Did you know that a judge can enter a judgment for several thousand dollars against you without you even being made a party to a lawsuit? Did you know that a judge can bring baseless criminal charges against you, have you arrested, and bring you before him to be tried without a jury?

Of course, most of us realize that injustice like this happens in third world dictatorships, but this is happening right now in the United States in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida. Worst of all, the appellate courts are backing up this judge’s actions rather than exposing judicial corruption. Apparently, the appearance of a fair judicial system is more important than the fundamental right to a fair trial.

Is there justice for all in the United States of America, or just courts that do the bidding of the connected? It seems that the latter is unfortunately true in this case. Please consider the following and make your own decision.

In January of 2000, Jeff Smith went to work as a salesperson for Corporate Sports Marketing Group, Inc., (CSM), and he quickly became one of its best. During the summer of 2001, CSM began asking its sales staff to sign non-competition agreements which would prohibit them from selling advertising for another company if they left CSM. As a result, many of CSM’s sales staff left, and in October of 2001, Jeff Smith also left CSM after refusing to sign any non-competition agreement.

When Jeff Smith left CSM, he was owed over $20,000.00 in commissions, and Chris King, CSM’s president, refused to pay him. To make matters worse, when Jeff Smith quit, Chris King called the Clearwater Police Department and falsely reported that Jeff Smith had stolen $800,000.00 worth of art work. (Report # 2001-26968). After making this false police report, Chris King called Jeff Smith’s home, and Jeff’s ten-year-old son answered the phone. Chris King told Jeff Smith’s ten-year-old son that his daddy was a thief, that he had called the police because his daddy had stolen $800,000.00 worth of art work, and that the police would be showing up to search their home and take his daddy away to jail. Of course, this upset Jeff Smith’s ten-year-old son who then put his mother on the phone, and Chris King repeated these malicious lies to Jeff Smith’s wife.

Another member of CSM’s sales staff, John Kerin, had left CSM during the summer of 2001, and in October of 2001, John Kerin and Jeff Smith formed their own advertising sales company, Lafayette Marketing Group, Inc., (Lafayette).

In November of 2001, Jeff Smith retained me, Mark A. Adams, Esq., to file suit to recover the commissions CSM owed him and to recover the Smith’s tax documents that CSM’s comptroller refused to return to him. In addition, Jeff Smith wanted to bring claims against Chris King for the outrageous malicious statements that he made to Jeff’s wife and son, but Jeff Smith indicated that he was willing to settle for the commissions that CSM owed him.

In December of 2001, Jeff Smith’s lawsuit, Case No.: 01-9347-CI-015, was filed against CSM in the Circuit Court in Pinellas County, Florida, and it was assigned to Judge Crockett Farnell. Shortly thereafter, Chris King began boasting to Jeff Smith and others that his attorneys, the Battaglia firm, were connected and that they were going to bury Jeff Smith.

In January of 2002, CSM’s attorneys issued a subpoena to John Kerin which required Mr. Kerin to produce all of the records of the company which he had formed with Jeff Smith. Mr. Kerin timely objected to the production of confidential information and trade secrets, and CSM’s attorney scheduled a hearing on Mr. Kerin’s objection. Just before this hearing in March of 2002, CSM filed several frivolous counter-claims against Jeff Smith, John Kerin, and their new company, Lafayette, and Mr. Kerin retained me to represent him and Lafayette. At this hearing, despite the fact that Florida Statutes Section 90.506 provides that a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose trade secrets and that this privilege can be claimed by the person or the person’s agent or employee, Judge Crockett Farnell ordered Mr. Kerin to produce all of the records of Lafayette because Judge Farnell said that only attorneys can object on the behalf of corporations.

