Corrupt State Attorney Hinders Efforts to Depose Witnesses
Bruce Bartlett, the corrupt State Attorney from Pinellas and Pasco County, Florida, through his Assistant State Attorney, Kendall Davidson, interfered with the proper administration of justice when Bartlett, through Davidson, repeatedly instructed Juanita Meek, now known as Juanita Sellars, not answer questions I posed to her during Meek’s most recent deposition.
The law is quite clear regarding attorney conduct pertaining to depositions.
In Smith v. Gardy, 569 So.2d 504 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the appellate court specifically stated that attorneys may not instruct witnesses not to answer questions in a deposition and to do so is without legal justification. The appellate court went on to state that “[n]owhere in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is there a provision that states that an attorney may instruct a witness not to answer a question.”
There is also no provision in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure pertaining to witnesses either. The sole exception is for a criminal suspect or defendant. A suspect or defendant has a constitutional right not to answer questions which may incriminate him or her.
My civil commitment case is considered to be a civil action, instigated by the State Attorney. It is therefore not surprising that the State Attorney would do everything possible to hinder my ability to represent myself which, interestingly enough, also covers up his illegal unethical, dirty, crooked and corrupt acts and actions.
In the Smith case the appellate court noted that the conduct by the attorney in instructing the witness not to answer was “arrogant.” The word arrogant is an adjective which means “- having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride.” It also means acting like an asshole, although an appellate court would not use such language.
I am not so constrained.
In spite of the clear law regarding this subject, during the deposition I did on Juanita Meek ASA Davidson repeatedly, and without lawful authority, instructed Meek not to answer my questions. Davidson’s conduct was no less arrogant than that set forth in Smith and is an example of Davidson being a typical, complete and total asshole. When Kendall Davidson failed to instruct Meek not to answer a question that Meek or Davidson did not like, Meek followed Davidson’s lead and decided to take it upon herself and refused to answer the question on her own. When Meek did this Davidson just smiled.
But Kendall Davidson being an asshole did not stop there.
When I deposed Elizabeth George/Baker, Cathy Bearshak and Michelle Habart, Davidson also instructed them not to answer certain questions of mine. One question posed to Baker, in particular, was if Baker ever tried to commit suicide, and subsequent planned questions of when, how many times, where and why. Davidson instructed Baker not to answer.
Asshole.
In the case of Elizabeth George/Baker, Baker picked up on Davidson’s circus antics and started objecting to questions and refusing to answer herself, not even waiting for Davidson to lodge an objection and instruct Baker not to answer.
Being an asshole must be contagious.
I deposed and questioned a witness who testified, under oath, that her name was “Cathy Bearshak.” I subsequently deposed Michelle Habart. When I questioned Michelle Habart as to the name of Cathy Bearshak, Habart responded that Bearshak was not Cathy’s last name. Perplexed, I asked Habart what Cathy’s last name was. ASA Kendall Davidson jumped up and told Habart not to answer. This was very interesting. It meant that Davidson knew at the time I deposed Cathy that Cathy’s last name was not Bearshak and that Davidson knew Cathy was lying under oath and committing perjury when she said that it was. Clearly Cathy Bearshak (or whatever her name is) conspired with Davidson to present false testimony and hide relevant facts, such as her legal name.
Double asshole.
What is Davidson trying to hide pertaining to Cathy’s name? What doesn’t Davidson (and Cathy Bearshak) want me to find out?
The proper procedure, assuming there is an objection to a question, is for the witness to answer the question and if an objection needs to be lodged then Davidson files a motion in limine prior to trial to keep that evidence out of trial. Davidson, being the unprofessional asshole that he is, simply refuses to play fair and comply with the law, no doubt on instructions from State Attorney Bruce Bartlett.
I have to go before Judge Paul Levine and get an order instructing the witnesses to answer my questions. While there, I might ask for another order instructing Davidson to stop being an asshole.
Kendall Davidson’s conduct not only violated Florida law; it also violated the Florida Bar Rules pertaining to attorney conduct.
This is just another clear instance which shows that the State Attorney’s Office for Pasco and Pinellas County, Florida is dirty, crooked and corrupt and is interfering with my ability to defend himself. Apparently, you also have to be a First Class Asshole to work for Bruce Bartlett and the Office of the State Attorney.
Considering that suspects/defendants have a constitutional right not to incriminate themselves and refuse to answer questions, was Davidson afraid that his witnesses may incriminate themselves in criminal conduct - such as conspiracy to commit perjury with the State Attorney or some other criminal offense involving the State Attorney’s Office? Was Davidson afraid that their answers would reveal more of the dirty, crooked and corrupt things that took place during my criminal proceedings and that are taking place during my civil commitment proceedings? Was the witnesses’ refusal to answer the questions I posed to them indicative that they were aware that they engaged in some type of criminal conduct that they wanted to keep covered up and not want to incriminate themselves over? Remember, only those involved in criminal conduct have a right to remain silent.
What are they afraid of?
It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Copyright © 2022 by Gary L. Perrot
All Rights Reserved.
Copying or reproduction by any means is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Gary L. Perrot.
