, and a process in which respondent was well versed. (Ex.
A-18 at 4).
October 19, 2021, respondent filed motions to attack the judgment in the
fraud by the lender. (Ex. A-18 at 1, see also Defendant’s Motion to Enforce
31
55. In the 2015 case pleadings and motions, respondent
ie., Ex A-20 at paras 4-5). As noted above, Judge Bailey never made any
such finding and the vacatur order was not entered on the merits of either
parties’ motion, but rather on the agreement of the parties. (Ex A-18 at 2-3;
see also the Transcript of Hearing dated November 22, 2021, at 6, a true
21).
56. Accordingly, when Judge Bailey was preparing for the hearing
on the only motion that was set before her, the July 2014 Motion for
Attorney Fees, she became concerned when she noticed that respondent
inserted his post-judgment motions from the 2015 case into his
submissions concerning the July 2014 motion for fees. (Ex A-18 at 1). She
indicating:
Maria E. Prieto
Judicial Assistant to
The Honorable Jennifer D. Bailey
opposing counsel on the email, despite the fact his response contained
substantive facts and argument about the case. Moreover, the responsive
email indicated that respondent “did not intend to comply with the Court’s
(Ex. A-18 at 2)
to the only material issue before her, regarding whether Ms. Williams-
James was entitled to fees on a prevailing party claim in the 2010 case,
based on the 2014 motion filed by Ms. Abitz, where the defendant was
defaulted and did not defend in the trial court. (Ex A-18 at 3 and Ex A-21
generally).
immediately attempted to link the 2015 case with the 2010 proceedings,
arguing that issues of fraud entitled his client to fees. (Ex. A-21 at 4).
60. Judge Bailey did not permit respondent to make that argument,
argue the motion which he had set and which the court was trying to hear.”
(Ex. A-18 at 3). Despite the court pointing out numerous times that no
issues of fraud were raised in the specific 2014 fees motion noticed for
that the issue before the court was whether the lender’s fraud entitled Ms.
attempted to ore tenus amend the motion to include fraud. (Ex A-21 at 15).
The court immediately denied the ore tenus motion. (Ex A-21 at 15).
attempts to make the ore tenus motion. When that failed, respondent
stated, “This is a crazy injustice. The most unjust situation I’ve seen in all
of my years of practicing law --… -- and now I’m trying to speak to the
62. Judge Bailey stated, “Mr. Jacobs, you’re right about this. You
are not and this Court will not allow you to make an argument that is not
properly noticed before the Court, not properly before the Court in this
case. And while I understand your sense of outrage, that doesn’t allow you
to unilaterally change the rules which govern court.” (Ex A-21 at 17).
35
63. Rather than accept the court’s ruling, respondent continued to
interrupt the judge and speak over her. The court was finally required to
mute him so that she could make her ruling. (Ex. A-21 at 17-20, see also
64. Judge Bailey’s November 29, 2021, order documented all of the
above facts and findings. (Ex. A-18). Additionally, Judge Bailey found that
shopping in his attempts to have her hear the issues that were squarely
before another circuit court judge in the 2015 case. (Ex. A-18 at 3-4). Her
following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims
36
CONCLUSION
rule violations and that his license to practice law be suspended, based on
holdings and facts to the court; and abuse the judicial process. His actions
67. As the Third DCA noted in its March 16, 2022, Order to Show
will subject him to sanctions; yet he continues to engage in, and even
escalate, that misconduct. This, despite prior apologies to the court, and
misconduct.
37
So never give up. Never stop fighting. You know
that this is a fight -- you know, look, they want to make me
apologize to the lawyers from Akerman who accused
Judge Butchko of making things up because I put her up
to it. I'm not going to apologize for that.
69. But for emergency action by this Court, the harm caused by
serious harm to clients, the public and/or the judicial process, and that
pursuant to Rule 3-5.2, The Florida Bar respectfully requests this court to:
of this Court's order and to cease representing any clients after 30 days
from the date of this Court's order. Within the 30 days from the date of this
38
Court’s order, respondent shall wind down all pending matters and shall not
initiate any litigation on behalf of clients. Respondent shall withdraw from all
estate, as guardian for any ward, and as trustee for any trust and will
withdraw from said representation within thirty days from the date of this
court’s order and will immediately turn over to any successor the complete
appointment.
order to all clients, opposing counsel and courts before which respondent is
with the requisite affidavit listing all clients, opposing counsel and courts so
disbursing any money from any trust account related to respondent's law
practice until further order of this court, a judicial referee appointed by this
instituted under Rule 1-3.8, and to deposit any fees, or other sums received
39
employment as a personal representative, guardian or trustee, paid to
into a specified trust account from which withdrawal may only be made in
shall be required to notify bar counsel of The Florida Bar of the receipt and
40
an account that contains funds that originated from a probate estate for
which respondent was guardian, or trust for which respondent was trustee,
of the provisions of this Court's order and to provide all the aforementioned
banks and financial institutions with a copy of this Court's order. Further,
order.
Bar for trust account records and any related documents necessary for
Respectfully submitted,
41
Florida Bar No. 190292
[email protected]
_____________________
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Staff Counsel
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
(850) 561-5600
Florida Bar No. 559547
[email protected]
/s/___________________________
Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
(850) 561-5600
Florida Bar No. 25902
[email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that this document has been E-filed with The Honorable John
A. Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, with copies provided
to Benedict P. Kuehne, Attorney for Respondent, via email at
[email protected], and via United States Mail Certified Mail No.
7017 1450 0000 7821 0469, return receipt requested, to Benedict P.
Kuehne, at 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, FL 33131-2100; and to
Roy D. Wasson, Attorney for Respondent, via email at e-
[email protected] & [email protected];
and via United States Mail Certified Mail No. 7017 1450 0000 7821 0452,
return receipt requested, to Roy D. Wasson, at 28 West Flagler Street,
Suite 600, Miami, FL 33130-1893; and to Tonya L. Avery, Bar Counsel, via
email at [email protected], on this 27th day of April, 2022.
42
_____________________
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Staff Counsel
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
(850) 561-5600
Florida Bar No. 559547
[email protected]
43
NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS
44
MANDATORY ANSWER NOTICE
45