WBTRUTH ~ Wicked Broward Truth: DISBARMENT REQUESTED FOR MARK / CARLA LOWRY (ex-wife) OF FORT LAUDERDALE

Dear Florida Bar

A former client of Mark Lowry Esq adds the following as a supplement to the two complaints against Attorney Mark Stephen Lowry (Mark Lowry, Lowry legal LLC) and his ex-wife Attorney Carla Lowry. Mark Lowry continues to misuse, exploit, and bastardize the use of his law license to gain RETRIBUTION against a client who claims he was both stolen from and extorted by Lowry. The Bar Complaint system stands and falls on the basis of how a case such as this is handled.

If lawyers are able to frivolously and senselessly issue injunction orders and civil suits to intimidate and attempt to silence clients who know they were wronged, a pall is cast around the complaint process and undermines the entire integrity of the disciplinary system. The process is marred and destroyed.

Attorney Mark Lowry is displaying the worst behavior an attorney can elicit. No client should be "legally steamrolled" simply because he issued two weighty and very honest bar complaints. Nor should the client be steamrolled because he is disadvantaged by not having a law degree.

This client asks for immediate disbarment of Mark Lowry and Carla Lowry for actions that can only be described as merit-less and vindictive with the singular goal of retribution. Retribution is furthered by the fact that Attorney Mark Lowry knows that the client's assets are in a non-revocable trust and that Lowry has no chance of ever receiving money in a civil suit. He is just harassing his former client out of anger and adolescent immaturity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM TO BAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST MARK (#2) AND CARLA LOWRY

(continued message to to FL BAR)

Please allow this letter to depict the heinous methods of Attorney Mark Stephen Lowry (and/or Lowry Legal LLC) and ex-wife Attorney Carly Lowry (and/or her respective law firm) who, through malfeasance and intentional misuse and of their law licenses, “gamed the system” in order to intimidate, bully, harass, and extort Mark Lowry’s former client who does not have a law license. I believe the evidence contained herein will make the substantial case for the permanent removal of Mark and Carla Lowry’s law licenses for knowingly committing crimes (extortion and theft) and exacting heinous ethics violations in the process.

As mentioned, the integrity of the courts and the practice of law in Florida hangs in the balance when corrupt lawyers are able to perform their crooked and dubious wares with impunity. A text book case of extortion will be presented in this document.

The client wishes to state the truth about the many claims that Attorney Mark Lowry has made. The different between Mr Lowry and the former client is that the client has proof behind what he states whereas Mr Lowry consistently crosses ethical and legal lines by offering conjecture, hearsay, and fabrications - and to the extent that his claims are made under oath – he commits many acts of perjury. In addition a text book case of extortion will be presented here.

Based on his abhorrent behavior and false statements, the client firmly believes that Attorney Mark Lowry should be disbarred for the good of the state of Florida and for the honor that the legal profession tries to maintain.

1) THEFT Mr. Lowry gave client...

- NO Retainer agreement (Client paid cash and NEVER receiving a professional, typed retainer agreement. This set off alarm bells. Why was cash so important to Mark Lowry? Most especially since he was dating a known pill abuser?

- NO hourly rate provided.

- No invoice showing ANY work done.

- NO Trust account to place the $2500 retainer

The blurry ink on the back of a business card above reflects

all of the “paperwork” that the client received for his case.

2) NO WRITTEN CONSENT = THEFT Florida law states that a non -refundable retainer is valid ONLY if the client gives written consent. The client NEVER gave this consent nor did Lowry ever indicate to client verbally or in writing that this fee was non refundable. Therefore all, or at least most of the retainer should have been returned to the client. The client asked for all of it because Lowry left the client in a damaged position. Refusing to give what is lawfully and rightfully the property of someone else is theft.

3) FAILURE TO PERFORM / ACTS OF BAD FAITH Mark Lowry also failed to contact the state attorney with the client's stated goal of getting client's charges dropped which occurred under a huge misunderstanding. (Charges resulted from retrieval of client bike from my girlfriend’s garage and the landlord mistaking client as a person with bad motives. As it turned out, the client is now free of all charges and all will be expunged). The client hired Ken Ronan / Alison Guerino who quickly took care of the matter (good attorneys!

1) STATE ATTORNEY NOT CONTACTED How does the client know that the state attorney was not contacted (as requested by the client) with the intent of having the charges dropped?

Because Mark Lowry told the client himself 11 days after being hired him. It was at this point the client realized that he had lost confidence in Lowry and did not trust him. The client doubts that any proof is available illustrating such talks with the FL Attorney General.

- Lowry did not do what was specifically what was asked of him.

- Lowry was very negative about the charges being dropped. Contrast this with Lavelle Brown and Ronan (who was hired) which had the felony dropped almost immediately.

- Client was keenly aware that by “dragging his feet” that a big payday awaited Mark Lowry in the form of a trial (which would have been a nonsense trial).

- Mr. Lowry has NEVER sent me an invoice showing that he performed ANY of the work he claims to have performed. NOTHING. It is hearsay and a few e mails and such.

5) WHY LOWRY'S CYBERSTALKING ALLEGATIONS are FRIVOLOUS BEYOND COMPREHENSION

The burden for stalking and/or harassment in Florida is repetitive contact “for no legitimate purpose.” The client clearly had a legitimate purpose to contact Mark Lowry:

- Mark Lowry never asked the client to stop.

- Lowry illegally kept (in client's judgment he “stole”)
the $2500 retainer which he wanted returned).

- The FLORIDA BAR mandates that the client contact the problematic attorney in order to resolve matters. It is written right into the FL BAR Instructions!!

- Providing Lowry with the very logical and very real consequences of what is printed as a result of Lowry taking money serves a very legitimate purpose. Explained to Lowry was“purpose and intent” explained to Lowry in natural results that will occur because of theft.

~ A bar complaint

~ A post (s) on the anti corruption blog (WBTruth.blogspot.com). First Amendment
right are protected here in the same way it protects an investigative Journalist for the Washington Post. Freedom of the press.

~ Google search results The blog post(s) (citing Lowry) shows up in Google search results. This too is a fact in that the client posts regularly and people who are written about show up on Google searches. If Lowry does not like this exposure he needs to contact GOOGLE. People show up on searches given the very high number of page views of the blog.

~ Professional courtesy in regards transmitting legal matters. This serves a very legitimate purpose in the interest of fair play and consideration.

It is beneficial to compare the client's “legitimate purposes” with the motion that Lowry filed which states “the claims of the motion for an injunction… make it appear to the Court that there is an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence.” This is patently absurd and ridiculous and is indicative of Lowry exploiting his law license to “game the system” in order to intimidate, bully, and harass the client.

THIS IS SOME OF THE MOST UNETHICAL AND DISINGENUOUS ATTORNEY BEHAVIOR I HAVE SEEN IN MY LIFE.

5) WHY CYBERSTALKING ALLEGATIONS are FRIVOLOUS BEYOND ALL REASONABLE STANDARDS

The burden for stalking and/or harassment in Florida is repetitive contact “for no legitimate purpose.” The client clearly had a legitimate purpose to contact Mark Lowry:

- First, it is notable that Mark Lowry never personally asked the client to stop contacting him.

- Mark Lowry illegally kept (“stole”) the $2500 retainer which the client wanted returned

- The FLORIDA BAR mandates that the client contact the problematic attorney in order to resolve matters. It is written right into their instructions.

- Alerting an attorney of the logical and very real consequences that he may experience as a result of his actions is no more severe than a sign that says “Trespassers will be prosecuted.”

- The client with “legitimate purpose and intent” explained to Lowry the natural results that will occur because of theft.

~ A bar complaint

~ A post (s) on the anti corruption blog

(WBTruth.blogspot.com). The First Amendment

right protects the client here in the same way it protects an investigative Journalist for the Washington Post. They are free to expose illegal behavior via freedom of the press.

~ Google search results My blog post (citing Lowry) showing up in Google search results. This too is a fact given Google’s algorithms and the audience of my blog.

~ Professional courtesy in regards transmitting legal matters also serves a very legitimate purpose in the interest of fair play and consideration.

Comparing the “legitimate purposes” with the injunction that Lowry filed which states “the claims of the motion for an injunction… make it appear to the Court that there is an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence.” Lowry even had the audacity to make the false claim that he was threatened by violence. This is patently absurd and ridiculous and is indicative of Lowry exploiting his law license to “game the system” in order to intimidate, bully, and harass the client.

5) EXTORTION – THE PLANNING AND EXECUTION BY MARK LOWRY AND CARLA LOWRY

# 1 Injuction for Protection against stalking CLIENT SERVED? IS VERBEAGE INCLUDED?

(Jan 30 2017) NO, Robbins no knowledge NO written detail

# 2 Injuction for Protection against stalking CLIENT SERVED? IS VERBEAGE INCLUDED?

(Feb 22 2017) Served 4 hrs before hearing NO written details

# 3 Injuction for Protection against stalking CLIENT SERVED? IS VERBEAGE INCLUDED?

(March 21 2017) Served at his home 3 Pages of written details (incl)

FACTS

(A) CLIENT never had any idea of Jan 30 injunction.

(B) Extortion used on Feb 22, 2017 as Mark and Carla Lowry shocked client with service of injunction. (This service is documented and confirmed in recent writings of Mark Lowry).

(C) On Feb 22, 2017 Mark Lowry approached the Sheriff while waiting in small claims court and Lowry pointed out the client to be served with papers. The injunction hearing was scheduled 4 hours later in Fort Lauderdale (where the Lowrys practice law).

(D) The Sheriff said to (me) client: “You better show up in Fort Lauderdale!”

(E) Here is the extremely disadvantaged, diminished, and unfair state that the client was in:

(i) Client was still awaiting (and preparing) for small claims court.

(ii) Client had no idea of the legality of what he was served.

(iii) Client had no time to prepare for “injunction” in Fort Lauderdale while awaiting in Delray Beach for small claims ($2500) hearing.

(iv) Client had no time to get adequate legal help for injunction in Fort Lauderdale while awaiting in Delray Beach for small claims ($2500) hearing.

(v) Client was terrified of the word “stalking” to be used next to his name.

(vi) The mediator told client he had no shot to defeat two attorneys in court (Lowrys).

(vii) Client was under the highest degree of fear, stress, intimidation, and anxiety

(viii) Carla and Mark Lowry offered a continuation of hearing in return for everything they wanted in mediation which included

- Keeping all of the $2500

- Having all posts re: “Mark Lowry” from Robbins’ blog removed

- Removing the bar complaint

- Asking client to lie (perjure) the Florida bar by having him falsely state that client was happy with Mark Lowry's horrible legal work.

ILLEGALITY

(1) Carla and Mark Lowry required client to commit the crime of perjury by restating everything he had signed under penalty of perjury on the first bar complaint. Forcing a person to commit a crime within an agreement makes the mediation agreement NULL and VOID by itself.

(2) EXTORTION: Client would never have signed mediation agreement under normal circumstances. He was coerced through unimaginable fear.

(3) EXTORTION: Carla and Mark Lowry planned the service of the Ft Lauderdale hearing to coerce and force client to sign something he did not want to.

(4) EXTORTION: Carla and Mark Lowry willfully increased the coercion and fear level by providing client with no verbiage (attached) that explained what Robbins would have to defend against in Fort Lauderdale in 4 hours

(5) EXTORTION: Carla and Mark Lowry used a minuscule 4 hour window to extort client for everything they wanted.

(6) EXTORTION: The verbiage regarding the reasons for the injunction finally appeared well after Feb 22 for a continuation to March 21. The Lowrys purposely withheld these important details on Deb 22 (the verbeage) to place client in the most "extortable" position.

(7) EXTORTION: To the extent that Carla and Mark Lowry willfully and knowingly picked Feb 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM is the extent to which they willfully engaged in EXTORTION. The put client in a time crunch; an impossible situation.

7) SLANDER / LIBEL / THREATS / HARASSMENT / CYBERSTALKING / DISPARAGEMENT

At no time did client EVER slander, libel, or offer up an action against Mark Lowry which could be construed as a credible threat.

A) CREDIBLE THREATS (784.048 c) At no time did client ever place Mark Lowry in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members. In fact it was the client who was in fear for his safety given the extortion attempt and his safety and welfare after the surprise legal tricks played against him. The client also remains in fear for the frivolous, unsubstantiated, and meritless legal actions filed against him.

B) HARASSING The low volume of communications that the client sent Lowry would not meet the criteria for a “course of conduct.” (784.048 b). If Mark Lowry truly felt harassed, he ignored the most basic form of relief: HE NEVER PERSONALLY ASKED CLIENT TO SIMPLY “STOP COMMUNICATIING.”

C) HARASSING and CYBERSTALKING Does not apply to clients’ actions (784.048 a and d). The client always had a legitimate purpose and reason to contact Mark Lowry.

- Attempts to collect $2500 which client feels Mark Lowry stole.

- Following the stated written instructions from the FL BAR which instructed client to try and settle the dispute with Mark Lowry

- Providing legal courtesies

- In the interest of fair play client explained the lawful and legal consequences that could occur if Mark Lowry stole from client and committed other illegal/unethical acts. All of the communications were Constitutional (First Amendment; free speech and free press) and never did client threaten the safety of Mark Lowry and/or family (Client did not know the Lowry family or has knowledge of where they live). Client simply spelled out reasonable and predictable consequences for breaking the law (example: filing a bar complaint)

D) DISPARAGEMENT Our Constitution allows for disparaging remarks (verbal or written) if the recipient has committed disparaging acts. Mark Lowry has himself to blame for these and client is under no obligation to say nice things about someone who kept all of a refundable retainer and who tried to extort the client.

E) SLANDER / LIBEL / DEFAMATION cannot exist if the statements made are true. All of clients’ statements and allegations and inferences are based on the truth and facts.

F) Client has consistently offered up relief for Mark Lowry if untrue statements have been made about him. If Lowry honestly felt false statements were made… he has always direct access to relief and he has he chose not to use it. Below is clients’ standing promise on WBTruth.blogspot.com (client's blog).

STANDING PROMISE TO ALL

WBTruth.blogspot.com

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.

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.

The fact that Mark Lowry has chosen not to use the above avenues of relief, his claims of defamation / libel / slander are 100 per cent meritless.

7) Lastly, Mark Lowry made a very juvenile and “tabloid-like” accusation against the client. He fabricated a story that the client was courting Lowry's girlfriend named Heather Walker. I will address this lie like I have the others.

A) I never once made a single romantic gesture, offer of a date, or anything conceivable that could be construed as an advance on Heather Walker.

B) Upon receipt of the $2500 retainer, Mark Lowry told me he was dating Heather Walker (the girlfriend)

C) At a Thanksgiving community (2017) celebration, Heather Walker told me that she was dating Mark Lowry and that had been meeting in remote meeting spots to avoid my detection

D) Heather Walker told me that Mark Lowry informed her of the details of my case which is yet another violation… a complete breach of attorney/client privilege.

E) Upon helping MS. Walker last summer (2017) in a custody crisis (a few hours) I witnessed the Ms. Walker abuse a prescription schedule 2 drug. Having been in continuous sobriety for 30 years I steered clear of Ms. Walker once I saw this.

The fact that Mark Lowry wanted a $2500 retainer paid in cash and dated a woman who abused pills – and denied dating her - certainly did not cast Mark Lowry in a favorable light. My experience has shown that “like attracts like” and I would be dishonest if I said I did not wonder what he may have been using in the presence of Ms. Walker and otherwise… in addition to the cigarettes and beer which he openly ingested when living at Broadstone Apartments.

I had a steady and monogamous relationship from June 2017 to October 29, 2017 with a female from Switzerland. Her name is Deb H. I never courted any other girls when I was with her nor did I cheat during this relationship. She is pictured below with me on the left and with my son to the right.