On April 18, 2002, before the deposition of John Kerin began, Mr. Martin Richardson, a Vice-President of CSM, who was its corporate representative at this deposition, asked to speak privately with John D. Kerin and Jeff Smith, and during this conference, Mr. Richardson said that his attorneys, the Battaglia firm, are very well connected, that his attorney said that Smith and Kerin did not have any representation, that his attorney said that I did not know what I was doing, that his attorney said that they were going to bury us, and that he was authorized to offer to settle this case for nothing.

The statements made by Mr. Richardson before John Kerin’s deposition began, upset both Mr. Kerin and Mr. Smith. Due to these statements and Chris King’s previous statements about the Battaglia firm’s connections and my lack of ability, immediately after this deposition, Mr. Kerin and Mr. Smith told me that they felt that they needed to hire a larger firm with more experienced attorneys. I asked them to move quickly and told them that I would try to keep things going until they could find new attorneys.

In May of 2002, Lafayette and John Kerin retained new attorneys to defend them in Case No.: 01-9347-CI-015 and terminated my representation in defense of them in this case, but Jeff Smith asked me to continue representing him and his wife and asked me to coordinate my efforts with the new attorneys retained by Lafayette and Kerin.

In June of 2002, CSM’s attorney filed a motion for contempt seeking to hold John Kerin in contempt of court based on his delay in answering questions and producing documents on the morning of his deposition, a delay which was caused by CSM’s outrageous intimidating behavior. In order to avoid facing contempt charges, John Kerin paid CSM to settle even though CSM owed him over $5,000.00 in commissions.

By late July of 2002, it became obvious to me that the Smiths were no longer taking my advice and attempting to complete the discovery requests directed to them by CSM’s attorney. As a result, I indicated that I was going to have to withdraw from representation of the Smiths, and in August of 2002, a notice of substitution and withdrawal was filed. On October 1, 2002, Judge Farnell approved my withdrawal as to all parties without reserving jurisdiction over me.

After my withdrawal, CSM’s attorney scheduled a hearing on CSM’s motion for summary judgment in order to take advantage of the fact that the Smiths did not have any legal representation, and in late November, the Smith’s new attorney filed a notice of dismissal for some of the Smith’s claims.

In late December of 2002, CSM’s attorneys filed a motion for sanctions seeking sanctions against me and the Smiths. Florida case law provides that once a person has been dismissed from an action, the trial court is divested of personal jurisdiction over that person and the trial court may only regain personal jurisdiction over that person by personal service of original process. See, e.g., Federal Ins. Co., v. Fatolitis, 478 So.2d 106, 109 ( Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Despite the fact that Judge Farnell had approved my withdrawal from this case without any reservation as of October 1, 2002, CSM’s attorney did not bother to seek to amend CSM’s claims to add me as a party and did not bother to serve me with a summons or a subpoena. Apparently, CSM’s attorney was not very concerned with any fundamental due process issue stopping Judge Farnell from granting sanctions against me.

CSM’s attorney sent me a notice of hearing on CSM’s motion for sanctions, and I appeared at that hearing in April of 2003 and raised a number of issues in defense of CSM’s motion. After Judge Farnell indicated that he was not going to dismiss CSM’s motion for sanctions, I moved to disqualify Judge Crockett Farnell based on the affidavits of Jeff Smith and an independent witness, Scott Dias, to comments made by agents of CSM about their attorney's connections and based on Judge Crockett Farnell’s numerous comments and rulings which indicated that he was biased in favor of CSM.

However, rather than disqualifying himself to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, Judge Farnell denied my oral motion for disqualification at the hearing. Shortly after this hearing, I filed a written motion for disqualification, and Judge Farnell sent a letter to counsel for the parties seeking comment on my motion for disqualification despite the fact that the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a judge should not look beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice when considering whether a motion establishes grounds for his disqualification. See e.g., Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978).

On July 30, 2003, Judge Farnell entered a judgment for sanctions and a judgment for expenses on a motion to compel against me and the Smiths. The judgments against me were for over $20,000.00 as were the judgments against the Smiths.

