Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer Bar Complaint

Michael J. Napoleone

Richman Greer

Bar Complaint Filed on November 30, 2014

Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer

Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer

Michael J. Napoleone Bar Complaint – November 30, 2014

Mr. Michael J. Napoleone, a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, was an attorney for the Defense in the matter of Jason Halle v. Peter Halle, L. T. Case No. 502011CP005095XXXXSB, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. 4DCA13-3796.

Mr. Napoleone’s misconduct and perjury was a result of trying to cover up the misconduct and perjury of his partner, Mr. John George White, III, also a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, and also an attorney for the Defendant. He also was trying to win the case without regard for Rule 4-3.3 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct: Candor Toward the Tribunal.

Mr. White gave false and perjurious testimony during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This hearing resulted in the Honorable David E. French of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida Dismissing a Complaint with Prejudice and causing me, the Plaintiff in this action, serious injury.

Mr. White testified before the Court on that day, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit A, page 11, lines 14-18)

Mr. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”

On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.” Mr. White let his false and fabricated testimony stand and have its full impact on the court.

Only a trial court judge can dismiss a complaint by issuing an order granting a motion to dismiss and no such orders were ever issued in this case before the Hearing on August 28, 2013.

On January 6, 2014, in an Initial Brief for the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, I stated “During the hearing on August 28, 2013, Mr. White, the counsel for the Appellee openly and blatantly lied before the Honorable Court. He falsely claimed that the Appellant, ‘keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.’” (Exhibit B, page 8, last paragraph)

“In fact, only one lawsuit was ever filed with this or any other court. No complaint that was ever filed with the leave of the lower court was ever dismissed for any reason except at the hearing on August 28, 2013.” (Exhibit B, page 9, ¶1)

“I replied to Mr. Whites lies, ‘This is the first motion to dismiss (based solely on lack of cause of action) that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth….’” (Exhibit B, page 9, ¶2)

On February 21, 2014, Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White filed Appellee’s Answer Brief. They responded to my Initial Brief by stating, “Appellant’s Initial Brief seeks to divert attention from his repeated failure to state a cause of action after many opportunities to do so, by attacking Peter Halle’s counsel, John G. “Jay” White, III by claiming Mr. White ‘blatantly lied before the Honorable Court.’ (IB.8) Appellant cites to Mr. White’s representation that Appellant ‘keeps filing lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed,….’ As part of his request for a dismissal with prejudice. Mr. White did not ‘lie,’ as Appellant alleges in his ad hominem attack.” (Exhibit C, page 8, ¶1)

Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White continued in their brief with erroneous and false explanations of how five separate complaints were dismissed. Yet Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White did not cite multiple orders granting motions to dismiss before August 28, 2013. The reason for this is because no such orders exist. Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White successfully confused the court by suggesting that they, the opposing counsels, had the legal authority to dismiss complaints and the trial court judge was no longer needed in the legal process to decide if a complaint has not stated a cause of action or should be dismissed.

Mr. Napoleone was lead counsel on this case and he knew that there had been no dismissals in this case before the hearing on August, 28, 2013. Yet he gave false information and perjured himself in the Answer Brief to maintain the deceptive illusion that there had been previous dismissals as Mr. White had testified.

Mr. Napoleone was well aware of the fact that he was providing the court with further false and perjurious information about Mr. White’s false testimony at the hearing on August 28, 2013. He made no attempt to take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal as required by the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. (Exhibit D)

Mr. Napoleone is in violation of the following Florida Rules of Professional Conduct:

  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(1) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) A lawyer shall not knowingly: offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(a) Prohibits the lawyer from violating the rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
  1. Rule 4-8.4(c) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(d) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Mr. Napoleone has caused serious injury due to his false testimony, perjury and by not making any effort to remedy the situation of the serious injury he had caused me.

Mr. Napoleone’s intention was to mislead the court without regard for the potential injury that could reasonably be foreseen at the time as a result of his misconduct.

Under the Florida Bar Standards for Lawyer Sanctions disbarment is appropriate under 5.11(f) and 6.11(a-b).

The false and perjurious testimony was very prejudicial and damaging.

After the Florida Bar has had an opportunity to investigate this complaint, I ask that the findings be forwarded to the appropriate District Attorney for criminal prosecution under the Florida Statutes §837.07(1)(3) which classifies perjury in official proceedings as a felony of the third degree.

The Florida Statutes §837.07(1-2), Recantation as a defense, does not apply as Mr. Napoleone does not meet either of the requirements of the statute.

This is the body of a public record on file at The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

 

John G. White, III, Bar Complaint
avatar

John G. White, III

Richman Greer Shareholder

Bar Complaint filed on November 22, 2014

John. G. White, III, Richman Greer shareholder

John G. White, III, Richman Greer shareholder

Bar Complaint – November 22, 2014

Mr. John George White, III, a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, and attorney for the Defendant, gave false and purjurious testimony during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This hearing resulted in the Honorable David E. French of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida Dismissing a Complaint with Prejudice and causing me, the Plaintiff in this action, serious injury.

Mr. White testified before the Court on that day, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit A, page 11, lines 14-18)

Mr. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”

On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.”

Mr. White did not take this opportunity to change, modify or further explain his false and purjurious testimony. He let it stand and have its full impact on the court.

This is a very simple situation. Only a trial court judge can dismiss a complaint by issuing an order granting a motion to dismiss.

If Mr. White can provide the orders from the court that show complaints had been dismissed prior to October 28, 2013, then he is not guilty of giving false and purjurious testimony to the court. But, Mr. White will not be able to produce court orders showing that multiple orders were granted involving motions to dismiss before October 28, 2013, because they don’t exist.

Mr. White cannot use the defense that he did not know his testimony was false and purjurious. How could any attorney be so completely unprepared and not have knowledge of the basic facts when going into a hearing? In addition, I have many documents that show Richman Greer knew Mr. White’s testimony was false and purjurious, yet no one from Richman Greer or Mr. White himself, took reasonable remedial measures to disclose the fact to any tribunal as required by the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.

As per the Florida Bar’s instructions, I have not included the many documents that show Richman Greer was aware of Mr. White’s false and purjurious testimony but they are available upon request.

Mr. White is in violation of the following Florida Rules of Professional Conduct:

  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) Prohibits a lawyer from offering testimony that the lawyer knows to be false. The lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
  1. Rule 4-3.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(a) Prohibits the lawyer from violating the rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
  1. Rule 4-8.4(c) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(d) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

If Mr. White cannot produce the court orders that would substantiate his testimony, then he was not giving true testimony but instead was fabricating the existence of evidence that does not exist.

Mr. White has caused serious injury due to his false testimony, perjury and by not making any effort to remedy the situation or the serious injury he has caused me, the Plaintiff.

Mr. White’s intention was to mislead the court without regard for the potential injury that could reasonably be foreseen at the time as a result of his misconduct.

Under the Florida Bar Standards for Lawyer Sanctions disbarment is appropriate under 5.11(f) and 6.11(a-b).

This fabricated and perjurious testimony was very prejudicial and damaging.

After the Florida Bar has had an opportunity to investigate this complaint, I ask that the findings be forwarded to the appropriate District Attorney for criminal prosecution under the Florida Statutes §837.07(1)(3) which classifies perjury in official proceedings as a felony of the third degree.

The Florida Statutes §837.07(1-2), Recantation as a defense, does not apply as Mr. White does not meet either of the requirements of the statute.

This is the body of a public record on file at The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Richman Greer Fraud Upon the Court
avatar

Richman Greer

John G. White, III Motion

Richman Greer, John G. White, III, Motion

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 502011CPOO5095XXXXSB

JASON HALLE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETER HALLE,

Defendant.

