Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

   

JUSTICE BLIND TO INJUSTICE 
Re-Victimization of Edna Jane Favreau Brevard County Den of Vipers Series

September 29, 2010 Miami Beach, Florida By David Arthur Walters Edna Jane Stewart was smart and attractive when she moved to Middle Florida’s so-called Redneck Riviera from Ohio, where she had already proved her mettle by becoming a top real estate sales person. She continued to do well in Florida, winning awards for her sales leadership. She started accumulating a small real estate nest egg of her own. All she wanted for the future was a man. The answer to her dreams was Walter Favreau, retired from the Air Force. Walter had been stationed in Europe, where he had served the United States as a coder. He had only clothes and a pension to his name; his previous wife had gotten the rest. But he was a real charmer, and Jane thought she had met the man of her dreams instead of a conman with a brutal side. Of course she married him because she was in love. He helped her with her real estate business, mostly picking up and delivering keys, got his name on her rental properties, and brutalized her. And then he tried to strangle her to death, leaving her disabled for want of oxygen to the brain, and otherwise severely traumatized. His sentence was naturally light, a mere year’s probation; men were likely to get off easy with domestic violence in those parts, not to mention attempted murder of their wives, providing they had the right attorney and judge. Off to court he went for a divorce, planning to get all the property. She wanted at least half the property, and she wanted the compensation to which she was entitled as a victim under the law. But justice was blind to injustice at the Brevard County courthouse, where she was repeatedly revictimized: insult was added to injury time and time again. She was stripped of her rights and her property, left impoverished and toothless.

1 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

Jane did her best to fight back, but she was written off as just another hysterical “nutcase” instead of a brutally disabled human being, for she did not appear in a wheelchair or braces or crutches and the like. You see, a woman’s psychological trauma and disability is not a real disability as far as many men are concerned, even to lawyers and judges who have read the tracts about gender bias; it is just something normal for inherently irrational females, who must resort to hysterical antics to get their way given the overwhelming power of males. Embittered, pauperized, obsessed with the notion that some slight justice might be done some day, at least for other women if not for her, her ordeal continues to this day. She is elderly but she has no peace in old age. No, ma’am, the years are not golden ones for her; nary has a day shined all day for her; the days are blackened by the horror that wisdom reveals to all too many of us, that justice may be consistently blind to injustice wreaked by the strong on the weak. It is injustice, indeed, for might does not make right where the righteous should be mighty; wherefore the unrighteous, no matter how mighty, are expected to fall: “They will have to pay some day,” a woman said ever so hopefully to me today. Jane can think of nothing else but her ordeal; the very thought of it brings on the panic that compels her to fight the fight against the brutal truth of human nature which every woman feels from time to time, some slightly, but others even more than she – visit the shelters and the courts, peel back the roofs and peer into the dens of vipers, if you would bear witness to the awful truth about the horrible side of the much extolled nuclear family. A woman must fight to be human: She must keep advancing the stone up the hill to civilization, at least to the extent of her innocence, from whence it invariably rolls back down again while the gods laugh at the sight of her plight. And now Jane has been told not to try to get up again, not to re-present herself to the court, not to file another brief lest she be condemned to jail for criminal contempt of court. Sisyphus never had it so bad, for he was guilty as charged; yet he could laugh at the gods, cheat Death for awhile, and make the Sun go up and down seemingly forever. The court has been deaf or surd to Jane, but mind you that her struggle has not been entirely absurd, meaningless or futile. Although she was cheated out of everything in court by pettifoggers and careless judges, she helped get lawyers on both sides of her case disciplined by The Florida Bar, albeit belatedly; indeed, The Florida Bar moves as slowly as the Law, grinding many to dust, presumably for the sake of social stability. Jane’s successes with The Florida Bar were quite a feat given the fact that she was up against the judicial system kit and caboodle – part of her problems at the courthouse was due to the fact that she had blown the whistle on the shenanigans at the courthouse. The Bar in Florida is “integrated” with the Florida Supreme Court, so the Bar in effect is the court, is part and parcel of the judiciary; it is said that The Florida Bar is an “arm” of the court in its supremacy, where a lawyer may not practice if not a member. The judiciary, at the apex of its vanity, decided some time ago that the judiciary has an inherent power to discipline attorneys as it will hence is unaccountable for same to legislators and executives, most of whom are lawyers. Even many lawyers who enjoy their monopoly very much think this is a bad thing, to place discipline and the interests of the trade in the same hands, but the most of them cooperate along the lines of the power pyramid – those who do not may be excommunicated on trifling pretexts while those who do may get away with atrocious conduct for years and years and even become
2 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