In late August of 2003, the Smiths filed a notice of appeal seeking to overturn these judgments. I did not find out that these judgments had been entered against me until August 28, 2003 so I was not able to post a bond within thirty days of the entry of these judgments to obtain an automatic stay, and therefore, in early September of 2003, I filed a motion to vacate these judgments and a motion for a protective order seeking to stay discovery in aid of execution of these judgments.

In September of 2003, CSM’s attorney threatened Jeff Smith with contempt of court if he did not dismiss his appeal and pay to settle. As a result of this threat, Jeff Smith entered into a settlement agreement where he agreed to pay $15,000.00 to settle this case with CSM even though he was owed over $20,000.00 in commissions by CSM.

In September of 2003, CSM’s attorney threatened to file a motion to hold me in contempt of court, and on October 1, 2003, Judge Crockett Farnell issued an order to show cause why I should not be held in criminal contempt because I filed a motion to vacate the judgments entered against me without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts and law and because I filed a motion for a protective order seeking to stay discovery in aid of execution of these judgments prior to the date that any discovery was due from me.

I scheduled the hearing on my motion to vacate and motion for a protective order for October 29, 2003 at 3:30. Although Judge Crockett Farnell had notice of these motions and the hearing scheduled for them, he scheduled the hearing on the order to show cause on October 29, 2003 at 2:15 prior to the time set for the hearing on my motion to vacate and motion for a protective order.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) provides that the Court may relieve a party from a judgment or decree that is void. Once a timely motion for a protective order has been made, the court should allow that motion to be heard before sanctioning that person. See, Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So.2d 121, 123-124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

My motion to vacate and motion for a protective order are authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure and case law, and therefore, such motions could not be the basis for any contempt proceeding. "[P]rohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent judicial action when the judge is without jurisdiction to act in a cause, and may be specifically invoked against a judge when a party is about to be cited for contempt on the basis of acts which could not constitute contempt of court." State ex rel. Gillham v. Phillips, 193 So.2d 26, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). "The writ of prohibition may be used to restrain an excess exercise of jurisdiction, as well as to prohibit the exercise of judicial power where none at all exists." State ex rel. Brooks v. Freeland, 138 So. 27 (Fla. 1931).

On October 27, 2003, I filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Second District Court of Appeal to try to get a fair hearing before a new judge, and without being asked, on October 29, 2003, the Second District issued an order staying proceedings in the trial court before Judge Crockett Farnell. However, I have since learned that the notes found in the record show that the Honorable Patricia J. Kelly and the Honorable Douglas A. Wallace indicated that an Order to Show Cause was to be issued on October 29, 2003 in Case No.: 2D03-4844. If an order to show cause had been issued to Judge Farnell as ordered by these two Honorable members of the Second District, it would have most likely resulted in the removal of Judge Crockett Farnell from this case.

By failing to issue the order authorized by Judge Kelly and Judge Wallace, the Clerk of the Second District Court, James Birkhold, has apparently violated Fla. Stat. § 838.022 and § 839.13 which prohibit falsification of official documents.

Although the Honorable Patricia J. Kelly and the Honorable Douglas A. Wallace were originally assigned to the Second District’s panel for Case No.: 2D-4844, the panel was rearranged. An appellate panel is rarely rearranged, and if it is, it is because a judge has become ill, retired, or removed himself from the case due to a conflict of interest. On November 24, 2003, the new panel composed of the Honorable Stevan T. Northcutt, the Honorable E. J. Salcines, and the Honorable Virginia M. H. Covington denied my petition for writ of prohibition with prejudice in Case No.: 2D03-4844 without opinion without expressly vacating the stay and without issuing an order vacating the stay.

On November 24, 2003, when the Second District denied my petition with prejudice without an opinion, it sent that order to me at an incorrect address. Fortunately, I found out in time to file a motion for rehearing which according to the rules and case law should keep the stay in place. However, even though Judge Crockett Farnell did not have jurisdiction due to the stay entered by the Second District, he issued an order for my arrest on January 12, 2004, and the Second District has refused to enforce its stay.

