COMPLAINT
The Florida Bar
Disciplinary Review
Tony Boggs
Ken Marvin
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
Phone (850) 561-5600
FAX (850) 561-5827
RE: BAR COMPLAINT, RULE
4-1.3 DILIGENCE - Case Number: 2006-(edited)-DV
http://mycrazyneighbor.do.sapo.pt/
Refik W. Eler, Esquire
233 East Bay Street
Suite 1133
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone:(904) 354-4499
FAX: (904) 354-4403
November 9, 2006
Dear Mr. Boggs, Mr. Martin
and the Florida Bar Disciplinary Review:
This letter represents my
attachment to the The Florida Bar Inquiry/Complaint Form which I have completed
and signed.
On October 26, 2006 my wife
and I retained Refik W. Eler to represent us in a fraudulant cross petition
injunction for protection against repeat violence, dated October 20, 2006
– Case Number: 2006-edited-DV. We informed Mr. Eler that we were
victims of a neighborhood hate crime. During our counseling session,
we provided Mr. Eler with a copy of a hate mail newsletter that we received
on October 20, 2006, the same day the Petitioner (Brooke Berg) filed her
fraudulant cross petition.
We also provided Mr. Eler
with an audio recording captured by our surveillance of the Petitioner’s
boyfriend (Gus Reinhardt) informing our neighborhood about his knowledge,
possession, and intent to distribute the newsletter. 
reinhardtlegaleagle.wav
We told Mr. Eler that the
original copy of the newsletter was in the custody of the Jacksonville
Sheriff’s Office (JSO), as it was under investigation by Detective Carney,
Intelligence, Case #edited. Mr. Eler wholeheartedly agreed that this indeed
was a hate crime and that the Petitioner’s cross petition was a “sham”.
We received a second hate
mail newsletter on October 27, 2006 during the injunctive period, which
was taken into custody by JSO on the same day. We encouraged Mr.
Eler to motion the judge about the hate mail and that it was a violation
of the injunction, which enjoins any and all parties. Mr. Eler refused,
claiming that both hate mail newsletters sent by the Petitioner were “irrelevant”.
When we went to court with
Mr. Eler on Tuesday, October 31, 2006, we once again requested outside
courtroom J-2 that Mr. Eler inform the judge of the hate mail, and we handed
Mr. Eler two motions for continuance (attached). The first motion articulates
to the judge that we have been in receipt of these hate letters authored
by the Petitioner and her witness, and that the hate mail is in possession
of the JSO. In court Mr. Eler once again refused our pleadings that
this information be brought forward to the Judge. Instead, Mr. Eler
gained his continuance from the judge by requesting time to subpoena a
police officer.
On the night of October 31,
2006 during the continuance of the injunctive period, after placing a Jewish
Menorah in our living room window, the Petitioner (Brooke Berg) and her
boyfriend-witness (Gus Reinhardt) engaged in fits of screaming from across
the street, which was recorded by our home surveillance. We provided this
recorded evidence to Mr. Eler on November 1, 2006 and once again pleaded
with him to motion the judge. Mr. Eler refused.
On Thursday, November 2,
2006 the Petitioner’s boyfriend-witness shot a CO2 powered BB gun at my
automobile shattering my left side view mirror. After discovering
the damage the following day, we filed a police report with JSO and immediately
informed Mr. Eler, who did not even return our call.
On Friday, November 3, 2006
we received a letter from Mr. Eler indicating, “representation will be
limited to the defense of the civil domestic violence injunction”.
Unless the relationship
is terminated as provided in rule 4-1.16, a lawyer should carry through
to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client. If a lawyer's employment
is limited to a specific matter, the relationship terminates when the matter
has been resolved.
On Friday, November 3, 2006
I contacted the ADL, JDL and numerous members of the media via email, as
follows, copied to Mr. Eler, as he requested to be privy to all outgoing
correspondence.
We are being targeted in
a hate crime. This hate crime has been precipitated and incited by my anti-Semitic
neighbor DEA Agent Jack Lunsford and his anti-Semitic wife, Kathy P. Lunsford.
Agent Lunsford's unmitigated hatred of Jews and Jewish people has erupted
into neighborhood violence directed at me via 4 households that are directly
across the street from me. I have been targeted by two dog attacks,
two hate mail letters and Co2 powered BB gunfire. The first letter
was received on October 20, 2006 (the day Ms. Berg filed her cross petition)
and then on October 27, 2006 during the temporary injunction. These hate
mail letters were authored and sent by Ms. Berg and Mr. Reinhardt and contain
numerous false domestic terror threats, slander, defamation and contain
language intended to incite vigilante action by my neighbors.
Three petitions for protection
against repeat violence filed with the 4th Circuit court were dismissed
on October 17, 2006 by Judge Brad Stetson. 72 hours later, Ms. Berg and
Mr. Reinhardt filed a fraudulent cross petition, chock full of lies and
distortions. Ms. Berg was successful on October 20, 2006 in getting Judge
Stetson to sign her fraudulent cross petition, successfully disarming her
victim (taking victim's firearms by Judicial order). Judge Stetson even
assigned the same case number that I was assigned, against Ms. Berg (as
I was the original Petitioner). Refik W. Eler is pals with the judges here
and is afraid to bring up the hate mail in court and has not done so.
Also Eler is worried about a Judicial Qualifications Commission complaint
that I filed on Judge Stetson and Judge Mitchell on October 18, 2006.
On Halloween eve (in response
to our Menorah in the window) our neighbors went crazy and were screaming
at us all night while we cowered inside our home. Detective Carney, Intelligence,
Jacksonville Sheriffs Office, (904) 630-7275 and 904-630-2185 has
been assigned to the case. The case number is #edited. The police are here
almost every day as we call them with each escalating event and they have
taken NO ACTION to abate the hatred directed against us.
We are living in constant
fear and are praying the ADL and JDL will help us.
On November 4, 2006 we were
forced to build plywood barriers for our automobiles to prevent another
shooting. We had not yet heard from Mr. Eler. On our barriers we
placed Jewish Stars of David and the words “Never Again”. We left a message
for Mr. Eler explaining what we were forced to do in order to protect our
property, and that we were afraid the Petitioner’s shooting would escalate.
The Petitioner (Brooke Berg) and her boyfriend-witness (Gus Reinhardt)
even attempted to harass us with the JSO by dispatching them to our residence
as soon as our Star of David barriers went up in our driveway. Mr.
Eler willfully refused returning any of our calls, all the way through
the weekend and into the following week.
On Monday, November 6, 2006
we contacted Amber Pirch, Mr. Eler’s legal assistant, who did her very
level best to distract all of our calls, feigning no knowledge of Mr. Eler’s
whereabouts or when he would be returning our calls, if ever.
The next correspondence from
Mr. Eler arrived in our mailbox on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. Mr.
Eler informed us he was quitting, citing the protected speech in the above
email as his reason. However, in his Motion for Leave to Withdraw, Mr.
Eler cited “Conflict of Interest” as his reason for a speedy departure,
needlessly prolonging the injunctive period until December and scheduling
a hearing in the judge’s chambers for November 21, 2006. Mr. Eler
also informed us that the depositions of Brooke Berg and Gus Reinhardt,
scheduled for Wednesday, November 8, 2006, were cancelled leaving us in
the lurch. Mr. Eler made certain in a telephone conversation I had
with him on November 7, 2006 to tell me that he would be deducting substantial
fees for his “representation”. Mr. Eler was rude, overtly hostile
and even rascist, as he attacked my protected speech in the email to the
JDL and the ADL, as I tried to explain to Mr. Eler that this hate crime
had escalated to include religious intolerance.
Mr. Eler’s actions relative
to this case prove he is an anti-Semite and that my correspondence with
the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Defense League incited his (Eler’s)
deep-seated prejudices, serving as the sole reason ("conflict of interest")
for his withdrawal.
The following protected speech
to Jewish religious rights organizations is what Mr. Eler specifically
cites in his withdrawal cover letter, dated November 6, 2006:
I have a lawyer (Refik
Eler) although Eler does not have my best interest at heart and is afraid
of the judiciary. Eler is pals with the judges here and is afraid to bring
up the hate mail in court and has not done so. Also Eler is worried
about a Judicial Qualifications Commission complaint that I filed on Judge
Stetson and Judge Mitchell on October 18, 2006.
On November 8, 2006 we received
Mr. Eler’s fleecing of our wallets, compounded by his gutting our case
the day before, to the tune of $2080.89 out of our original retainer
of $3500. Mr. Eler even had the gall to bill us for
preparing subpoenas and depositions that he flagrantly cancelled.
Mr. Eler is in violation
of RULE 4-1.3 DILIGENCE - nor can Mr. Eler claim exception to Rule
4-1.3 under RULE 4-1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION due to the content
of the email to the ADL and the JDL.
A lawyer should pursue a
matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal
inconvenience to the lawyer and take whatever lawful and ethical measures
are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also
act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with
zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf.
A client's interests often
can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions;
in extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks a statute of limitations,
the client's legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client's interests
are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause a
client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer.
Mr. Eler’s claim of
“conflict of interest” over communications sent to religious organizations
(ADL and JDL) is not covered by any provision cited under RULE 4-1.7 CONFLICT
OF INTEREST; GENERAL RULE.
The Florida Bar Disciplinary
Review is hereby encouraged to act swiftly as our civil rights have been
and continue to be violated.
Sincerely,
(edited)
cc: Refik W. Eler P.A.