the most respected lawyers in the state. So we may criticize the Bar for good reason. Still, despite of the personal biases and prejudices of the lawyers who run the show, the Bar does discipline lousy and crooked lawyers when their infractions become all too obvious. We shall eventually review some of Jane’s successes in getting lawyers disciplined, including a notorious “Rambo” lawyer, an attorney, now deceased, who utilized what is known in the trade as “bomber tactics.” But first of all we shall discuss the alleged misconduct of her first attorney, Mary Pamela Huddleston, against whom she filed a complaint with The Florida Bar to no avail. According to Jane, after Walter tried to kill her she went into hiding. She was terribly affrighted that he would find her; she said her terror was aggravated by coverage of the O.J. Simpson murders. Walter sued her for divorce, she said, to draw her out of hiding. Barbara Favreau, Jane’s sister in law, she explained, knew what Walter was up to and informed Jane’s daughter, who knew where Jane was and therefore could pass along information to her. Barbara said Walter was putting a formal notice in the newspaper that he would get everything if Jane did not appear in court, so she came home, still impaired by back injuries and extreme stress. She was completely petrified by the thought or sight of him. He was already on probation for battering her. She was sure he would try killing her again, one way or another, including by burning the house down with her in it, as he had threatened to do. And he said he would kill the police if they came. He really was a real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide, Jane said. He was not that way, she rued, before she married him in 1985, or at least he hid it very well for 5 years. Before the marriage he was quite the charming gentleman, but the ink had barely dried on the marriage certificate when he turned mean and started abusing her. Enter Mary Pamela Huddleston, Esq., whom she retained to handle the case for $1,500. “Pam Huddleston was my first attorney. She abandoned me without a hearing and kept my money but did not account for her time etc. I feel that she sold out to the other side because she canceled an important hearing. There was a Notice for Hearing in court about Florida Statute 61.16, which says if the wife needs help with attorney fees the judge can make the husband pay part of the wives fees to get an attorney. She tricked me into coming to the office for what she said would be an out of court settlement, but it turned out to be a big trick done to cancel that important hearing – I was tricked during the conversation into believing there would be an outof-court settlement. When I got there about 4 pm, my ex was on the phone and his attorney, Ms. Kalbac, was in the room. The attorneys, Huddleston and Kalbac, canceled the hearing, and I learned that nothing had been put in writing. They should not have cancelled that hearing. My attorney hid from me when I tried to reach her, and she did not do anything after that. Tricking a disabled person in post-traumatic stress syndrome with severe panic attacks was easy for her and his attorney. When I was back home in my safe place, I could go over things and mostly figure things out, but it was too late for me to get something done because no attorney would take this on - one tried but he was shot down real quick.” Jane put the court on notice that she intended to sue Ms. Huddleston (Document 172 Case 051993-DR-009107 Walter Favreau v Edna Jane Favreau, Dissolution of Marriage) and she filed a complaint against Ms. Huddleston with The Florida Bar.