On January 29, 2004, I filed a motion to enforce the stay with the Second District which showed that Judge Crockett Farnell had issued an order for my arrest without jurisdiction and in violation of the Second District’s order staying proceedings in the trial court. This motion showed up on the Second District’s online docket, but on February 4, 2004, it mysteriously disappeared from the docket.

On February 5, 2004, my assistant called the clerk's office at the Second District Court to inquire why my motion that was filed on January 29, 2004 was not showing on the docket and spoke with a deputy clerk named Rhonda. I listened in on this call as did an independent witness. The deputy clerk initially said that nothing had been filed since January 27, 2004. When my assistant explained that she had filed a motion on January 29, 2004 and had a date stamped copy of it from the clerk's office, the clerk asked her to hold on while she checked the file. When she came back on the line, the clerk said that the motion which was filed on January 29, 2004 was in the file and was being considered by the court. My assistant asked why it was not showing on the docket, and the clerk replied that it must have been a computer error and that she had never seen anything like that before.

Later on February 5, 2004, the Second District decided to treat my motion to enforce its stay as a new petition for a writ of prohibition in order to explain its disappearance from the online docket the previous day. Curiously, the Clerk of the Second District Court, James Birkhold, supposedly made the decision to treat my motion to enforce the stay as a new petition for a writ of prohibition on February 4, 2004 as shown by his notes on this motion. However, on February 5, 2004, the deputy clerk did not mention anything about treating this motion as a new petition. Apparently, the Clerk of the Second District Court, James Birkhold, has tampered with the case file by back dating this "decision" to cover up the disappearance of my motion from the docket, and such action is a violation of Fla. Stat. § 838.022 and § 839.13 which prohibit falsification of official documents.

On February 10, 2004, the Second District issued an order vacating its stay of the proceedings in the trial court. This order clarified that Judge Crockett Farnell’s order for my arrest which was issued on January 12, 2004 was entered without jurisdiction and in violation of the Second District’s stay. This exposed Judge Crockett Farnell to liability to me for the damages that resulted from his order for my arrest. These damages are substantial as I had to drop out of cases which resulted in injury to my clients, my reputation, and of course, my ability to earn a living for my family. Please see a decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Farish v. Smoot, 58 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1952) if you have any questions about a judge’s liability for actions taken without jurisdiction.

On February 12, 2004, Timothy W. Weber, Esquire of the Battaglia firm filed a motion for clarification or reconsideration of the Second District Court’s order dated February 10, 2004 vacating its order dated October 29, 2003 which stayed proceedings in the trial court. Mr. Weber’s motion asked the Second District to vacate its order of February 10, 2004 without citing any rule or case law to support his request.

Fla. R. App. P. 9.300(a) provides that a party may serve a response to a motion within ten days of service of the motion, and therefore, it was not appropriate to take action on Mr. Weber’s motion until ten days had passed so that I would have an opportunity to respond. However, without any concern for my right to respond provided by Fla. R. App. P. 9.300(a), the Second District Court granted Mr. Weber’s motion for clarification on February 16, 2004 and vacated the order it entered on February 10, 2004 "because the stay was lifted concurrently with the order denying the petition for a writ of prohibition on November 24, 2003." This statement implies that Fla. R. App. P. 9.340(b) and Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(e) do not apply to petitions for a writ of prohibition. Naturally, this statement is without any basis in fact or law, but it does protect Judge Crockett Farnell at least until the truth comes out.

