Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
MARK A. ADAMS,
Respondent. /
RESPONDENT'S VERIFIED
THIRD MOTION TO CORRECT THE DOCKET AND EMERGENCY
MOTION TO GRANT RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE RESPONDENT'S
VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE ORDER ENTERED ON JULY 12,2007
DISBARRING THE RESPONDENT WHICH HGS NOT BEEN TIMELY
OPPOSED BY THE FLORIDA BAR
COMES NOW, the Respondent, MARK A. ADAMS, Esquire and files the
Respondent's Verified Third Motion to Correct the Docket and Emergency Motion
Entered on July 12,2007 Disbarring the Respondent Which Has Not Been Timely
1. Rule 3-7.7 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar provides the procedure
proceedings.
proceedings nor do the Bar Rules contain provisions which modify these
rehearing may be filed within 15 days of an order, and the pertinent part of
Rule 9.330(a) states, "A motion for rehearing shall state with particularity
the points of law or fact that, in the opinion of the movant, the court has
4. On July, 12,2007, the Clerk of this Court issued an order denying the
an order denying the Respondent's Motion to Toll Time to File Brief, and an
order dismissing the Respondent's Petition for Review, and the Clerk of this
Court served these four orders to the Respondent via U.S. Mail. No other
order entered on July 12,2007 was served to the Respondent by the Clerk of
5. On July 27,2007, the Respondent traveled for over ten hours to file the
6. When the Respondent reviewed the case file on July 27,2007, he learned
that the Clerk of this Court had entered a fifth order on July 12,2007 which
provided that a motion for rehearing shall not delay the effective date of this
order.' This order was only signed by the Clerk of this Court and the
Deputy Clerk refksed to provide any document showing that this order was
7. On July 27,2007, the Respondent also learned that the documents which had
been stored in the sub-basement had been put back together with the file,
although it was not clear when such action was taken, but most importantly,
referee, Gregory P. Holder, were missing from the file and also not
' The Respondent does not know the exact language used in this order as the
Respondent was not served with a copy and has not received one, and although the
Respondent informed the Deputy Clerk that he had not received a copy of this
order and requested one, the Deputy Clerk refised to provide one to the
Respondent without charging a fee for the same.
accounted for by Judge Holder on the list that he prepared of the
Respondent's e ~ h i b i t s . ~
8. If the Respondent had been served with the order indicating that he was
pointing out the points of law, the rules of procedure, and the facts that this
9. To date the Respondent still has not received a copy of the order entered by
the Clerk of this Court on July 12,2007 indicating that the Respondent is
permanently disbarred and that a motion for rehearing shall not delay the
10. However, as the Respondent was not served with a copy of the order entered
by the Clerk of this Court on July 12,2007 indicating that the Respondent
was permanently disbarred and did not learn that such order had been
entered until he reviewed the case file on July, 27,2007, the Respondent did
not have an opportunity to file a timely motion for rehearing of such order.
*Ifthe Justices had reviewed the transcripts of the proceedings before the referee as
required by Rule 3-7.7(a)(2), they would have surely noticed the fact that several
of the exhibits submitted to the referee by the Respondent were missing from the
case file, that the referee's decision is erroneous, unlawfi.d, and unjustified, and
that the referee should have granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss this case.
11. As a result, on August 9,2007, the Respondent served and filed the
12. The Respondent's Motion to Vacate pointed out that as the Clerk failed to
the Respondent to the Respondent and also apparently to the Florida Bar, the
Respondent did not receive timely notice of such order and was deprived of
his right to file a timely motion for rehearing, and therefore, the order
13. In addition, the Respondent's Motion to Vacate pointed out that as the
orders denying his motions on July 12,2007 and before entry of an order
disbarring the Respondent on that same date, the Respondent was deprived
of due process by such action, and therefore, the order disbarring the
14. Furthermore, the Respondent's Motion to Vacate pointed out that as the
names of the Justices who may have authorized the Clerk of this Court to
enter the orders on July 12,2007 are not shown on the record and as the
Clerk has refused to disclose such Justices' names, if any, the orders entered
on July 12,2007 appear on their face to violate Article V, 3(a) of the
should be ~ a c a t e d . ~
15. Finally, the Respondent's Motion to Vacate pointed out that as the foregoing
shows that this Court should enter an order vacating the order disbarring the
Respondent and that such order should not be enforced, this Court should
showed why the order entered by the Clerk of this Court on July 12,2007
' The Respondent's Motion to Vacate also pointed out that as the applicable rules
do not allow for entry of an order which deprives the Respondent of the rights
afforded by the rules concerning motions for rehearing and as the Florida Bar did
not even seek such relief, the order disbarring the Respondent violates due process
and should be vacated, and that as this Court did not require preparation of an
index to the record as required by the rules, as the record is not complete, and as
the Respondent did not have an opportunity to supplement the record, the
Respondent has been deprived of due process, and therefore, the order disbarring
the Respondent should be vacated.
points of law and fact that this Court had overlooked when such order was
17. This Court's online docket shows that no order has been entered in this case
18. However, after the Respondent's Motion to Vacate was filed on August 9,
2007, the Clerk or a deputy clerk made an entry on this court's online docket
designating such motion as a motion for rehearing and stating that it was
filed 9 days late without an order being entered purporting to authorize such
19. The Respondent believes that this entry on the Court's online docket may
motion for rehearing which was filed late should be immediately removed
'The Respondent intends to file a motion for rehearing or a brief showing why this
Court should render a decision quashing the findings and recommendations made
in the referee's report and dismissing this action.
'If on August 9,2007, the Respondent had filed a motion seeking rehearing of the
order entered on July 12,2007 disbarring the Respondent, it would have been 13
days late rather than 9 days late.
from the online docket before it causes further unjustified damage to the
Respondent's reputation and right to a fair and just decision in this action.
2 1. Furthermore, this Court's online docket shows that the Florida Bar has not
filed any response to any of the motions filed by the Respondent since June
22. Also, the Respondent has not been served with any response by the Florida
Bar to any of the Respondent's motions since the responses the Florida Bar
23. The pertinent part of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(a) states, "A
1- 1.13(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, an additional five ( 5 ) days
shall be added to the prescribed time period when a document is served via
mail. Therefore, if the Florida Bar could have contradicted the Respondent's
Motion to Vacate which was filed and served on August 9,2007, the Florida
24. When a judgment or order has not been timely served, it should be vacated
so that the prejudiced party is not deprived of rights afforded by the rules of
procedure and procedural due process. See, e.g., Gibson v. Buice, 38 1 So.2d
It appears that the Florida Bar could not think of any basis to contest them.
349,350-35 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) citing Rogers v. First Nafional Bank at
25. When the court fails to mail a copy of a judgment to a party, it should be
vacated when such party files a motion to vacate it showing that counsel for
that party did not receive a copy of the judgment from the court, and the
discretion. Id.
26. When the opposing party has not filed any verified response contradicting a
motion to vacate a judgment which was not served to counsel for the moving
party, the court should grant the motion and vacate such order. Spanish
Oaks Condominium Ass'n, Inc., v. Compson ofFlorida, Inc., 453 So.2d 838
27. As the Florida Bar has not opposed any motion filed by the Respondent
since June of 2006 and as the Florida Bar has not filed or served any
July 12,2007 Disbarring the Respondent, the dictates of due process require
28. The Respondent's Motion to Vacate requested that this Court issue an
pending the Court's resolution of such motion, issue an order vacating the
order entered on July 12,2007 disbarring the Respondent, and issue an order
to file his brief, allowing the Respondent to supplement the record, allowing
the Respondent to file a brief referring to the documents filed in this action,
29. The foregoing shows that the Respondent has been deprived of due process
by the Clerk's entry of the order disbarring the Respondent on July 12,2007,
and the Respondent has not been able to provide legal service to his clients
result, the Respondent and his clients have suffered severe prejudice and will
continue to suffer damages until this Court vacates such order and allows the
brief in support of his petition for review in accordance with the rules and
precedent.
30. Apparently, the Florida Bar will not suffer any prejudice if this Court grants
the relief requested by the Respondent; otherwise, the Florida Bar would
not a motion for rehearing of the order entered on July 12,2007 disbarring the
Respondent, issue an order vacating the order entered on July 12,2007 disbarring
the Respondent, and issue an order granting the Respondent a reasonable time of at
least twenty days in which to file his brief, allowing the Kespondent to supplement
the record, allowing the Respondent to file a brief referring to the documents filed
in this action, and allowing the Respondent to include an appendix with key
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing mulio~z
and the facts stated in it are true.
"
- --- -
Mark A. Adams, Esquire Date
Fla. Bar No. 0193 178
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1WEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been served by U.S. Mail to
Jodi A. Thompson, Assistant Staff Counsel for the Florida Bar at 5521 W. Spruce
Street, Suite C49; Tampa, FL 33607 and to Staff Counsel for the Florida Bar at 65 1
E. Jefferson Street; Tallahassee, Florida 32399 on this -- 5'
I
-
i-
day of August,
I- -- A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
d a r k A. Adams, Esquire
Fla. Bar No. 0193178
P.O. Box 1078
Valrico, FL 33595
Telephone: 813-654-1235