__________________________ /

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

            JASON HALLE, Pro Se, moves this Honorable Court as follows:

  1. To relieve the Plaintiff from the Order of the Honorable Court Dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice that was signed by the Honorable David E. French on September 25, 2013. (Exhibit A).
  2. During the hearing held on August 28, 2013, which resulted in the Order of September 25, 2013, Mr. John G. White, III, opposing counsel, committed intrinsic fraud upon the court, was guilty of misrepresentation and other misconduct of an adverse party. As a direct result of this fraud upon the court, the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint was dismissed with Prejudice. This prevented the plaintiff from presenting his case due to the fraud and deception practiced by his adversary.
  3. Relief is sought under Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party…from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:…(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;…This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
  4. As of the date of serving this motion the status of this case is pending.
  5. John G. White, III, opposing counsel, committed intrinsic fraud upon the court, was guilty of misrepresentation and other misconduct of an adverse party during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This is the hearing that resulted in the Honorable Trial Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint with Prejudice on September 25, 2013. (Exhibit A)
  6. White fraudulently told the Court during the hearing, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit B, page 11, lines 14-18)
  7. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”
  8. On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.”
  9. White did not take this opportunity to change, modify or further explain his intrinsically fraudulent testimony. He let it stand so it would have its full impact on the court.
  10. The record of the court in this action confirms the following:
    1. The motion to dismiss the Original Complaint was for lack of jurisdiction. As a result of a hearing on this motion, on February 21, 2012, the Honorable Judge Martz ordered a 30 day continuance so the parties could engage in limited discovery on jurisdiction. (Exhibit C)
    2. The First Amended Complaint had a Motion to Dismiss filed on February 29, 2012. There was never a hearing on Defendant’s motion.
    3. The Second Amended Complaint was never followed by a Defense Motion to Dismiss
    4. The Third Amended Complaint had a Defense Motion to Dismiss served on June 19, 2012. It was DENIED by the Honorable Court on March 26, 2013. (Exhibit D)
  11. When the Fourth Amended Complaint was before the Honorable Court on August 28, 2013, ZERO motions to dismiss had been granted by the court. But, Mr. White fraudulently stated, “they keep getting dismissed”, instead of giving a true statement that ZERO complaints had been dismissed by the court in this case before the hearing on August 28, 2013.
  12. The plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing so that opposing counsels may have the opportunity to present court orders for motions to dismiss that were granted by the court before August 28, 2013, in order to substantiate their statements. The trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on opposing counsel’s statements after plaintiff objected to them.
  13. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his complaint before the court so as to state a cause of action as a direct result of Mr. White’s intrinsic fraud and deception practiced upon the court.
  14. Only a Trial Court Judge has the authority to determine if a complaint states a cause of action. This happens at a hearing. Only a trial court judge can grant a motion to dismiss.
  15. Dynasty Express v. New General Rent-A-Car,675 So.2d 235, 240 (Fla. 4d DCA 1996) “A party seeking relief on the basis of [fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct] has an obligation to raise this issue as soon as is reasonably possible… On the other hand, if the party only becomes aware of the fraud after final judgment the fraud should be asserted in either a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530 or [a motion for relief from final judgment under] Rule 1,540(b), depending on the time the fraud is discovered. In either case, however, the party asserting such fraud is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue.”
  16. Stella v. Stella, 418 So.2d. 1029, 1030 (Fla. 4d DCA 1982) “Although we find the motion of the wife to be less than artfully drawn and the statement of her position to the trial court and now on appeal to be less than clear-cut, we conclude that she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her allegations of fraudulent conduct…. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be conducted on the wife’s motion.”
  17. Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 65 So. 3d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) which states: “Public policy favors the liberal amendment of pleadings, and courts should resolve all doubts in favor of allowing the amendment of pleadings to allow cases to be decided on their merit…. A denial of leave to amend a pleading is an abuse of discretion….”

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief from the Honorable Court:

To vacate its Order of September 25, 2013, as it was based on intrinsic fraud upon the court, misrepresentation and misconduct by opposing counsel during the hearing on August 28, 2013.

Plaintiff respectfully further requests leave of the court to amend his complaint.

And for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

JASON HALLE, Pro Se

This motion is a public record and is filed with the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.