Comment: This letter contains the first plea bargain that was offered to me. I had at this time been in jail for ten months. It is also the first time I had seen, or known of the existence of, the AMENDED INFORMATION, although I had gone to great lengths to learn what the case against me was including a 19 day hunger strike in jail. The reason he sent a copy of the Amended Information to me is that I had seen the document in his case folder shortly before, through the jail interview window, and requested a copy. (To compare the Amended Information with the Information, this is the INFORMATION )

It may also be noted that he does not explain that the fourth charge was phony on its face, being a hodge podge of two statutes, the only possible purpose of which was to convince me it was a credible charge; requiring the cooperation of my attorney in the deception. Nor does he explain that there was no affidavit from anyone, Commissioner Judah, or anyone else, backing up both the third and fourth charges. This is of course very elementary information that he had an obligation, as my lawyer, to know and advise me of. It is also information that he undoubtedly knew. And it is information I spent three plus years trying to get out of him and other taxpayer paid attorneys.

However, instead of advising of these and many other things, he is making the letter sound as if I would be wise to accept the plea bargain with a conviction on all four charges; wanting my formal rejection of the State's offer as soon as possible.

What's the rush? It didn't bother him or anyone else to have me sitting in jail for almost a year without knowing the charges against me, receiving any plea bargain offer, or going to trial. (There are serious problems with the first two charges from David Owen as well, contained in other documentation).

The evidence suggests that he was involved in stealing my notice of appeal from the record as discussed elsewhere. Shortly after this letter, he wrote another LETTER accusing me of psychiatric problems and withdrawing from the case.

Being accused of psychiatric problems as a smoke screen to duck responsibility for crooked dealings, has of course been all but standard procedure in all of my dealings with the legal profession.

Appendix Page 47 and 48

Law Offices of
Alderman and Ahlbrand, P.A.

January 12, 1995

Frank C. Alderman, III
Mark W. Ahlbrand

1533 Hendry Street
Post Office Box 1530
Fort Myers, Florida 33902-1530
941/334-7899 Fax 941/334-0770

Robert Allston
c/o Lee County Jail
1700 Monroe Street
Fort Myers, Florida 33901

Re: State V. Robert Allston
Case No. 94-803CF

Dear Mr. Allston:

This is to confirm our conversation of this date at the Lee County Jail. First, I am enclosing herewith copies of the amended Information, along with the original Information. You will notice that in the amended Information they took Ray Judah's name out of Counts I and II, and replaced them with David Owen. In Counts III and IV, they took David Owen's name out, and replaced it with "a Lee County Commissioner or an employee in the Office of Lee County Commissioner".

This will also confirm that I discussed with you again the law in the State of Florida as specifically set out in Smith v. State, 532 So.2d, which basically says that it doesn't matter what you intended; it is what is perceived by the receiving persons that counts. Accordingly, if the jury believes that your paper was "sufficient to cause alarm in reasonable persons", you will likely be found guilty.

Nevertheless, the primary purpose of my visit was to advise you that the State Attorney's Office, at my behest, has agreed to recommend to Judge Nelson that you, upon entering a plea herein, be sentenced to 2 years community control, followed by 3 years of probation. There are a number of other conditions, but the bottom line is that their offer would allow you to dispose of this case, get out of jail, and get on with your life.

Your initial reaction was the you were not at all interested, that you wanted me to continue to attempt to obtain expert witnesses who would testify simply that the letter was written in an editorial style; and, bottom line, that you wanted your day in court. So be it.

This letter is to further confirm that I have requested my staff to make copies of the file for your review, it being understood that you already have copies of the court file up through June 28 and copies of all of the depositions. We are preparing the copies for you and will get them to you by the middle of next week.

Finally, this is to further confirm that you are going to formally respond to me regarding the State's offer to dispose of this case, and will let me hear from you as soon as possible.

Wishing both of us the best of luck, I am

Very truly yours,

Frank C. Alderman, III



This is a page in the Web site entitled Legal Reform Through Transforming the Discipline of Law into a Science.