This page consists of a series of updates to the status of the matter; the most recent being at the end of the page.

MARCH 12, 1997, UPDATE:

I don't wish to go to trial represented by my present attorney, Mr. Hendry; for he simply has divided loyalties. This is exemplified by the Fort Myers News-Press STORY appearing the day after my 4/23/96, trial resulting in a hung jury. And I am confident that should I have an attorney that isn't divided in loyalties, the case will be won.

Trial has been scheduled several times since then and is currently scheduled for 3/24/97.

After my sit-in demonstration at University of Florida School of Law Dean Richard Matasar's office, University of Florida Law Professor Joseph Little expressed an interest in representing me both in my criminal bomb threat case and a possible civil case for damages.

I telephoned my attorney's secretary 16 days before the next trial was scheduled, requesting her to ask him to telephone Professor Little and assist him to review the case but he didn't do so until one or or two days before the scheduled trial, and then only after I had complained to the court about it. That was of course too late for Professor Little to decide anything.

Thus after the previously scheduled trial, I needed to get a copy of the record to Professor little to look over to determine whether he was interested. Thus to that end I have filed two motions with the court.

I am advised by Mr. Hendry's secretary on 3/12/97, that subsequent to filing the motions, Mr. Hendry has not attempted to communicate with either me or Professor Little outside of a notice of the trial date to me, he hasn't sent me or professor Little any of the requested materials and the motions have not been set for hearing or heard by the court, and the subject has not been addressed by anyone otherwise to my knowledge.

Over the two years Mr. Hendry has represented me, he has filed three motions to withdraw from the case and one motion to have me declared mentally incompetent to stand trial (all of which were denied), and I have gone to great lengths to locate other counsel as well; and thus on the face of it it would appear Mr. Hendry would be doing everything possible to assist Professor Little in the matter, rather than just the one telephone conversation after I complained to the court.

As well, Professor Little would not cost the taxpayers anything; whereas the taxpayers are paying for Mr. Hendry, which I believe had cost them something like $6,000 the last time I saw something in the record about it. And of course I am only allowed to have taxpaid counsel if I can't get counsel otherwise. And compared to the costs of counsel for trial and other matters, the actual cost (ie cost of materials, labor and postage) of a copy of the record for Professor Little is negligible, probably less than $50.

I don't know anything about Professor Little and he probably knows little about me outside of some of the more prominent aspects of my situation such as my three "Baker Acts" and many civil disobedience arrests. It was also obvious to me in talking to him after he had talked to Mr. Hendry that Mr. Hendry was portraying me as a nut case; it would appear to dissuade him from becoming involved in the case.

As brought out in this web page, throughout these three years, the focus of the entire legal profession has been on discrediting me as a ploy to avoid having to address its own deficiencies; with all the circumstances suggesting this is a well traveled and successful ploy. For, state power becomes a powerful narcotic and those who control it can use it for good or evil or for their own gain with relative impunity.

This is exemplified by the fact that to my knowledge, no investigations into any of the issues I have raised, many of them far more serious than what I spent ten months in jail for, have ever been made. The legal profession simply holds itself above the law.

Thus, whatever deficiencies I may have, it is of course my hope that the legal profession will now, after these three years, be willing to come to grips with itself and address its own deficiencies, not only in my case, but with the other issues addressed in this web page and elsewhere.

APRIL 23, 1997, UPDATE:

On 3/14/97, The Court on its own motion removed Mr. Hendry as my counsel, and assigned me new counsel, Brian Boyle.

I filed a motion for continuance for the 3/24/97 trial date, advising the court I was in Gainesville; and I did not attend the scheduled trial. (I was unaware that Mr. Hendry had been removed.)

On 3/20/97, Mr. Hendry filed a motion to withdraw although it appears he had already been removed by the Court. He had of course previously filed three motions to withdraw, all denied.

I have been in contact with Mr. Boyle or his office four times since receiving the information that he was now representing me. Most recently, I talked to his secretary on 4/21/97 and she advised me he is still trying to obtain the file from Mr. Hendry.

Mr. Boyle's office also advised me the trial has been continued until 6/16/97.




There is little to my knowledge concerning the matter that has transpired since the last update above. To my knowledge there have been no investigations of any ethical infractions, or investigations/legal actions otherwise regarding any of the issues presented anywhere in this Web site, to date.

MAY 15, 1999, UPDATE:

This update is the same as the previous one of December 22, 1998, above. Nothing to my knowledge has transpired since then. To my knowledge there have been no investigations of any ethical infractions, or investigations/legal actions otherwise regarding any of the issues presented anywhere in this Web site, to date.


Same as May 15, 1999, update above.

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