Please note that Fla. R. App. P. 9.340(b) states, "If a timely motion for rehearing, clarification, or certification has been filed, the time for issuance of the mandate or other process shall be extended until 15 days after rendition of the order denying the motion, or, if granted, until 15 days after the cause has been fully determined." "The mandate in any case functions to end the jurisdiction of the appellate court and to return full jurisdiction of the case to the trial court." State v. Miyasato, 805 So.2d 818, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). If a stay has been entered, the mandate typically causes the stay to end. Id. "The mandate of an appellate court is the official method of communicating its judgment to the inferior tribunal." Colonel v Reed, 379 So.2d 1297, 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Prior to issuance of the mandate, the inferior tribunal cannot usurp the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Id. The trial court and counsel for the parties should notice the absence of a mandate before proceeding without jurisdiction. Id.

The entry of an order or judgment without jurisdiction is a fundamental error which requires the appellate court to vacate that order or judgment. See, e.g., 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So.2d 1297, 1298-1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). (Emphasis added). In Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mighigan Railway Co. v Swan, 111 U.S. 379 (1884), the Supreme Court of the United States noticed that a judgment had been entered without jurisdiction, surveyed the case law on this issue, and held that an appellate court must vacate a judgment when the record does not affirmatively show that the trial court had jurisdiction. However, the Second District has apparently chosen to ignore the law for some reason or another.

On January 30, 2004,my assistant called the office of the Clerk of the Second District to ask whether the review of my Motion for Extraordinary Relief to Vacate Order for Arrest, to Vacate Judgments, to Quash Notices of Depositions, and to Issue Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Prohibition Should Not Issue which sought to enforce the stay issued by the Second District could be expedited due to the serious nature of the position that my clients and I had been put in due to the order for my arrest issued by Judge Crockett Farnell on January 12, 2004 without jurisdiction and in violation of the Second District’s order dated October 29, 2003 staying proceedings in the trial court. The deputy clerk informed my assistant that she would need to speak with the Clerk of the Second District Court, James Birkhold, about this matter and transferred her call to his office. Mr. Birkhold told my assistant that "mandates are not issued in those kinds of cases so the stay was no longer in effect."

Although I have read every case regarding these issues, I have not found a single case which indicates that Fla. R. App. P. 9.340(b) regarding issuance of the appellate court’s mandate does not apply to petitions for a writ of prohibition or any other appellate action for that matter except for bond validation proceedings which are governed by Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(c). In addition, the comment to Fla. R. App. P. 9.340 states, "The 15 day delay in issuance of mandate is necessary to allow a stay to remain in effect for purposes of rule 9.310(e)." Furthermore, Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(e) provides that a stay shall remain in effect until a mandate issues or the stay is otherwise modified or vacated. Moreover, the comment to Fla. R. App. P. 9.310 provides that this rule does not limit the appellate court’s power to issue stay orders. Finally, the comment to Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(e) provides, "The stay is vacated by issuance of mandate or an order vacating it."

If you want to call the Clerk's office of the Second District to see what they have to say about this, the phone number is 863-499-2290. If you want to view the current docket sheet for my case yourself, go to http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket_search and enter the case number. My case number is 2D03-4844. If you want to view the docket sheet showing my motion that I filed on 1/29/04, I can email it to you. If you want to view the docket in other prohibition proceedings to see that the Second District’s own records show that mandates are issued in prohibition cases, check recent prohibition cases with the following case numbers: 2D03-4832, 2D03-4329, 2D03-4295, 2D03-5509, 2D03-3717, 2D03-4621, 2D03-4688, 2D03-4565, and 2D03-4607. If you find that any one of these recent prohibition cases no longer show that they were closed VIA AUTO CLOSE/MANDATE APPLICATION, please let me know, and I will email you a copy of the docket sheet for these cases before it was altered.

If you call the clerk and you are told that "mandates are not issued in those kinds of cases" or "because the stay was lifted concurrently with the order denying the petition for a writ of prohibition on November 24, 2003," please consider this information, ask yourself why the clerk is misleading you, and consider helping expose this story on judicial corruption and abuse of power.