3 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

The Bar has no present record of the complaint filed - Case No. 99-30-325(18C) – not even of the case number, because of the Supreme Court’s policy of destroying complaint files where no disciplinary action was taken after one year has elapsed from the time the file is closed. Such files are public records during that one-year period, but thereafter there are no records available, nor are there records such as logs indicating that there were any records at all. “Once a file has been closed by our staff or grievance committees and has been purged from the system,” averred Dan Feldman, Data Entry Specialist for The Florida Bar, on September 2, 2010, “we have no records of it of any kind whatsoever, nor have we ever kept such records in any capacity. The Florida Bar does not have any knowledge of the file number, or anything regarding the file either physically or in regards to any database. At this point (after a nondiscipline file is purged from our database and destroyed) for all intents and purposes, the file and any computer records of such has never existed. Please note that with files that have been closed by our staff or a grievance committee no ethical violation exists and the allegations in the given complaint either cannot be proven or the matter does not warrant discipline of any kind.” The destruction policy is obviously pernicious, contrary to the public interest in holding misbehaving attorneys in particular accountable, as well as in holding the self-regulating judiciary accountable for misbehavior in respect to that regulation. Indeed, the arrogantly conceived and executed “inherent powers” of the hierarchically organized judiciary and its integrated bar renders the all-powerful institution unaccountable to the public and is of exceeding danger to everyone concerned including the attorneys themselves. At present we can name several powerful and highly esteemed attorneys who are under investigation for possible misconduct or who were cleared by the Bar of misconduct involving alleged misbehavior that would threaten the very fabric of our social institutions; but if the Bar is queried, they will be referred to as attorneys of good standing with no history of disciplinary action at all. And that is not to mention those attorneys in good standing who have no apparent history of misbehavior yet who have had dozens of complaints filed against them over the years for lesser infractions. That is, a string of accusations may exist indicating a possible pattern of conduct that would give any rational consumer cause to conduct further inquiries before retaining them – the market for legal services is far-from-efficient. So the disciplinary files on officers of the court are not only concealed if other officers of the court do not deem them guilty of violating the rules – though they might give them a verbal tongue-lashing – they are destroyed. Mind you that the records of complaints against police officers, or officers of the law, are available to the public in many jurisdictions even when the officers were cleared; however, there have been successful attempts to make disciplinary records on police officers confidential so that no “patterns of misbehavior” will show on the records of police officers until they are deemed guilty as charged in the absence of a history that might help prove them guilty. Therefore concerned parties are stashing copies of current records in rooms so they can be retrieved when officers are charged with misconduct. Of course, an officer of the court accused of misconduct may very well be innocent, there may have been no cover-up by the local grievance committee or bar counsel, wherefore there should be some record of the complaint, procedure, and acquittal, just in case the issue is ever raised again by anyone at all, including the complainant. One might reasonably suppose that the accused lawyer would be careful to keep a record, at least of the formal acquittal.
4 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

Since The Florida Bar destroyed the public record of the charges brought against Ms. Huddleston, and our public information is limited to those charges, this journalist contacted her for her side of the story. The Florida Bar gives Mary Pamela Huddleston’s address in Sevierville, Tennessee. She was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1990, and to U.S. District Courts in Florida and Tennessee. She is listed as a “retired partner” on the Huddleston & Robbins PA website. ”Huddleston & Robbins, P.A. is a full-service family law firm in Melbourne, Florida: A familyrun practice that cares about your family. Family comes first at Huddleston & Robbins, P.A. Not only are we a family-run law office, but our divorce and adoption lawyers strive to bring familial care and compassion to every case we handle. Making decisions that impact your family's future is difficult, and we take pride in our ability to guide clients through family law matters with patience and understanding.” I contacted Ms. Huddleston on Sunday, September 26, 2010 by email, attaching thereto an article I had written about her former client’s ordeal at the hands of attorneys and judges, along with a plea for legal assistance: “Madame: Is this case familiar to you? I have uncovered a document regarding a complaint filed with The Florida Bar against a ‘Mary Huddleston.’ I'm unable to obtain any record of the disposition by the Bar.” Ms. Huddleston responded 7 minutes later, with: “Sorry, I don't know or remember any such complaint. I am in good standing with the Florida Bar. Good luck on helping this lady!!” Perhaps I had the wrong attorney, so I sent her a copy of an old advertisement, with the note: “Thank you! Did you run this advertisement?”

She replied 18 minutes later, with: “What’s your point?” “Having both sides of the story is my interest in this particular file. I have in my possession some documentation of a complaint filed with The Florida Bar (Re: Complaint against Mary Pamela Huddleston, Esq. Case No. 99-30-325(18C) for which no disciplinary action was
5 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

