Sunday, May 22, 2016

SUMMARY OF ATTY MARK LOWRY VS MARK ROBBINS

MOST URGENT ISSUE:  Respondent Atty Mark Lowry  vs  Defendant Me, Mark Robbins on 3/21/17 in front of Judge Kaplan in Ft Lauderdale

1) Win Injunction for stalking (cyber stalking) hearing on Tues 3/21/17 
2)  Have the case thrown out for many errors
3) Have it continued if need be.

Sordid history of hearings
 Jan 30  Initial Injunction     I was never served                      No record of written allegations
 Feb 22  Continuance          Served & given 4 hours notice    No record of written allegations
 Mar 21  Continuance          Served & given 20 days notice     Written allegations appear for 1st time

I filed with Judge Kaplan:
1) Motion to dismiss
2) Motion to Quash   ... based on the logic that improper service made the Feb 22 hearing invalid; and if you continue this invalid hearing to March 21... then this hearing on March 21 is invalid as well.


REASONS TO HAVE THE CASE TOSSED... I looked over the statutes:

(1)  Atty Mark Lowry failed to mention any pending actions such as
        - A bar complaint I filed against him which he knew about.
        - The small claims action against him for $2500/

(b) The cause of action for an injunction for protection may be sought regardless of whether any other cause of action is currently pending between the parties. However, the pendency of any such cause of action shall be alleged in the petition.   AND      (c) The petitioner shall describe any other cause of action currently pending between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner shall also describe any previous attempt by the petitioner to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking in this or any other circuit, and the result of that attempt. (Case numbers should be included, if available.)


(2)  Atty Mark Lowry never specifically described his allegations for the Jan 30 or Dec 22 hearing.

(d) The petition must provide space for the petitioner to specifically allege that he or she is a victim of stalking because respondent has:
(Mark all sections that apply and describe in the spaces below the incidents of stalking specifying when and where they occurred, including, but not limited to, locations such as a home, school, or place of employment.)

(3) Lowry filed where the alleged cyber stalking occurred (Ft Lauderdale)
(f) Notwithstanding chapter 47, a petition for an injunction for protection against stalking may be filed in the circuit where the petitioner currently or temporarily resides, where the respondent resides, or where the stalking occurred. There is no minimum requirement of residency to petition for an injunction for protection.

(4)  I have reason to believe that Mark Lowry NEVER requested service for the Jan 30 hearing. He used this as a "poker chip" to be used later to extort me.
3. Within 24 hours after service of process of an injunction for protection against stalking upon a respondent, the law enforcement officer must forward the written proof of service of process to the sheriff having jurisdiction over the residence of the petitioner.

(5)  Lowry signed under penalty of perjury... and there is perjury throughout.
(f) Every petition for an injunction against stalking must contain, directly above the signature line, a statement in all capital letters and bold type not smaller than the surrounding text, as follows:
I HAVE READ EVERY STATEMENT MADE IN THIS PETITION AND EACH STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS PETITION ARE BEING MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, PUNISHABLE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 837.02


The hurdle rate I must exceed:.

My air tight defense against Lowru:
The hurdle for me as a defendant in this case is to demonstrate I had a legitimate purpose in contacting the lawyer I dismissed, namely Mark Lowry. The Florida Bar provides me with several legitimate purposes for contacting my former attorney.

From Florida Bar Homepage:
1)   Legitimate Purpose # 1   The FL BAR instructs that I contact my attorney and try and settle with him. Obviously if I am my communications aren’t answered either
A)   He didn’t receive my communications and thereby I should keep trying, or
B)   He was purposefully ignoring me and in so doing… absconding
1) absconding with my $2500 retainer fee, and
2) willfully disobeying the Florida Bar instructions that we communicate and try and settle.
It appears he was willfully ignoring me because on page 4 of Lowry’s written allegations, Mark Lowry states, “I have not responded or initiated contact with respondent since last November.”
It is important to point out ne never once, orally or in writing, specifically asked me not to contact me. .

2)   Legitimate Purpose #2  If I can’t communicate with him, the Florida bar provides another legitimate purpose for contacting him. The bar suggests I send in writing my reasons for termination. I performed this duty fully by providing Mark Lowry with a full bar complaint prior to me mailing the complaint to the Florida Bar and how his actions would be portrayed on my anti-corruption blog.
3)   Legitimate Purpose # 3  The bar instructs that I inquire about fees which is obviously a legitimate purpose for contacting someone. I very clearly did this in that I made it clear to Mark Lowry that
A)      I inferred it is irregular and improper to accept cash. (He accepted $2500 in cash and just scribbled a "receipt on the back of a business card.
B)      It is improper for me not to receive any retainer agreement
C)      It is improper not to inform me of his hourly rate
D)      It is improper not to send me an invoice of any work performed.
E)      It is improper not to put my money in a trust account
F)       It is not believable that he burned through $2500 in 11 days
G)     It is beyond credulity that not even a nickel was returned to me.
4)   Legitimate Purpose # 4  As a courtesy to Mark Lowry, I pursued the legitimate purpose of trying informing him of the fall out of his actions. I offered Mark Lowry the chance to make things right before I took predictable, logical, and fully legal actions which served as consequences for what was clear in my mind as theft. These actions  included:
A) Maintaining my initial bar complaint
B) Posting fully accurate statements on my anti corruption blog   WBTruth.blogspot.com

STANDING PROMISE TO ALL

The blogger of WB Truth realizes the great power of this blog. I respect this power with reverence and care. I will never intentionally hurt innocent people and I promise to remain true to the theme of this blog which is to expose corruption. 

I hereby proclaim to all, through both private and public domains, that if this blog has posted any defamatory, slanderous, or libelous statements or comments or wordings anyone and they can prove the statements to be untrue,  the author of this blog will hastily set the record straight. If errors are made, this blog will make full, complete, and thorough retractions in an effort to make these people whole. This remains a standing offer. But you must tell me. 

This blogger has agreed and still agrees to taking a concomitant polygraph test with anyone who wishes to challenge the credibility and truthfulness of this blog. Though I have taken a polygraph test in the past, no one has countered by taking one themselves. WB TRUTH has over 6 million page views. The blog started in Wilkes-Barre PA and has expanded to south Florida.


ABOUT THIS BLOGGER:     Career in Finance    Adopted twin boys, 2 cats and a dog!    MBA Lehigh U  (Valedictorian)    Wake Forest Undergrad    CMA Cert'd Mgt Accountant     CFM Cert'd Financial Manager    WB TRUTH has over 6 million page views    One of most popular anti-corruption blogs in country    Will NEVER harm an innocent person    NEVER BEEN SUED BECAUSE EXTREME CARE IS TAKEN   Blog started in PA and has now spread    "WB" stands for "Wilkes-Barre" where blog began
            C) Putting several disclaimers on my site. stating if anything is untrue I will change it immediately and retract so the person is "whole" again. Mark Lowry has never contested anything stated on my blog.

I NEVER threatened Lowry with violence. I never followed him. I don’t know where he live or even who is in his family. I simply advised and explained to Lowry the predictable consequences if he persists in his unethical ways