Apparently, the Second District entered the order of February 16, 2004 without following the rule allowing me to respond in order to protect Judge Crockett Farnell, Timothy W. Weber, Esquire, and the Battaglia firm from liability for their actions taken in January of 2004 without jurisdiction and in violation of the Second District Court’s order dated October 29, 2003 staying proceedings in the trial court. Once again, I ask whether there is justice for all in the United States of America, or just courts that do the bidding of the connected?

Unbelievably, I am facing six months to a year in jail, assuming that I was actually guilty of contempt of court and that Judge Farnell followed the law when sentencing me. Judge Farnell has already said in open court that he intends to throw me in jail when he gets me before him. So, unless the press sheds some light on this, I am going to jail because I had the misfortune of running into a judge who apparently is well connected to the opposing party's attorney, and the appellate court is more interested in protecting Judge Crockett Farnell than in doing justice. I hope that you or your loved ones do not ever have to experience injustice like this.

I received official notice on February 26, 2004 that Judge Crockett Farnell scheduled my contempt trial for 4:00 PM on March 3, 2004. Apparently, Judge Crockett Farnell felt that a week was enough time for me to prepare to be thrown in jail and that an hour was enough time for a trial. Fortunately, due to calls and a letter sent from a concerned client who had my information reviewed by another attorney that she knows, Judge Farnell agreed to allow me more time to retain counsel and prepare to defend these baseless contempt charges. My contempt trial is currently scheduled for March 26, 2004 at 3:30 PM.

Nearly every attorney who has reviewed my documentation has said that what Judge Farnell is doing is not right, but they don’t want to represent me because they don’t want to get on his bad side. In addition, nearly every one of these attorneys has said that they expect that Judge Farnell will throw me in jail despite the fact that there is no legal basis for doing so. If I am thrown in jail, can I expect that the Second District will correct Judge Farnell this time even if he sentences me to more time than the maximum allowed by law?

Is there liberty and justice for all in the United States of America, or has our country gone the way of the rest of the world where "justice" depends on who you know or who you pay off?

I believed in our constitution and our heritage of honor, liberty, and justice so strongly that I joined the armed forces when I was seventeen and served for six years. I went to law school because I hoped that I could help people who needed an attorney, and in law school, I was taught that when a trial judge makes the wrong decision, the appellate courts should rectify it. Apparently, I am incredibly naive.

The Battaglia firm has successfully used threats of contempt to coerce settlements out of both of my former clients, and they are doing the same thing with me. In fact, on November 24, 2003, after they learned that the fix was in at the Second District Court, the Battaglia firm drafted a letter to me indicating that they would settle for $63,000.00 even though the judgments that Judge Farnell granted against me are for approximately $20,000.00. Furthermore, it appears that someone has influenced the Clerk of the Second District Court, and possibly some of its judges, to take actions without any legal basis and in violation of the law.

In addition, I have been informed that my former client, Jeff Smith, was also pressured by the Battaglia firm to change his affidavit. Mr. Smith also informed me that the Battaglia firm threatened Scott Dias if he did not change his affidavit. This appears to be a violation of Fla. Stat. § 914.22 which prohibits witness tampering. Mr. Smith can be reached at 813-598-2920. If you want to see them, I can forward the affidavits of Mr. Smith and Mr. Dias which also show their home addresses.

I have attached a copy of the notes showing that Judge Kelly and Judge Wallace directed the clerk to issue an order to show cause on October 29, 2003 rather than just an order staying proceedings in the trial court.

Hopefully, this information will raise a couple of questions in your mind, such as:

1. Why would the Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal issue a stay after being directed to issue an order to show cause by Judge Kelly and Judge Wallace?

2. Why would a panel be rearranged to remove two judges?

3. Why would a judge issue an order for the arrest of an attorney when he does not have jurisdiction to do so?

4. Why would someone alter a docket to remove a motion?

5. Why would the Second District ignore a person’s right to respond to a motion provided by Fla. R. App. P. 9.300(a) and enter an order which is not based on fact or law?

