Friday, March 31, 2017

MARK AND CARLA LOWRY: TWO CROOKED ATTORNEYS IN FT LAUDERDALE

2016 -2017   Four Bar Complaints
(1)   Complaint against Mark Lowry: Theft of $2500.
(2)   Complaint against Mark Lowry. Serving me with papers (for an action) illegally.
(3)   Complaint against Mark Lowry: Lying in his response to my bar complaint.

(4)   Complaint against Carla Lowry: Extortion. She was representing her ex-husband in small claims court. The extortion took place in mediation as I was extorted into signing an agreement that was brought about under the most extreme duress. The duress was brought about by the illegal service of papers imposed upon me just minutes before by Mark Lowry which would have forced me to defend myself in another county (Palm Beach to Broward) on four hours’ notice. I was given no details of the allegations and had no time to seek legal help. Perhaps surprisingly, In Carla Lawry’s response to my extortion allegations she offered no rebuttal.  

(1) Complaint against Mark Lowry: Theft of $2500.

The words “Paid $2500” and “Retainer” can be deciphered from this “chicken scratch” contract on the back of his business card in October 2016. This was the only documentation received from him. This occurred in a parking lot around 10 PM. Mark Lowry had at this time moved away from my apartment complex.



A) Attorney Mark Lowry told me that by paying cash that he could contact the State Attorney expediently and likely have the charges dropped.
B) After 11 days of non-action I called Mark Lowry and he still had not contacted the State Attorney to have the charges dropped. My legitimate fear was that he was “sandbagging” so he could be paid more at a trial.
C) I then fired Mark Lowry and hired the Boca Raton firm of Lavalle, Brown, and Rogan who quickly had the charges reduced and ultimately dropped.
D) Mark Lowry promised me that I would receive a professional, typed, and legitimate retainer agreement very soon. I never received it.
E) His chicken scratch “contract” had the word “retainer” on it. No contract was ever signed indicating that the fees were non-refundable (as required by law). 
F) I was never given an invoice of work performed and I wasn’t told the hourly rate.
G) I was never told that the $2,500 was “burned through” and he needed more money .     HE) SIMPLY KEPT IT ALL OF THE RETAIMER. HE STOLE FROM ME.
H) When I confronted Mark Lowry with stealing from me he threatened me by warning. me “this will not end well for you, Mark (Robbins).”
I) The firm of Lavalle, Brown, and Rogan directed me to file a bar complaint against Mark Lowry.

(2)    Complaint against Mark Lowry: ILLEGAL SERVICE OF ACTIONABLE ITEM.


 Above:  SAME DAY HEARING in Fort Lauderdale at 1:30 PM on February 22, 2017 

A)    While waiting in Judge Panse’s court room on 02/22/17 for mediation for the $2,500 retainer that I allege Attorney Mark Lowry stole from me, Attorney Mark Lowry approached the Sheriff and pointed to me sitting in the gallery. I was then given papers indicating I had to be in Fort Lauderdale for cyberstalking charges (filed by Attorney Mark Lowry) in four hours. (Per Florida Bar instructions, I had summoned Mark Lowry solely/only to work out our issues prior to filing a complaint. I was simply following directions. I stalked no one.)
B) The firm of Lavalle, Brown, and Rogan later informed me that that the “service” was illegal. It was illegal because I am to be provided 20 days’ notice.  I WAS GIVEN  SAME DAY 4 HOURS NOTICE and was given no allegations to respond to.
C) The firm of Lavalle, Brown, and Rogan also explained to me that the “service” was illegal because one cannot serve one in court for a future action (cybertheft) while in court for another existing action (the $2500 theft).

(3) Complaint against Mark Lowry: Lying in his response to my bar complaint. Details have been provided to the Florida Bar.
(4) Complaint against Carla Lowry: EXTORTION. (NOTE: In Carla Lowry’s response to this bar complaint, she stated in writing that she would offered not respond to my allegations of extortion described below. Instead she used a “method of distracting” by arguing that the “service” to me, giving me four hours, was somehow proper.
A) She was representing her ex-husband (Mark Lowry) in small claims court for mediation (Judge Panse; morning of February 22, 2017) regarding the $2,500 I assert Mark Lowry stole from me,
B) Here was the deal that was offered to me that I will demonstrate clearly meets the elements of extortion.
1)      I would allow Mark Lowry to keep the $2,500
2)      I would remove the bar complaint filed against him
3)      I would state in writing (to the Bar) that I was happy with Mark Lowry’s performance.
4)      IN RETURN… They would “continue” the action (give me more than four hours notice) regarding the hearing to take place the same day at 1:30 PM in Judge Kaplan’s court room in Fort Lauderdale.
C)   EXTORTION  I signed an agreement UNDER DURESS and an AGREEMENT I WOULD NEVER SIGN UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Put simply, it was last second surpriseone big CON JOB… a dirty trick that the included the necessary elements for extortion. Duress and fear was applied in these ways:
1)      I was under duress because the “illegal service” gave me just 4 hours to prepare when I would later learn from Lavalle, Brown, and Rogan that I had to be legally given 20 days’ notice.
2)      I was under duress because I did not understand the charges in that I did not know whether it was a criminal charge or a civil charge.  
3)      I was under duress because I did not understand the charges because the papers I was served with were bereft of any specific or written allegations.
4)      I was under duress because I was to be force to attend a hearing in another county in front of a Judge that Mark and Carla Lowry claimed to know (thus adding to my fear which increased the pressure on me signing whatever they put forth.)
5)      I was under duress because I had no time to get legal representation.
6)      I was under duress because I was afraid of the word “stalking” going on my record in any form. The word “stalking” has a horrible and creepy connotation to it… a connotation that has never been associated with someone with a clean record like myself.
7)      I was under duress because I was startled and “frozen” by the circumstances I was placed in. To use street terms… I was “jumped” whereas Mark and Carly Lowry had their extortion scheme planned out well in advance.
D)    THEAGREEMENT I WAS PRESSURED INTO SIGNING WAS ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE. In retrospect, I was asked to commit a crime. I signed my bar complaint under penalty of perjury. If I retracted my bar complaint and stated lies about Lowry’s performance (claiming I was happy with his work), I would be guilty of perjury. Thus, I did not abide by a contract that was null and void the second it was signed (on the face of it).