apparently taken wherefore the Bar file was destroyed but is publicly documented elsewhere. I figured the attorney involved would probably have some memory (if I sent along the complaint) of the event and might even have a copy of the Bar's letter of determination. Further, if that attorney was still practicing family and divorce law, perhaps she might be interested in clearing up any misunderstanding and perhaps taking on the case.” I was somewhat taken aback by her outrageous response 5 minutes later: “Nope not interested!! I no longer live in FL AND I WOULD NEVER EVER GET BACK INVOLVED WITH THAT CLIENT!! Please cease and decease from contacting me past this email!!!!” It appeared that Ms. Huddleston had been playing coy as to the complaint; even worse, that she was probably lying about having no knowledge of it; that she remembered her former client very well; that she was being disingenuous in wishing me luck to find Jane legal assistance. Apparently she perceived not only Jane but me as her enemy; I concluded that she was not very wise in barring me from ever contacting her again, as I wanted to hand over the information I had about the complaint along with my article on the subject so she could give me a rebuttal prior to publication. I had identified myself as a journalist; the information I had on hand had already been made public years ago; the information appeared to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I had offered Ms. Huddleston the opportunity of rebutting the claims made. Ms. Huddleston is an officer of the court hence a public figure. The public has a definite interest in knowing about the conduct of officers and the court, and about the institution that disciplines them. Therefore the public deserves and is entitled to this information. Please stand by. More information will be forthcoming in ‘The Brevard County Den of Vipers’ series.

Copy of document from Case No. 99-30325 Florida Bar v Huddleston – all records, including the record that there were records, was destroyed by The Florida Bar: Sept. 10, 1998 The Florida Bar 1200 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Fl. 32804-6314 Re: Complaint against Mary Pamela Huddleston, Esq. Case No. 99-30-325(18C) Dear Ms. Savitz: This is in response to Ms Huddleston’s letter dated to you Aug. 31, 1998 and sent to me Sept. 10, 1998. Ms Huddleston mentions in her second line that she represented me for a short period of time in 1994, but the record reflects this to be untrue. I would like to know what date she
6 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

speaks of in 1994 for she did not even show up at the pre-trial on February 2, 1994. And it was noticed to her. She took my money and told me she would help me get a divorce for 1,500.00 dollars and represented to me that she could do that for this amount, and according to the contract that we had and was signed by Ms Huddleston she agreed to asking the judge to have my former husband pay attorney fees if that amount ran out. Completely unknown to me she went in secret to the court house Dec. 22, 1993 and withdrew without a hearing - the rule says I must be noticed of a hearing so I can be present. I do not at any time remember anything about a joint stipulation, and I see there is no date on that stipulation; I’m baffled as to when it might have been signed. If it was on the occasion that Ms Huddleston and Ms Kalbac - who under false pretenses brought me to their office, claiming they had worked out an out of court settlement, which turned out to not be true as the record proves then clearly and emphatically and beyond any doubt that document was signed under circumstances of severe distress and by coercion on her part. Without my approval Ms Huddleston canceled my hearing before the judge for temporary relief and F.S. 61.16 (1) should have been asked for at that hearing. Why does Huddleston fail to mention this part? On that day I never mentioned Legal Aid nor said I would apply because at that time I still had income from my rental property. This is absurd for Huddleston to be making up this accusation. The rule book for attorneys makes it crystal clear on just how attorneys may withdraw, stating there must be a hearing held and a notice sent to the client. It also goes on to state that stipulation cannot be used in things that are substantial; leaving no doubt those things that are substantial as this is cannot be done by way of stipulation. Instead, for an attorney to withdraw there must be a hearing, which was not done in this case. Why does she fail to address these facts? Ms. Huddleston mentions she does not know if any of these attorneys have ever represented Ms Favreau [me], which does not address anything of relevance to the case you have before you. Attorney Martocci fills his papers with this superficiality stuff, not addressing it also. In my last letter I told you the case number where Ms Huddleston and Ms Kalbac were accused of working together while on opposite sides in the same time period. In the last line of the Aug. 31, 1998 letter, Ms Huddleston claims her withdrawal would not affect the client’s rights. Ms. Huddleston had in her possession the Doctor’s letters stating my severe condition pertaining to spouse abuse and the aftermath, of being impaired and subject to post trauma stress disorder; she clearly had first hand knowledge of my trauma and my poor emotional condition. It is absurd to even attempt to make a statement that her withdrawal would not put me jeopardy. Surely, she was required to keep a copy of our contract as I still have my copy. Ms Huddleston misrepresents what really took place. She did not zealously represent me for the amount of money paid. This is obvious, and on top of that she did grave harm to the disabled client’s case by canceling an important hearing. There is no excuse for this outrageous treatment to her client.
7 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