6. Why would the Second District fail to follow the law requiring it to vacate the order for my arrest issued on January 12, 2004 by Judge Crockett Farnell without jurisdiction?

7. Why would a judge charge me with contempt based on acts which are allowed by the law, and therefore, could not be the basis for a contempt charge?

I cannot think of any legitimate explanation for these questions. It appears to be an example of an abuse of power and judicial corruption. I have talked with several local attorneys about this, but they just keep saying that although I am in the right, the old boy network is running over me.

If you are outraged by this abuse of power and judicial corruption, please write Governor Jeb Bush at The Capitol, PL-05; Tallahassee, FL 32399, the Judicial Qualifications Commission at 1110 Thomasville Road; Tallahassee, FL 32303, and your state and federal representatives, and please send copies of your letters to the editors of your local papers and other members of the local press.

Also, one of my clients has started a petition to request an investigation of Judge Crockett Farnell, the Battaglia firm, and the Second District Court, and if you want to join in that petition, please send a letter to Governor Jeb Bush requesting an investigation of Judge Crockett Farnell, the Battaglia firm, and the Second District Court, and send a copy to me at P.O. Box 1078; Valrico, FL 33595.

If you would like more information, please email me at adamsma63@hotmail.com or give me a call on my cell phone at 727-415-7859 or on my office line at 813-654-1235. If you do not reach me, please leave a message, and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Adams, Esq.

In a conversation with Mark Adams on April 16, 2004 he reported that at the urging of Adams' counsel, Judge Farnell has now agreed that the Battaglia firm has a conflict when it serves as both a witness and the prosecution in the contempt trial.  Judge Farnell has asked the Florida Attorney General's office to prosecute the case.  No action has transpired since that time.

January 7, 2005 Update:

On December 20, 2004, the day the Judge Crocket Farnell recused himself from the contempt trial of Mark Adams, the day before the contempt trial was scheduled.  It is unknown what judge will now hear the charge or when the trial will be rescheduled.

Here are some documents that give more background on the case:

1. The Second District Court judges’ notes which show that an Order to Show
Cause was supposed to be issued to Judge Crockett Farnell on October 29,
2003.  This shows that the original panel of judges believed that I had
provided evidence which would have justified the removal of Judge Crockett
Farnell from my case.

2. The Second District Court’s Order dated October 29, 2003 which was issued
by the Clerk of the Second District Court rather than the Order to Show
Cause that the original panel of judges directed the Clerk to issue. Please
note that this order issues a stay of proceedings in the trial court which
is supposed to prohibit Judge Crockett Farnell from taking any action until
the stay is vacated by the Second District Court or until it issues its
mandate.

3. The Second District Court’s Order dated November 24, 2003 which shows
that a second panel of judges from the Second District Court has decided to
deny my petition for a writ of prohibition despite the fact that the
original panel of judges believed that I had provided evidence which would
have justified the removal of Judge Crockett Farnell from my case. Please
note that this order does not expressly vacate the order staying proceedings
in the trial court issued on October 29, 2003.

4. The Second District Court’s Order dated February 10, 2004 which vacated
the stay of proceedings in the trial court. This order makes it clear that
Judge Crockett Farnell violated the order staying proceedings in the trial
court when he issued an order for my arrest on January 12, 2004.

5. The Second District Court’s Order dated February 16, 2004 which vacates
the Order dated February 10, 2004 which vacated the stay. Please note that
this order states that the stay was lifted by the Second District Court’s
Order dated November 24, 2003; however, as you can see be looking at that
order, the stay was not lifted by it.

6. The notes showing that the Second District Court’s Order dated February
16, 2004 was only authorized by one judge, Stevan Northcutt, in spite of the
requirement of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.040(a)(1)
which requires a majority or at least two of the three judges on the panel
to issue a decision.