Filing # 148453996 E-Filed 04/27/2022 07:41:11 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case

No.
Petitioner,
The Florida Bar File Nos.
v. 2022-70,335(11H)(MES)
2022,70,336(11H)
BRUCE JACOBS, 2022-70,337(11H)
2022-70,402(11H)
Respondent.
RECEIVED, 04/27/2022 07:46:23 AM, Clerk, Supreme Court

______________________/

PETITION FOR EMERGENCY SUSPENSION

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

Jacobs appears to be causing great public harm, as demonstrated in the

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

Affidavit is attached hereto as Ex “A”; attachments to the Exhibit will be

referred to as “A-“ followed by the exhibit number).

1. The filing of this Petition for Emergency Suspension has been

authorized by the Executive Director of The Florida Bar.

1
 2. Respondent, Bruce Jacobs, is and at all times mentioned

herein was a member of The Florida Bar, subject to the jurisdiction and

disciplinary rules of this Court.

3. This Petition comprises the following matters assigned Florida

Bar File Nos. 2022-70,335 (11H); 2022-70,336 (11H); 2022-70,337 (11H);

and 2022-70,402(11H).

4. Respondent is also the subject of a disciplinary proceeding

currently pending before this Honorable Court in Supreme Court Case

Number SC20-1602; Florida Bar File Numbers 2019-70,188(11H), 2019-

70,358(11H), and 2020-70,056(11H), in which a recommendation of guilt

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

the Amended Report of Referee submitted in Supreme Court Case No.

SC20-1602 is attached hereto as Ex. A-1)

5. The above referenced cases demonstrate that respondent has

repeatedly attacked the judiciary without an objectively reasonable basis for

doing so, filed frivolous pleadings, abused the judicial process, made

misrepresentations to the court, and disrupted the tribunal. Respondent

was placed on notice, and sanctioned, in the trial and appellate courts

multiple times for this misconduct. Notwithstanding same, respondent

2
refuses to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his actions and proudly

continues to engage in the same or similar misconduct, even to the present

day.

6. Indeed, respondent’s conduct has only escalated.

Respondent’s continuing assaults on the process and the judiciary, both in

his public record pleadings and statements, undermine public confidence in

the administration of justice, significantly impact scant judicial resources,

and constitute the type of harm contemplated by Rule Regulating the

Florida Bar 3-5.2(a).

7. As can be seen below, respondent’s ongoing and escalating

misconduct continues, despite the pendency of SC20-1602, currently

before this Honorable Court upon a Report of Referee containing findings

of rule violations for the same or similar misconduct, as described in detail

below. Emergency intervention is required by this Honorable Court in order

to avoid continuing public harm and abuse of process.

A. The Florida Bar File No. 2022-70,335(11H)

8. In Florida Bar File Number 2022-70,335(11H), respondent

represented the defendant, Julie Nicholas, in a foreclosure action in both

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).

9. While the matter was pending in the Circuit Court, Judge

Butchko granted respondent’s motion to initiate criminal contempt

proceedings against the opposing party. On June 14, 2021, the opposing

party filed its Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Third District

Court of Appeal. (“Third DCA”). The Third DCA granted opposing

counsel’s motion for a stay of the proceedings below. (Ex A-2).

10. On November 24, 2021, the Third DCA issued the Writ of

Prohibition and quashed the trial court order. (Ex A-2).

11. On December 9, 2021, respondent filed a Motion for Rehearing

En Banc in the Third DCA. (A true and correct copy of the respondent’s

Motion for Rehearing En Banc is attached hereto as Ex A-3). The motion

was replete with disparaging comments against the Third DCA, The Florida

Bar and others. 1 On December 17, 2021, respondent filed an Appendix

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.

Opposing Counsel moved to strike the Appendix. (Ex A-2)

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

Banc. (Ex A-2)

13. On the same date, the Third DCA sua sponte issued an Order

to Show Cause directing respondent to demonstrate why he should not be

subjected to sanctions for failing to comply with the Florida Rules of

Appellate Procedure, and with the professional norms governing appeals in

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

issued January 11, 2022 is attached hereto as Ex A-4).

14. The Order to Show Cause specifically required respondent to

address numerous violations regarding his Motion and Appendix, including:

a. The legal arguments asserted in the Motion are

frivolous in that they do not support a motion for
rehearing en banc;

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;

c. Citations to the record in the Motion do not support the

facts for which they are cited;

d. Cases cited in the Motion do not support the legal

propositions for which they are cited;

e. Although 604 pages long, the Appendix fails to contain

a paginated index, bookmarks, or even consecutive
pagination in violation of Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.220(c), and the absence of these
organizing features either intentionally or
unintentionally enables and conceals mis-citations to
the record;

f. The Appendix includes documents generated after the

order under review in violation of the fundamental
principle that “[t]he appellate record is limited to the
record presented to the trial court.” Rutherford v.
Moore, 774 So. 2d 637, 646 (Fla. 2000); and

g. The Appendix includes circuit court orders that have

been vacated and Respondent’s Motion fails to so
indicate.
(Ex A-4).

15. Following the court’s issuance of the Order to Show Cause, on

February 1, 2022, opposing counsel filed a “Notice of Filing After-Occurring

Motion By Bruce Jacobs, Esq., From the Lower Tribunal Proceeding

Pertinent to the Area of Concern Outlined in This Court’s Order to Show

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,

2022, is attached hereto as Ex A-5).

16. The Notice of Filing attached a motion respondent filed in the

trial court in the underlying case, just fifteen days after the Third DCA

issued its Order to Show Cause. The motion was entitled “Amended

Defendant’s Verified Motion for Judicial Disqualification,” in which

respondent sought to disqualify the trial judge after the court denied

respondent’s motion for rehearing of the order granting summary

judgement of foreclosure. (Ex A-5).

17. Far from taking heed of the notice and warning contained in the

Third DCA’s Order to Show Cause, respondent escalated his disparaging

attacks on the judiciary. In the motion filed in the trial court, respondent

affirmatively represented:

• “The Third DCA removed Judge Butchko and initiated

contempt proceedings against defense counsel, Bruce
Jacobs, Esq., and took no action to confront the fraud on the
court.” (para 4);

• “Judge Butchko’s case transferred to this division and this

Honorable Court [the trial court below] is now aware that the
Third DCA judges are violating their judicial canons by taking
action against the judge and whistleblower who called out
the fraud rather than the banks and their counsel committing
fraud. Rather than hold these wealthy and power parties
accountable, the Court joined the Third DCA in violating the
judicial canons, the Florida Bar rules, and the rule of law.”
(para 6);
7
 • “This Honorable Court has also made it clear it has violated
its own judicial canons 3(d)(1) and 3(d)(2) which require it to
take appropriate action to call out the misconduct of another
judge or attorney once it has knowledge of the misconduct.”
(para 8);

• “Rather than protect the constitutional rights of homeowners

in these fraudulent foreclosures, the Court chose to join the
Third DCA to protect Mr. Callahan and his clients’ fraud.”
(para 13); and

• “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).

18. Respondent requested two extensions of time in order to

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

Amended Response on March 8, 2022. The matter is pending final review

and disposition by the Third DCA on its Order to Show Cause. (True and

correct copies of respondent’s Response and Amended Response, filed

March 7, 2022 and March 8, 2022 respectively, are attached hereto as

Composite Ex A-6).

19. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the

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

Disobey an Obligation Under the Rules of a Tribunal); 4-8.2 (Impugning

Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers); and 4-8.4(c)(A

Lawyer Shall Not Engage in Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit

or Misrepresentation).

B. The Florida Bar File No. 2022-70,336(11H)

20. Respondent represented Azran Miami 2, LLC, in a foreclosure

action in Miami Dade County Circuit Court, in Case Number 2016-14544,

and in subsequent appellate court proceedings in the Third DCA, Case

Number 3D20-122, and 3D20-1712. (True and correct copies of the 3d

DCA Docket for Case Nos. 3D20-122 and 3D20-1712 are attached hereto

as Ex A-7 and Ex A-8, respectively).

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).

The appeal was assigned Case Number 3D20-122. Despite requesting

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)

22. Respondent then filed a Motion to Vacate the Judgement Due

to Fraud, pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), in the trial court. The trial court denied

the motion, without an evidentiary hearing.

9
 23. Respondent appealed the trial court’s order denying his Motion

to Vacate Judgment Due to Fraud. This matter was assigned Case Number

3D20-1712. (Ex A-8). The Third DCA subsequently denied respondent’s

Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal to Stop Writ of Possession. (Ex.

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

granted an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing.

25. On November 1, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Certify

Conflict, Request for Written Opinion, Motion for Rehearing, and/or Motion

for Rehearing En Banc.2 (A true and correct copy of respondent’s Motion to

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

Motion for Rehearing En Banc is attached hereto as Ex A-9).

26. Respondent filed twelve separate appendices, totaling nearly

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

January 26, 2022, order is attached hereto as Ex A-10).

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

is a reasonable basis to conclude that respondent’s November 1, 2021,

motion and appendices thereto, violate the Rules of Appellate Procedure

as follows:

a. “Mr. Jacobs filed twelve separate appendices, totaling

3,469 pages (unpaginated and unindexed), comprised
of documents that are outside the record on appeal,
regarding events or proceedings occurring after Mr.
Jacobs filed his notice of appeal in this cause, and are
otherwise unrelated to the instant appeal. Mr. Jacobs
failed to seek leave of court before filing these
documents, and it appears there would have been no
proper basis for granting leave had it been sought.”
(footnote and citations omitted)

b. Mr. Jacobs violated Florida Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.330(a), which provides: “A motion for
rehearing shall state with particularity the points of law
11
or fact that, in the opinion of the movant, the court has
overlooked or misapprehended in its order or decision.
The motion shall not present issues not previously
raised in the proceeding.” (citations omitted).
Mr. Jacobs has violated Rule 9.330(a), and the case
law applying that rule, by alleging in his Motion:

i. “The trial court denied Mr. Jacobs’ motion to vacate

an earlier judgment ‘in deference to shadow rulings
of this Court.’” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 2.

ii. “This Court has created a ‘shadow body of law that

allows banks to commit fraud.’” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion
at 2.

iii. “The panel decision is already being paraded about

by attorneys engaged in this systemic fraud as
controlling law that grants a privilege to commit
systemic fraud when it states no facts.” Mr. Jacobs’
Motion at 4.

iv. “[T]he panel ruling perpetuates a shadow law that

banks are above the constitution and can commit
fraud with impunity.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 10.

v. This court’s issuance of a citation per curiam

affirmed opinion in this case constitutes “an abuse
of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny
perpetrated with disregard of procedural
requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of
justice.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 24. (In a footnote the
Court stated: “While Mr. Jacobs quoted language
from Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1985), he
takes it out of context and uses it in a misleading
way and for a derogatory purpose. Jones had
nothing to do with the characterization of a per
curiam affirmed opinion. Instead, the quote is taken
from a concurring opinion in Jones that addressed
the requirements for common-law certiorari and
further defined the phrase ‘departure from the
12
 essential requirements of the law’ as meaning
‘something far beyond legal error. It means an
inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial
power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with
disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a
gross miscarriage of justice.’ Id. at 569 (Boyd, C.J.,
concurring). Mr. Jacobs seizes upon this description
of common-law certiorari, ostensibly using it to
justify his accusation that the very issuance of the
citation opinion in the instant case constitutes ‘an
abuse of judicial power’ and ‘an act of judicial
tyranny’ resulting in a ‘miscarriage of justice.’”

c. “Mr. Jacobs takes one or more frivolous positions, or

makes one or more arguments in bad faith, in violation
of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a) . . .
One example of the frivolous or bad faith nature of Mr.
Jacobs’ Motion (beyond described elsewhere in this
Order) is the basis offered for seeking this court’s
certification, pursuant to Rule 9.330(a)(2)(C), that the
decision expressly and directly conflicts with three
other appellate court decisions. . . (the Court engaged
in an extensive legal analysis of the three cases cited
for express and direct conflict and found . . .) None of
the three cases cited by Mr. Jacobs ‘expressly and
directly conflicts with’ the decision in this case and
cannot in good faith support the conflict certification
request made pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.330(a)(2)(C). As a second example of
arguments made, or positions taken, frivolously or in
bad faith, Mr. Jacob’s motion quotes from and relies
upon – as ostensible support for his legal position – a
2018 trial court order issued in an unrelated case
(citation omitted). That order, dated August 10, 2018,
granted a motion to impose sanctions upon Bank of
New York Mellon and Bank of America. However, less
than two weeks later, the trial judge vacated the
sanctions order, and ultimately denied the motion for
sanctions after holding a subsequent hearing. While it
is true that Mr. Jacobs’ Motion acknowledges that the
13
 August 10, 2018 order in that unrelated case was
vacated by the trial court judge, Mr. Jacobs
nevertheless fails to explain why he would quote from
a vacated order in an unrelated case, or how such a
vacated order from an unrelated case is anything more
than a legal nullity, much less an order upon which this
court should rely as persuasive authority for some
legal position advanced by him. (In a footnote, the
Court noted that the trial court judge who issued the
order (Judge Bronwyn Miller), sat on the panel that
affirmed the lower court’s order in the instant case, and
that respondent ‘creates a negative implication by
alleging in his motion that the trial court judge “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.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at
5-6. Such a frivolous implication, made without basis,
advancing no relevant position, and serving no other
apparent purpose but to malign or impugn the integrity
of a judge, appears to violate Rule 4-8.2(a), Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar.’)” As a final example, the
appendix to Mr. Jacobs’ Motion includes an April 15,
2019 order issued by a circuit court judge in an
unrelated case (citation omitted). However, on
November 6, 2019, this court quashed the trial court
order. (citation omitted). The appendix does not
contain this court’s opinion quashing that trial court
order, nor does Mr. Jacobs’ Motion disclose the
existence of this court’s subsequent decision quashing
that trial court order.

(Ex A-10).

28. On March 9, 2022, respondent filed his Response to the Third

DCA’s Order to Show Cause. On March 10, 2022, respondent filed 14

separate appendices in support of his response. The matter is pending

14
final review and disposition by the Third DCA. (A true and correct copy of

respondent’s Response is attached hereto as Ex A-11).

29. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the

following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims

and Contentions); 4-3.3 (Candor Towards the Tribunal); 4-3.4(c)(Knowingly

Disobey an Obligation Under the Rules of a Tribunal); 4-8.2 (Impugning

Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers); and 4-8.4(c)(A

Lawyer Shall Not Engage in Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit

or Misrepresentation).

C. The Florida Bar File No. 2022-70,402(11H)

30. In the most recent matter demonstrating respondent’s ongoing

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

2019-10810-CA-01. (A copy of the Third DCA’s Docket in Case No 3D-21-

1869 is attached hereto as Ex. A-12)

31. On January 20, 2021, all discovery issues in the underlying

foreclosure action were referred to a Magistrate Judge, who conducted a

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

January 5, 2022, filed in 3D21-1869; a true and correct copy of which is

attached hereto as Ex. A-13). The Magistrate Judge sustained pertinent

objections to discovery raised by the plaintiff lender, and found plaintiff did

not raise those objections in bad faith. (Ex. A-13 at 3).

32. The parties filed objections to the Magistrate’s Report. (Ex. A-

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

the face of the report and recommendation. (Ex. A-13 at 5).

33. Despite these defects, the trial court issued an order overruling

all of the general magistrate’s findings based on the argument of counsel

and extra-record filings from unrelated proceedings. (Ex. A-13 at 5).

Significantly, the trial court order failed to address whether the general

magistrate’s findings were supported by competent and substantial

evidence, or whether the general magistrate made clearly erroneous

conclusions of law. (Ex. A-13 at 5-6).

34. Accordingly, on September 17, 2021, plaintiff filed its Petition

for Writ of Certiorari to quash the trial court’s order, arguing the trial court

failed to make required findings when it overruled the magistrate’s report

and recommendations. (Ex. A-12, A-13).

16
 35. On November 24, 2021, respondent filed his Response to the

Petition for Certiorari. (A copy of respondent’s Response to Petition for

Certiorari is attached hereto as Ex. A-14). Respondent’s response did not

address the specific legal issue identified in the petition. Notably,

respondent’s response did not mention the magistrate’s report, the

standard of review in certiorari proceedings, or whether the trial court erred

in overruling the magistrate without making findings of cause. (Ex. A-14).

36. Rather respondent submitted an approximately 50-page

response casting aspersions on opposing counsel, arguing the merits of

other unrelated actions, in some cases citing to orders that had been

vacated or quashed, and arguing extraneous issues concerning wide-

spread fraud in the mortgage industry. (Ex. A-14).

37. Indeed, in his attempt to demonstrate the bank’s systemic

fraud, respondent affirmatively misrepresented another court’s order in an

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

on that basis. (See Ex A-21 at p. 6, 11).

38. On January 5, 2022, the Third DCA issued an authored opinion

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

requirements of law when it overturned the general magistrate’s report and

recommendations without the required findings. (Ex. A-13).

39. On January 20, 2022, respondent filed Appellee’s Motion for

Rehearing En Banc. (Ex. A-12). On January 24, 2022, respondent filed

Appellee’s Amended Motion for Rehearing En Banc, along with his

Appendix in support thereof. (A true and correct copy of the Appellee’s

Amended Motion for Rehearing En Banc is attached hereto as Ex. A-15).

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

described more fully in the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

40. On March 16, 2022, the Third DCA issued an opinion

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

respondent’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc and its Appendix, because

they violated the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules

Regulating the Florida Bar. (Ex. A-16 at 2).

41. The remainder of the opinion comprised the Court’s Order to

Show Cause, which it issued on its own motion, and pursuant to Florida

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), because the court found there is a

reasonable basis to conclude that respondent’s Motion for Rehearing En

Banc, along with its Appendix, violate the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure and the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar in the following

manner:

a. Mr. Jacobs filed an appendix comprised of documents

that are outside the record on review, addressing
events or proceedings that occurred after the trial court
entered the order on review, and are otherwise
unrelated to the instant petition. (footnote omitted). Mr.
Jacobs did not seek leave of court to file these
19
 documents, and it appears there would have been no
proper basis for the court to grant such leave. (citations
omitted).

b. In his motion, Mr. Jacobs contends that this case is of

exceptional importance because it deals with a
deprivation of a constitutional right. Florida Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.331(d)(1) which provides that “a
party may move for an en banc rehearing solely on the
grounds that the case or issue is of exceptional
importance or that such consideration is necessary to
maintain uniformity in the court’s decisions. A motion
on any other ground shall be stricken.” Fla. R. App. P.
9.331(d)(1). Mr. Jacobs, however, fails to show how
this Court’s opinion quashing a discovery order that
failed to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure deprived his client of any of his
constitutional rights. Mr. Jacobs’ claim that his client
was deprived of due process because he was not
“before a fair and impartial tribunal” is unsupported and
improperly impugns the integrity of this Court. Mr.
Jacobs’ Motion at 56, 57 (“[T]he law on rehearing en
banc should extend to this fundamental deprivation of
due process by a panel that refuses to honor the
judicial canons, including upholding the law, protecting
the constitutional rights of homeowners, and granting
disqualification where there is evidence of bias that
requires disqualification.”). A motion for rehearing is
not “an open invitation for an unhappy litigant or
attorney to reargue the same points previously
presented, or to discuss the bottomless depth of the
displeasure that one might feel toward this judicial
body as a result of having unsuccessfully sought
appellate relief.” (citations omitted).

c. In his motion, Mr. Jacobs takes one or more frivolous

positions or makes one or more arguments in bad
faith. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(a)
states that a court “may impose sanctions for any
violation of these rules, or for the filing of any
20
proceeding, motion, brief, or other documents that is
frivolous or in bad faith.” One example of the frivolous
or bad faith nature of Mr. Jacobs’ Motion is the reliance
on a vacated, and therefore legally null, circuit court
order. Mr. Jacobs acknowledges that the order is
vacated but fails to adequately explain why he would
rely on a vacated order in an unrelated case or why
this Court should rely on it as persuasive authority. Mr.
Jacobs also relies on orders that were reversed by this
Court without explaining why this Court should rely on
them as authority for the legal propositions advanced
by him.

A second example is Mr. Jacobs’ claim that Sorenson

v. Bank of New York Mellon as trustee for Certificate
Holders CWALAT, Inc., 261 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA
2018) “carve[s] out” a right for him to “allege the
rubberstamped blank endorsement on his promissory
note is a forgery and to conduct discovery to prove that
it is a forgery.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 28. Sorenson
does not create such a right. Sorenson dealt with an
appeal of a final judgment of foreclosure where the
defendant alleged that the trial court erred in denying
his motion to amend his answer and add an affirmative
defense of fraud. Our sister court found the trial court
had abused its discretion and reversed because
Sorenson, the defendant, should have been given the
opportunity to amend his affirmative defenses pursuant
to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190. Sorenson,
261 So. 3d at 663. Rule 1.190 states that leave of
court to amend pleadings shall be freely given when
justice so requires. This represents a public policy in
favor of allowing liberal amendments of pleadings in
order to allow cases to be decided on their merits. The
holding in Sorenson and its entrenched public policy
propositions is wholly inapplicable to the instant
petition. The only aspects shared between the instant
case and Sorenson are that both are foreclosure
cases, and both have Mr. Jacobs as counsel.

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.

d. In his motion, Mr. Jacobs recklessly impugns and

disparages the judges of this Court and certain judges
of the circuit court. Rule 4-8.2(a) of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar provides in pertinent part:
“A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer
knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its
truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity
of a judge . . .”. Every lawyer admitted to the Florida
Bar has sworn to “maintain the respect due to courts of
justice and judicial officers” and to “abstain from all
offensive personality.” “[E]thical rules that prohibit
attorneys from making statements impugning the
integrity of judges are not to protect judges from
unpleasant or unsavory criticism. Rather, such rules
are designed to preserve public confidence in the
fairness and impartiality of our system of justice.” The
Florida Bar v. Ray, 797 So. 2d 556, 558–59 (Fla.
22
2001). “It is not a part of an attorney’s duties to his
clients to use language in his Petition for Rehearing, or
in any other papers filed in this court, that is actually
insulting to the members of the panel which heard the
case.” Vandenberghe v. Poole, 163 So. 2d 51, 51 (Fla.
2d DCA 1964). “Insults or disparaging comments by
lawyers to courts in court filings cannot be justified as
zealous advocacy because they risk alienating the very
judges the lawyer was hired to persuade.” Bank of
Am., N.A. v. Atkin, 305 So. 3d 305, 307 (Fla. 3d DCA
2018). “‘Although attorneys play an important role in
exposing valid problems within the judicial system,
statements impugning the integrity of a judge, when
made with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity,
erode public confidence in the judicial system without
assisting to publicize problems that legitimately
deserve attention.’” Id. (quoting Ray, 797 So. 2d at
560). Mr. Jacobs recklessly impugns and disparages
the judges of this Court and certain judges of the circuit
court, in filing his Motion for Rehearing En Banc
containing the following statements:

i. This Court initiated contempt proceedings against

Mr. Jacobs, “[d]espite the clear evidence
establishing the truth of these [fraud] allegations.”
Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 3.

ii. “The panel judges also showed bias by commenting

on motions to disqualify [Mr. Jacobs] . . .” Mr.
Jacobs Motion at 5.

iii. The panel “initiated contempt proceedings for

criticizing the court and failed to recuse themselves
as required . . .” Mr. Jacobs Motion at 5–6.

iv. Mr. Jacobs is “a victim of the Third DCA’s abuse of

its contempt powers . . .” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 7–8.

v. “It is self-evident that . . . [Mr. Jacobs’] clients are

not before a fair and impartial tribunal [as]
23
 guaranteed by the constitution.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion
at 8.

vi. This Court needs to “search its soul.” Mr. Jacobs’

Motion at 8.

vii. A named circuit court judge “refused to disqualify

herself until she entered orders that seriously
injured the client’s rights and the integrity of the
judicial process.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 31.

viii. This Court “has taken no action required by the

Judicial Canons against [the named circuit court
judge] for [their] gross misconduct.” Mr. Jacobs’
Motion at 31–32.

ix. “There is a question whether this Honorable Court is

fair and impartial when it refuses to act against clear
misconduct and manufactures contempt charges
against the attorney who has uncovered systemic
fraud . . . . [j]udicial canons and the constitution do
not permit such an abuse of power.” Mr. Jacobs’
Motion at 32.

x. This Court’s January 11, 2022, order in Case No.

3D21-1300, directing Mr. Jacobs to show cause
why he should not be subjected to sanctions for
failing to comply with the Rules of Appellate
Procedure and professional norms is an “abuse of
power.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 34.

xi. “The court below violated the clear admonition ‘to

avoid any appearance of vindictiveness if the
defendant chooses to exercise certain rights.’” Mr.
Jacobs’ Motion at 36.

xii. This Court has failed to take appropriate action

where it “has ‘received information’ and has ‘actual
knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that

24
 judges have committed a violation of this Code.’”
Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 36–37.

xiii. This Court’s attempt to “disbar” Mr. Jacobs “is

unconstitutional, inequitable, and unjust.” Mr.
Jacobs’ Motion at 37.

xiv. “[There is a problem] when a court has actual

knowledge [a party] committed felonies and fraud
upon the court, [and] decides to attack the
whistleblower attorney who defended against the
fraud.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 42.

xv. This Court has entered “orders that violate the

constitution as Mr. Jacobs’ African American and
Jewish clients believe the court below has
repeatedly done.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 42.

xvi. “[S]ome judges [have a penchant] to blindly accept

the self-serving assertions of financial institutions.”
Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 47.

xvii. “[T]he court below violated the judicial canons,

allowed banks and powerful special interests and
their counsel to violate The Florida Bar Rules with
impunity, and knowingly deprived foreclosure
defendants of their Fifth Amendment rights by
depriving them of their property without due process
of law.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 51.

xviii. Mr. Jacobs accuses the “JQC not prosecuting

judges for serious misconduct.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion
at 52.

xix. “The panel violated the judicial canons and

undermined the integrity of the judiciary.” Mr.
Jacobs’ Motion at 54.

xx. “[T]he panel’s overriding personal bias against [Mr.

Jacobs] has deprived [Bontoux] of a fair and
25
 impartial appellate review.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at
56.

xxi. “[T]he panel deprived Mr. Bontoux of the right to

due process of law before a fair and impartial
tribunal.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 56.

xxii. This Court’s panel “refuses to honor the judicial

canons, including upholding the law, protecting the
constitutional rights of homeowners, and granting
disqualification when there is evidence of bias that
requires disqualification.” Mr. Jacobs’ Motion at 57.

e. Further, Mr. Jacobs’ motion does not at any point

substantively address this Court’s opinion on this case
or the legal matter at issue. Mr. Jacobs instead uses
his client’s opportunity to file a motion for rehearing to
disparage this Court for issuing a show cause order
against him in another unrelated case and otherwise
express “what can best be described as a desultory
diatribe, consisting of personal opinions, reflections
and experiences which are completely outside the
record and entirely irrelevant to the issues on appeal or
the decision of the court.” Aquasol Condo. Ass’n, Inc.
v. HSBC Bank USA, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2271, D2272
(Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 26, 2018). Mr. Jacobs advances
his own personal gratification in his motion and
unprofessionally impugns the integrity of the judges of
this Court and the circuit court, rather than
appropriately advocate for his client therefore
unequivocally depriving his client of any meaningful
opportunity for rehearing.

(Ex. A-16 at 2-14).

42. In its opinion, the court noted that it has sanctioned respondent

for similar unprofessional statements more than once. (citations omitted).

(Ex. A-16 at 12). Accordingly, respondent is on notice that this conduct

26
violates the rules and will subject him to sanctions. However, respondent

has demonstrated that he will not be deterred from continuing in this

pattern of misconduct:

Mr. Jacobs’ has previously claimed that he understands

such commentary is unprofessional and unwarranted, but
he nevertheless continues to utilize such unwarranted
commentary rather than assert competent legal argument.
See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Atkin, 271 So. 3d 145, 146 (Fla.
3d DCA 2019) (noting that Mr. Jacobs acknowledged that
his commentary “was unprofessional and unwarranted,”
admitted the comments reflected “inappropriate comments
impugning the integrity of the judiciary” and “assert[ed] that
his conduct in this case was an isolated incident”); Aquasol
Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n, 43 Fla.
L. Weekly D2699, D2699 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 5, 2018)
(stating that Mr. Jacobs averred “that he ‘fully understands
the nature and wrongfulness of his conduct,’ is ‘deeply
remorseful and apologetic to this Court for his actions,’ and
is pursuing appropriate corrective measures to ensure this
misconduct is not repeated”).

(Ex. A-16 at 13).

43. The Third DCA’s observations regarding respondent’s refusal to

comport with professional standards, despite knowing the wrongful nature

of his actions, demonstrates conclusively the need for emergency

measures by this Honorable Court.

44. Respondent recently filed his Response to the Order to Show

Cause on April 21, 2022. (A true and correct copy of respondent’s

Response to the Order to Show Cause is attached hereto as Ex A-17).

27
Respondent engaged in the same misconduct as described in each of the

above referenced orders to show cause throughout his responsive

pleading; indeed, respondent escalated same to new heights. For

instance, in his conclusion to the pleading respondent wrote:

CONCLUSION

This Court has made it clear it will “gaslight” these

proceedings to accuse Mr. Jacobs of ethical violations when
the Court is itself engaged in ethical violations. The Court
has lost any appearance of impartiality. The facts set forth
herein show the Court lacks integrity. Although the Court has
absolute power to injure Mr. Jacobs, his clients, and the
integrity of these proceedings, absolute power corrupts
absolutely. The fate of democracy and the rule of law rests in
the hands of this court. Gd help us.

(A-17 at 92-93).

45. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the

following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims

and Contentions); 4-3.3 (Candor Towards the Tribunal); 4-3.4(c)(Knowingly

Disobey an Obligation Under the Rules of a Tribunal); 4-8.2 (Impugning

Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers); and 4-8.4(c)(A

Lawyer Shall Not Engage in Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit

or Misrepresentation).

28
 D. The Florida Bar File No. 2022-70,337(11H)

46. On November 22, 2021, respondent represented Maria

Williams-James at a hearing on a Motion for Attorney Fees, filed on July

19, 2014, in Case No. 2010-045438-CA-01, before the Honorable Jennifer

Bailey, in the Miami Dade Circuit Court.

47. On November 29, 2021, Judge Bailey wrote an order detailing

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

of the November 29, 2021, Order is attached hereto as Ex. A-18).

48. In the 2010 foreclosure case, Ms. Williams-James was

represented by Ms. Abitz. Ms. Williams-James was served with the

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).

50. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment because it

had discovered a necessary defendant and needed to amend the

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

on the merits of either of these motions, on May 6, 2014, Judge Bailey

entered an order vacating the foreclosure judgment based solely on the

agreement of the parties. 4 Judge Bailey made no findings concerning fraud.

(Ex. A-18 at 2-3).

51. On the eve of the subsequently rescheduled trial, plaintiff

voluntarily dismissed the case, apparently due to a settlement between the

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

issues of attorney fees or fraud. (Ex. A-18 at 3).

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

underlying the instant disciplinary action. This motion simply requested

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

settlement and voluntary dismissal in the 2010 case was transferred to

another lender, who thereafter initiated foreclosure proceedings in Miami-

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

have the matter transferred to Judge Bailey, a motion commonly granted in

these situations, and a process in which respondent was well versed. (Ex.

A-18 at 4).

54. Respondent represented Ms. Williams-James in the

subsequent 2015 case. A judgment of foreclosure was entered. On

October 19, 2021, respondent filed motions to attack the judgment in the

2015 case. Those motions included a Motion to Vacate Judgment and a

Motion to Enforce Settlement, both of which were based on allegations of

fraud by the lender. (Ex. A-18 at 1, see also Defendant’s Motion to Enforce

Settlement, filed by respondent on October 19, 2021, a true and correct

copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. A-20).

31
 55. In the 2015 case pleadings and motions, respondent

affirmatively misrepresented that Judge Bailey had vacated the 2010

foreclosure judgment based on a finding of fraud. (Ex. A-18 at 4; see also

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

and correct copy of the Transcript of Hearing is attached hereto as Ex. A-

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

directed her Judicial Assistant to send an email to the counsel of record,

indicating:

On Nov 22, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Prieto, Maria

<[email protected]> wrote:

Please see email below from Judge Bailey: To Counsel

of Record:

In preparing for the 15 minute hearing set at 2:30 today

on Defendant's Motion for Attorney's fees (filed 7/19/2014-
32
 seven years ago), the Court observed a number of motions in
the supporting documents which are not set and which do not
pertain to this case, instead being filed on 10/19/21 in case
number 2015-18433. These include defense motions to
enforce settlement and to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure
and for sanctions. The 2015 case is assigned to a different
judge. This email is to clarify that those motions are not set for
hearing today, are not assigned to this judge, and will not be
heard.

The Court also advises that due to scheduling, the

hearing will begin promptly at 2:30 and the 15 minutes
requested will be provided and enforced with the hearing
ending at 2:45. The time will be split between the parties.

Maria E. Prieto
Judicial Assistant to
The Honorable Jennifer D. Bailey

(Ex A-18 at 1-2)

57. Respond replied back to the court, apparently without copying

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

direction.” (Ex. A-18 at 1):

From: BJ Efile <[email protected]>

Date: November 22, 2021 at 11:59:11 AM EST
To: "Prieto, Maria" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 2010-045438-CA-01: Bac Home Loans Svcing (Ip)
vs. Williams-James, Maria K

Please advise the Court that Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”)

continued to accept payments from Ms. Williams James for
years after she granted the motion to vacate judgment due to
33
 fraud. BANA also transferred servicing to a new servicer that
started another foreclosure based on the same exact fraudulent
evidence. The new judge just reinstated the fraudulent
judgment you vacated and recently recused herself.

Ms. Williams James respectfully requests the Court review the

pleadings from the new foreclosure. There is a serious violation
of the constitution and this Honorable Court has the power to
stop it.

Thanks and regards, Bruce Jacobs

Jacobs Legal, PLLC

(Ex. A-18 at 2)

58. Upon commencement of the November 22, 2021, hearing via

Zoom, Judge Bailey began by disposing of a procedural issue raised by the

plaintiff in the 2010 case. She then immediately inquired of respondent as

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).

59. Rather than address that specific issue, respondent

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,

reminding him of her Judicial Assistant’s email. (Ex A-21 at 4-5).

34
Notwithstanding same, respondent “became disruptive and refused to

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

hearing, respondent continued to insist, without legal support or authority,

that the issue before the court was whether the lender’s fraud entitled Ms.

Williams-James to attorney fees. (Ex A-21 at 4-15).

61. When respondent’s unsupported argument did not prevail, he

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).

Respondent refused to accept the court’s ruling and continued in his

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

Court and you’re not letting me speak.” (Ex A-21 at 16).

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

Ex A, the Affidavit of Staff Investigator Arthur Gill, who observed the

hearing). During the time that he was muted, respondent continued to

gesticulate. (Ex. A).

64. Judge Bailey’s November 29, 2021, order documented all of the

above facts and findings. (Ex. A-18). Additionally, Judge Bailey found that

respondent was manipulating the court process and engaged in forum

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

finding was further supported by respondent’s post hearing submission of a

memorandum of law in which he attempted to consolidate the 2010 matter

with the 2015 case. (Ex. A-18 at 3).

65. By reason of the foregoing, Respondent has violated the

following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims

and Contentions); 4-3.3 (Candor Towards the Tribunal); 4-3.4(c)(Knowingly

Disobey an Obligation Under the Rules of a Tribunal); 4-3.5(c)(Disruption of

Tribunal); and 4-8.4(c)(A Lawyer Shall Not Engage in Conduct Involving

Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation).

36
 CONCLUSION

66. Respondent’s repeated attacks on the judiciary and opposing

counsel have continued and even escalated following imposition of

sanctions, and a Report of Referee recommending he be found guilty of

rule violations and that his license to practice law be suspended, based on

the same or similar misconduct. Nevertheless, respondent continues to:

disparage the judiciary; file frivolous pleadings; misrepresent cases,

holdings and facts to the court; and abuse the judicial process. His actions

are causing significant drain on already overburdened courts, and

undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. This is the

type of ongoing harm that Rule 3-5.2 was implemented to address.

67. As the Third DCA noted in its March 16, 2022, Order to Show

Cause, respondent knows this conduct is unprofessional, unwarranted, and

will subject him to sanctions; yet he continues to engage in, and even

escalate, that misconduct. This, despite prior apologies to the court, and

undergoing treatment in order to avoid future recurrence of the same

misconduct.

68. Indeed, in a recent live public Facebook post, respondent

conclusively demonstrated that no court action will deter him from

continuing to engage in this 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.

And I'm not going to apologize for saying that the

Florida Bar shouldn't be coming after me. I'm not going to
apologize for the Third District Court of Appeals, that they
should not be coming after me, because they've already
shown their bias and that's what I'm fighting about. (End
of recording.)

(See Transcript of respondent’s February 7, 2022 Live Facebook Post; a

true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. A-22).

69. But for emergency action by this Court, the harm caused by

respondent’s actions will continue unabated.

WHEREFORE, based on the aforementioned facts and exhibits, the

bar asserts respondent has caused, or is likely to cause, immediate and

serious harm to clients, the public and/or the judicial process, and that

immediate action must be taken for the protection of same. Therefore,

pursuant to Rule 3-5.2, The Florida Bar respectfully requests this court to:

A. Suspend respondent from the practice of law until further

order of this court.

B. Order respondent to accept no new clients from the date

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

representation within 30 days from the date of this Court’s order. In

addition, respondent shall cease acting as personal representative for any

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

financial records of any estate, guardianship or trust upon the successor’s

appointment.

C. Order respondent to furnish a copy of the suspension

order to all clients, opposing counsel and courts before which respondent is

counsel of record as required by Rule 3-5.1(h) and to furnish Staff Counsel

with the requisite affidavit listing all clients, opposing counsel and courts so

informed within 30 days after receipt of the court's order.

D. Order respondent to refrain from withdrawing or

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

court or by order of the Circuit Court in an inventory attorney proceeding

instituted under Rule 1-3.8, and to deposit any fees, or other sums received

in connection with the practice of law or in connection with respondent’s

39
employment as a personal representative, guardian or trustee, paid to

respondent after issuance of this Court's order of emergency suspension,

into a specified trust account from which withdrawal may only be made in

accordance with restrictions imposed by this Court. Further, respondent

shall be required to notify bar counsel of The Florida Bar of the receipt and

location of said funds within 30 days of the order of emergency suspension.

E. Order respondent to not withdraw any money from any

trust account or other financial institution account related to respondent's

law practice or transfer any ownership of any real or personal property

purchased in whole or in part with funds properly belonging to clients,

probate estates for which respondent served as personal representative,

guardianship estates for which respondent served as guardian, and trusts

for which respondent served as trustee without approval of this court, a

judicial referee appointed by this court or by order of the Circuit Court in an

inventory attorney proceeding instituted under Rule 1-3.8.

F. Order respondent to notify, in writing, all banks and

financial institutions where the respondent maintains an account related to

the practice of law, or related to services rendered as a personal

representative of an estate, or related to services rendered as a guardian,

or related to services rendered as a trustee, or where respondent maintains

40
an account that contains funds that originated from a probate estate for

which respondent was personal representative, guardianship 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,

respondent shall be required to provide bar counsel with an affidavit listing

each bank or financial institution respondent provided with a copy of said

order.

G. Order respondent to immediately comply with and provide

all documents and testimony responsive to a subpoena from The Florida

Bar for trust account records and any related documents necessary for

completion of a trust account audit to be conducted by The Florida Bar.

H. Authorize any Referee appointed in these proceedings to

determine entitlement to funds in any trust account(s) frozen as a result of

an Order entered in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Tonya L. Avery, Bar Counsel

The Florida Bar - Miami Branch Office
444 Brickell Avenue
Rivergate Plaza, Suite M-100
Miami, Florida 33131-2404
(305) 377-4445

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

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that bar counsel in this matter is Tonya L.

Avery, Bar Counsel, whose address, telephone number and primary email
address are The Florida Bar, Miami Branch Office, 444 Brickell Avenue,
Rivergate Plaza, Suite M-100, Miami, Florida 33131-2404, (305) 377-4445
and [email protected]. Respondent need not address pleadings,
correspondence, etc. in this matter to anyone other than bar counsel and to
Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson
Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, [email protected].

44
 MANDATORY ANSWER NOTICE

RULE 3-5.2(a), OF THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR,

PROVIDES THAT A RESPONDENT SHALL ANSWER A COMPLAINT.

45