Note on 1-21-94, Docket No. 33, Order for a non jury trial was sent to Pamela Huddleston address; 112 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Fl. 32901. Document 33 in case 93-9107 shows that the orders for trial were sent to Pamela Huddleston on 1-21-94. On document 34 you will find the statement 2-2-94 was the first time the former wife found out she had no attorney because she was abandoned without a hearing so she could tell the judge of her disabilities and impairments and in need of FS 61.16. Ms. Huddleston states falsely that a pre trial was set for 221-94; according to the records this is an order for trial and was sent to her not to Ms Favreau. Check out document 33 of case 93-9107. “Termination of relationship liability of attorneys, The Professional Ethics Commission: The attorney must not act adversely to client’s interest until the legal representation is completed, whether by conclusion of the clients matter......” As an attorney Ms. Huddleston knew or should have known it was against the rules to try and withdraw with out a hearing being held, and at the same time to cancel an important case hearing was outrageous in her actions as it caused the case to clearly appear that she was selling out to the other side. It’s of significant importance to note that [in the phone book advertisement] she indicated that she had been an Assistant State Prosecutor and knew the laws about prosecuting a criminal for domestic violence. It sure looks like she sold out to the other side because she did not make sure the Order for restitution was properly finished to say how much restitution was to be. She sold out I tell you. Edna Jane Favreau EXHIBIT Attached was found an advertisement identifying Pamela Huddleston as “Former State Prosecutor” and “Former Law Enforcement Officer” now offering “FREE CONSULTATION in “Family Law” and “Personal Injury”, practicing at “112 W. NEW HAVEN, AVE. MELBOURNE 725-4207

8 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

EXHIBIT OF DOCKET (In this case I am the Respondent-Petitioner) the R stands for Respondent) 10 08 93 12 ANSWER TO COUNTER PETITION W F FAVREAU 10 12 93 13 NOTICE: FILING FIN AFDVT RESP 10 12 93 14 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT E J FAVREAU RESP 10 14 93 15 AMENDED NTC HRG MOTION TEMP RELIEF PET HRG DATE, TIME ETC MBC 10-18 @10 T 10 15 93 16 OBJECTIONS TO: TEMP RELIEF HRG PET Walter Favreau 10 15 93 17 AMENDED NTC HRG MOTION TEMP RELIEF PET HRG DATE, TIME ETC FRP 11-1 9:30 R 10 21 93 18 MOTION: COMPEL DISCOVERY W FAVREAU

10 21 93 19 NTC HRG: FOREGOING MOTION FRP 10-28 8:30 T W FAVREAU [“piggy back” on my hearing it’s not fair] 10 22 93 20 OBJECTIONS TO: MOT COMPEL RESP 10 26 93 21 NTC FILING ANS INTERROGS OF E FAVREAU RESP
9 | P a g e    

Justice Blind to Injustice 

 

10 27 93 22 MOTION: TEMPORARY RELIEF

W FAVREAU W FAVREAU

10 27 93 23 NTC HRG: FOREGOING MOTION FRP 11-1 9:30 R

11 09 93 24 NTC CANCEL HRG SCHEDULED 11-1 9:30 E J FAVREAU’s attorney 11 12 93 25 JOINT STIPULATION RESTRAIN ORD PET & RESP both Attorneys 11 12 93 26 ORDER: APPROVING FOREGOING STIP judge FRANK R POUND JR 11-10 11 22 93 27 RESPONSE TO NTC PROD W FAVREAU E J FAVREAU

11 22 93 28 ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

11 29 93 29 NTC N/J TRIAL ORIG ACT; APPROX 3 HRS PET Note: I was told there was going to be an out of court settlement and to come to Pam Huddleston but when I got there my attorney tricked me and canceled my Hearing - that was scheduled way back and it was piggy backed with a hearing from Ms Kalbac - Huddleston picked up the phone and called the JA (Nancy) to Judge Pound and cancelled the hearing. But, no ‘out of court’ papers were signed… It was a ‘trick’, plain and simple. They were afraid I would be able to get a message to the judge in writing about what tricks they were playing on a disabled impaired woman who needed the laws of ADA to protect her. So, they canceled the hearing so I would not be able to get to the judge. I sent Notice to the judge in writing but Nancy said she was not going to show it to the judge, so I filed it with the clerk of court for the records but “no one” reads pro se documents.

10 | P a g e    

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful