MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Series: The Johnson Ordeal

AN EXEMPLARY LAWYER
BY DAVID ARTHUR WALTERS

Nothing in our series of articles on The Johnson Ordeal is intended to assert or to imply that any
of the lawyers and judges concerned actually committed crimes or breaches of professional
ethics in regards to the Johnsons. The Johnson Ordeal is merely a description of what Florida
lawyers may do for a living with the consent and condonation of the Supreme Court of the State
of Florida and its Florida Bar. The issue has been referred to the Florida Legislature in
conjunction with its efforts to amend the statute inhibiting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation.

Page 1 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

David Johnson is a dead man! Col. Arthur W. Tifford, Esq. concluded to himself out loud
after reviewing the plan he had sketched on the big white dry-eraser board erected in the Miami
office that he called his War Room. His motto was scrawled in red capital letters at the top of his
eraser board, and below that rubric was outlined the battle plan for Libow v. Johnson.

TAKE NO PRISONERS

Recruit Judge Hafele Palm Beach Country Club

Play Zip Code Game
Use Sawyers Zip Code - Move Case to Judge Hafele
Dismiss Small Claim - Fool The Johnsons into thinking its over
Reopen Claim Without Notice Have Clerk Insert into Docket Later
Rewrite History of Case Fabricate or Twist Facts as Needed
Move to Strike Johnsons Pleas & to Hold Him in Contempt for Fraud
Notice of Service to Circular File
Set Hearing for Ex parte Ambush In Absentia
Review Barred Discovery Docs With Hafele In Chambers
Hafele Affirms The Johnsons Fraud
Take Fraud Judgment to Circuit Court
Damn Forever The Johnsons For Fraud on Courts.

The litigious warrior in his tailor-made Brooks Brothers suit turned away from the planning
board and paced the office as he was wont to do, circling his war room counter-clockwise with
his hands clasped Napoleon-like behind his back. He paused along the way to gaze affectionately
at his diplomas from Queens College and Brooklyn Law School, and his admissions to the New
York and Florida bars and to federal courts including the military court. One plaque on the wall,
commending him for his special service to the Treasury Department, delights him the most; he
likes to confide to clients that it is really from The Agency, to thank him for going on special
assignments behind enemy lines in Vietnam. Is there is any truth to that, or to the rumor that
the Treasury Department actually honored him for turning in a client, the bagman for the Black
Tuna Gang, to the Internal Revenue Service?
In any case, he completed his tour of the office behind his desk, where he momentarily stood as
if he were a captain on the bridge of a Navy destroyer. He made sure all the pens and the stapler
thereon were perfectly aligned with one another before he sat down, and then he proceeded to
examine some papers. He extracted his gold-plated scissors from a top drawer and cut the ones
he did not want into 16 squares before shuffling and discarding them into his wastebasket. He
withdrew a compass and a Navy SEAL survival knife from a bottom drawer, gazed for a moment
at the compass as if to get his bearings, and then sharpened the knife with fierce intent, as if
preparing to butcher his worst enemy.
Yes, indeed, I have him bagged. Johnsons a dead man!

Page 2 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

The artful representation above is based upon statements provided by a disgruntled intimate who
filed complaints about our exemplary lawyer with the Florida Bar.
The Johnsons hard-earned assets were small potatoes in comparison to Tiffords big wins, but a
private dick looked at Johnsons house, and it was supposed that Johnson would rather cough up
$100,000, what is known in the trade as the sweet spot, rather than shell out $250,000 in legal
fees to protect his family from the malicious prosecution of the attorneys, who had the enormous
advantage of a legal education and the comradeship of judges, and did not have to hire unrelated
attorneys to prosecute their side of the case. Besides, this Libow v. Johnson case was a family
matter: his daughter Melissa was involved. Wherefore Tifford appears to have masterminded the
search-and-destroy mission against Johnson and his wife Jane on behalf of his son-in-law, Allen
H. Libow, Esq.
On August 24, 2004, the Libow firm filed a complaint against Johnson in small claims court for
$1,621 in legal fees after offering to drop them if only Johnson would allow Libow firm to
continue to represent him instead of allowing Cynthia Becker, an attorney leaving the firm, to
take the case with her. Johnson had already paid a $5,000 retainer; the $1,621 was net of several
substantial adjustments made to the account, including a charge for simply calculating the fees
and costs, and for a court appearance that was not made. But the balance still included charges
for research that Johnson had expressly forbade the firm to conduct without his prior consent,
which he had not given. Fighting the small claim alone without benefit of counsel and being
outmaneuvered by Tifford would eventually cost him the small amount claimed plus an
assessment of $44,000 in fees and costs for the other side. He made the mistake of filing a
privileged complaint with the Florida Bar, for which he was pursued with a specious defamation
suit.
Little did Johnson know that he would be hounded by a bevy of nine attorneys in small claims
court, and then, after having his motion for a speedy trial dismissed, and after waiving a jury trial
in order to finally get a trial date set, that he would be hoodwinked by Tifford into thinking his
case had been dismissed so he would not appear for Tiffords ex parte ambush, and have his case
assigned to a certain small claims court judge recruited for the purpose by Tifford, Judge Donald.
J. Hafele, despite his desperate pleas to return it to a judge sympathetic with his disadvantage
against the bevy of licensed predators, Judge Johnson, who had barred the lawyers from
introducing discovery documents from circuit court into the county small claims court.
Neither did he suspect that he and his wife would eventually be facing six attorneys at a trial,
wherein Judge Hafele, after allegedly being recruited by Tifford for the prior ex parte ambush,
dismissed two of the three witnesses Johnson had subpoenaed, and refused to grant a
continuation so Johnson could serve the most important one, Allen Libow himself, who had
managed to evade service. Nor did he suppose that the trial judge would ignore the fact that the
law firm had stated that the file on which the fees were based had been stolen yet also swore that
the file had been reviewed, and would then doom Johnson, awarding the ravenous pack of
attorneys nearly $44,000 in fees and costs.
Now the layman may think it incredible that a small claims case on a $1,621 claim, where the
defendant is representing himself, would be pursued for over three years, and then more during
the collection process, by nine attorneys. After all, Rule 7.010 (a) of the Florida Small Claims
Rules reads: Title. These rules shall be cited as Florida Small Claims Rules and may be

Page 3 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

abbreviated Fla. Sm. Cl. R. These rules shall be construed to implement the simple, speedy, and
inexpensive trial of actions at law in county courts. David Johnsons fate in small claims court
is sad but true: he was crushed by Goliath.

Our exemplary lawyer, then licensed to practice in Florida and New York, but now disbarred in
both states, overcompensates for his slight build and baggy suit jackets with an invisible virtual
epaulette or gilded chips on his shoulders. He poses on his website in front of a bookcase filled
with uniform rows of law digests, advertising himself on his virtual shingle as a Military Judge
and as Judge Advocate General as if he were in truth no less than General Arthur W. Tifford.

Capt Arthur Tifford, far right, being sworn in as special court-martial military judge
with others on August 1, 1969, at the First Marine Division Headquarters in Da Nang

In truth there happens to be only one Judge Advocate General at a time in the Navy, and Tifford
has never been one. He graduated from law school in 1967 and enlisted. He may have been
rather short but he was tall enough for the United States Marines to mightily boost his self-
esteem. He was made a captain and appointed a special-court-martial magistrate attached to the
1st Marine Division in Vietnam. A special two-week training course, usually conducted in the
Philippines, was required to become a military magistrate as part of a last-ditch effort to curb
Page 4 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

rampant disrespect for authority and indiscipline among the troops, a state of affairs described as
a near collapse of the army.
Tifford is wont to claim that the Marines would have made him a general if only he had
continued with his special assignments in the jungles, where he says he personally put many men
into body bags. But he said his wife ordered him to stand down and decline the generalship
because she feared gravely for his life. Responsible for the successful court martial of two dozen
soldiers including three commissioned officers for marijuana offenses, he was already the most
likely JAG officer to be fragged by friendly snipers.

Capt. Tiffords task as a military judge in Vietnam would normally have been to handle
relatively minor offenses such as marijuana and insubordination. We painfully recall that drug
and alcohol abuse was widespread as a means of escape from the anxieties of the Vietnam War.
Insubordination was running rampant among the demoralized and disgruntled grunts that made
up most of the ground force actually fighting the war, which seemed from their perspective to be
a war on the peasantry on behalf of the Asian feudal landlords supported by Western
reactionaries for whom the promotion of mandatory communal sharing at their expense was a
capital offense.
Lawyers schooled in the English tradition may consider communist affiliations as treasonous
since a communist state has no independent judiciary to protect the interests of the propertied
class. As Blackstone has wisely pointed out, the beginning of the study of English law should
appertain to its original service to land lords, asserting their legal right to their holdings however
gotten. That is, the prime objective of early English law was to maintain and enhance the
dominion of the lords over the realm, with necessary concessions to the populace governed.
Sadly, the gentleman lawyer and statesman, left to his own devices in competition with his kind
as organized against the rest, becomes a scourge on society as the profession becomes merely a
power-hungry, money-grubbing trade.
Vietnam was an opportunity for officers to accelerate their advancement, depending on the body
counts returned by search-and-destroy missions: the more kills, the higher the pay. If an officer
did not perform in terms of body counts, he would be rotated out for good. Officer tours were
only half the duration of enlisted men, anyway, which did not suit the rank and file. The casualty
rate among the high ranking officers was very low and the number of officers was large. Thanks
to the draft, there was plenty of fodder to risk in procuring higher enemy body counts. Fraggings
were on the rise along with insubordination, which had gotten so widespread that commanders
had to negotiate with troops to induce them to go into battle on some occasions, instead of court-
martialing and sentencing them to death for refusing to do so.
Capt. Tifford, who left the service as a colonel, claims to have contributed to higher body counts.
He was wont to brag to visitors to his Miami law office War Room that he worked in Vietnam as
an interrogator with the CIA, that he always got the information from prisoners that he wanted
before they were dispensed with. The notorious Phoenix program to which he seems to allude
was described by its critics as an indiscriminate assassination and arbitrary mass murder
operation designed to terrorize people into submission to dominant authority. Conspiracy
theorists claim that the program was rooted in covert operations that included, for example, the
assassination of Martin Luther King for his opposition to the Vietnam War, and the assassination
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy shortly after he had decided to withdraw troops from Vietnam. Of

Page 5 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

course patriotic lawyers refer to the Phoenix murders as extra-judicial killings if not
perfectly legal executions, legal at least according to the law of the land in which the war
occurs. Of course the ancient commandment is Thou shalt do no murder and not Thou shalt
not kill, so legalized killing is not murder.

Tifford returned to Florida after a brief stint as an instructor at the Newport Naval Justice School.
He then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division of the Southern District of
Florida, where he specialized in fraud and racketeering. He went into private practice in 1972 as
a criminal defense lawyer, defending, for example, members of the infamous Black Tuna Gang
aka the Square Groupers in reference bales of marijuana, whose operations stretched from
Florida and the Caribbean up to Cape Fear22,000 pounds of pot on one of their boats was
seized off Cape Fear. But that was a drop in the bucket: according to a defendant in United
States v. Phillips (664 F.2d 971), the gang handled a million pounds of pot in only one of the
four years covered by the indictment. Pot dealers are heroes today; Tifford himself stars in the
movie widely acclaimed by potheads, Square Groupers The Godfathers of Ganja.

Scene from Square Grouper (marijuana bales)

When it became more and more difficult to assert certain civil rights defenses for drug dealers,
Tifford turned to representing persons charged with white collar crimes including stock fraud. He
touts a few big financial kills in the law business, including, most notably, the ones listed in the
National Law Journals Top 100 Verdicts for 2001, 2003, and 2005. The awards total in the
hundreds of millions of dollars, probably more that the total take of the Black Tuna Gang, but the
liquidated value was far less. Suffice it to say that Tifford should be a multimillionaire today.

Civilian judges familiar with him call him Colonel Tifford. We do not have his service record
at present, but it appears from the autobiographical material on his website that he was on active
duty for about four years. During the planned March 26, 2007, ex parte ambush of the Johnsons,
he represented to Palm Beach County Court Judge Donald W. Hafele that he is a retired colonel,
having serving the nation in the Marines for thirty years:

Now, Mr. Johnson's portraying himself as ignorant and the victim of an overreaching law firm,
frankly, is part of his modus operandi, which goes beyond what is relevant to the Small Claims
dispute, he averred. We've confronted (the) Circuit Court action almost to a disgusting level.

Page 6 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

And I would use that word even if he was standing here facing me during this hearing. What he
does is he attacks attorneys. He even attacked me three times during the first two sessions of his
deposition, calling me aI'll use the abbreviationAH, calling me a convicted felon, accusing
me of being in prison and having a cell mate, and on and on. I could only say that when I retired
my commission from the United States Marine Corp. (sic) I'm a Reserve, as a colonel, I didn't
think anybody at headquarters Marine Corp., during my 30 years with the Corp., ever thought I
was in prison and had a cell mate with a cell number, but that's another story for another day.
As a matter of fact, we can say today that Colonel Tifford was arrested, jailed, and convicted by
a jury in 1975 of two felony counts for conspiring to aid his client A.K Bronstein avoid detection
and arrest, and thus was charged with being an accessory after the fact. By virtue of a federal
writ of habeas corpus, he was released from the custody of the Florida Department of Offender
Rehabilitation in 1978. The state appealed and lost. The Supreme Court of Florida said the
federal decision was tantamount to an acquittal, but the Florida Bar was free to make inquiries
before reinstating Tifford to the bar. No inquiries were made, possibly because there was some
truth to the rumors that he was protected by the CIA or Treasury. He was reinstated without any
inquiry.

No doubt Tifford was projecting his Vietnam experiences onto Johnson, whose attacks on
attorneys, namely on the bevy of attorneys banded together to pursue him and his wife to hell
and back in the small claims, circuit, and appellate courts, constituted a sort of insurgency
against the noble patriotic profession rightfully dominating the nation.
Tiffords paranoia around the enemy led him to believe that Mr. Johnson had directly referred to
him in anal terms because Johnson had said that, although he was not a proctologist, he
recognized an asshole when he saw one.
So, it's your word against Mr. Libow as to whether or not you threatened him and his wife and
his children in that phone conversation? asked Tifford, referring to Libows allegation, which
he had made to the policeJohnson was not charged with anything, and claimed to the Florida
Bar that Libow had made a false police report to put further pressure on him to settle their
dispute.

He never made any allegation that I did, Johnson answered.

He didn't?
No.
Well, what was that police report all about?
He made the police report because he didn't realize they were going to ask him for his
documentation.
Really?
Yes.
In addition to self-education, are you also a clairvoyant, Mr. Johnson?

Page 7 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Objection as to form, argumentative, interjected Mark Perry, Johnsons lawyer.

No.

The facts are---

I'm not a proctologist either, Tifford, but I recognize an asshole when I see one.
Well, stop looking at me when you speak those words.
How apropos.
Do you have anger issues, Mr. Johnson?
Johnson had every right to be angry with his flame-throwing provocateursome rabbis say it is
a good thing to hate your persecutors, especially when they want to cut your throat and sacrifice
you to the pagan gods in a holocaustthe primitive priests got the fat, liver, and kidneys, while
the gods got the smoke. Besides, Johnson was simply reciting a wisecrack bandied about by
wiseacres. At the very most the anal reference might refer to any lawyer, or to Alaska residents
because it is a term of endearment in that state. But the term stuck to Mr. Tifford as far as Tifford
was concerned. He took it as a personal offense, and would indignantly complaint to Judge
Hafele about it. He and the judge no doubt thought that the vocalization had slandered every
member of bar and bench, as if an asshole were their common denominator.

The proctology statement came during a December 22, 2006, deposition Tifford took of Mr.
Johnson in the related circuit court case, where he was representing his son-in-laws firm. The
law firm of his son-in-law, Allen Libow, had sued both Mr. and Mrs. Johnson for defamation
because Mr. Johnson had filed a disciplinary complaint against him with the Florida Bar for his
aggressive fee collection tactics, comparing him to the notorious outlaw, Jesse James. Johnsons
impassioned letter of complaint to the Florida Bar deserves quoting in full:

August 16, 2005

The Florida Bar

651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

To Whom It May Concern:

On January 20, 2004 I retained the legal services of Ms. Cynthia Becker to
represent me as the Plaintiff in a civil action against a Realtor. Ms. Becker was at
the time of retention an associate of the law firm of Libow & Muskat LLP in Boca
Raton, Florida. On or about June 4, 2004, I received a phone call from Cynthia
Becker, informing me that she was leaving the firm of Libow & Muskat and
starting her own practice. She advised me that she was taking, her clients with
her and asked me if I was amenable to that. I had a five-figure sum of money
invested in this litigation and a very important motion scheduled for hearing just
days away.

Page 8 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

This, after a four-month delay, which was the result, I am told, of the failure to
file the proper documentation with the court in a timely manner. That delay was
coupled with an additional $3000+ in legal fees. However, I acquiesced and a
retainer agreement and substitution of counsel was e-mailed to me the same
day by Ms. Becker.

Shortly thereafter I received a telephone call from Allen Libow. Up to that point I
had never had any interaction or communication whatsoever with anyone at
Libow & Muskat other than Ms. Becker.

The phone call from Mr. Libow turned out to be a concentrated effort by him to
talk me out of allowing Ms. Becker to represent me. Initially, Mr. Libow limited
his sales pitch to expounding on the virtues of his firms legal expertise and
resources. It soon digressed into defamatory remarks about the integrity and
competence of Ms. Becker, whom he claimed was working out of a suitcase. His
derogatory remarks about a fellow attorney caught me off guard.

Please keep in mind that I had an important hearing that was scheduled just days
away. According to invoices received from Libow & Muskat, most of the
additional fees were for legal research done by Ms. Becker in preparation for
the impending hearing. This hearing was originally scheduled for February. I was
originally told that the hearing had to be rescheduled because of some faux pas
by opposing counsel. Mr. Libow was eager to tell me that the hearing had
actually been rescheduled because Ms. Becker had failed to file the proper
documentation with the court in a timely manner. Mr. Libow spent the better
part of half an hour trying to convince me to let his firm represent me. His sales
pitch consisted primarily of disparaging remarks about Ms. Beckers competency
and integrity. When I mentioned the excessive fees, he told me that Ms. Becker
had a bad a habit of over billing her clients for legal research. He told me that I
was only one of many clients of Ms. Becker that had complained about excessive
fees. He went on to tell me that because of that, he was forced to make
adjustments to the bills of some clients. I was told that in one case that the
adjustment was nearly $11,000. During our conversation, Mr. Libow
repeatedly offered to wipe the slate clean, saying that I wouldnt owe him a
dime. The more I resisted letting Mr. Libow represent me, the more
defamatory his remarks with regard to Ms. Becker became.

He told me of how ungrateful she was, as he had made a lot of effort to

accommodate her special needs. (Ms. Becker uses a wheelchair.) He told me
she was, fired from her last job for incompetence, and, that if I had any hope
of prevailing in my litigation then I would let him and his firm represent me.
The insults poured out of this man like rain. It didnt take me long to develop a
strong dislike for Mr. Libow. I politely terminated the phone call from Mr. Libow
with a promise to call him back after speaking with my wife about the

Page 9 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

developments. His parting comment was, remember, you wont owe me a

thing, we will start with a clean slate.

My wife and I were devastated by these developments. We had all this time,
money, aggravation and emotion tied up in this litigation and through no fault of
our own here we were in the middle of a war between two attorneys. I waited
more than an hour before calling Ms. Becker. I needed the time to gain my
composure and get in the frame of mind to decide how I was going to handle this
situation.

My wife and I decided that, at this time, it would serve no purpose to inform Ms.
Becker of all the venomous comments of her old boss. We needed Ms. Becker to
represent our interests at this upcoming hearing and we didnt want to say or do
anything that might detract her from that task.

When I finally phoned Ms. Becker I did tell her that we had been contacted by
Mr. Libow.

Without going into very much detail I told her that her old boss was not very
happy about her sudden departure. I also told her of some of his comments and
of his offer to wipe the slate clean. She told me that Mr. Libow had phoned her
as well and that the phone call had ended up in a screaming match. We talked
about many issues including the upcoming hearing. Ms. Becker was very
confident of our position and the probabilities of prevailing. As such, we told her
to e-mail us her Retainer Agreement and the consent To Substitution Of Counsel.
She did, we signed them both and faxed them back to her.

As promised, I phoned Mr. Libow back to advise him of our decision. To say the
least, he was not happy. It was more of the same. I had had just about as much
of Mr. Libow and his venom as I could stand. I told him so, and hung up the
phone. Mr. Libows quest for revenge began almost immediately. He refused to
sign the consent form for substitution of counsel. In an effort to glean more fees
and drive up my expenses he set what would ordinarily be a routine matter for
docket and hearing before the court.

On 7/7/2004 I received the attached demand letter (exhibit A) from Chad Laing,
an associate of Libow & Muskat. My problems with this demand letter were
twofold: 1) Per Mr. Libow, I was over-billed by Ms. Becker, and 2) when last
we spoke, Mr. Libow told me that in light of said over-billing that, I didnt owe
him a dime. I sent the attached response by e-mail (exhibit B) to Mr. Laing the
same day I received his demand and asked him to substantiate his claims.

A week later I received the requested information. Attached are the last two
pages of that document (exhibit C). You will notice that Mr. Libow seeks to
charge me $397.57 for efforts that his associate(s) allegedly made to comply
with my lawful request for substantiation of their claim. According to the revised

Page 10 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

bill it took his associate(s) 1.80 hours at $200 an hour to mail me a 13-page
computer generated document. You will also notice that the alleged work was
done on 6/29 and 6/30, a full week before my request of 7/7/2004. As you know,
State and Federal law mandates that Mr. Libow is statutorily obligated to invoice
his clients without benefit of remuneration. Mr. Libow also knows that.

Jessie James used a horse and a six-gun to carry out his robberies. Mr. Libow
uses a computer and the United States Mail to carry out his. I have since been
told by Ms. Becker that what happened to me was not unique, but was in fact
standard practice with regard to what Mr. Libow considered to be his less
sophisticated clients.

In response to Mr. Libows revised demand, I sent him a certified letter (exhibit
D) advising him that among other thing I did not consider his invoice to be a valid
debt. I cautioned him of the likely consequence should he persist in his demands.
At the same time, I e-mailed a copy of that letter to his office. When Mr. Libow
and/or his associates tried to contact me by phone that same day I sent them
the attached e-mail (exhibit E) dated 7/15/2004, advising them that all
communications between us should be reduced to writing. My experience with
these people up to that point was a strong indication that they could not be
trusted. In light of that I thought it best that all communications between us
should be in writing, and so they were.

Mr. Libow persisted with his demands and a torrent of e-mails went back and
forth between us. My impression of Mr. Libow was that he was a spoiled brat
that was accustomed to getting his way. He had no regard for whom he hurt,
whom he slandered or whom he stole from. Mr. Libow was the center of his own
universe and everything revolved around him. It was becoming equally apparent
that there was no depth to which this man would not stoop to gain some
advantage. At one point Mr. Libow accused me of being anti-Semitic. (exhibit F)
In another, he accused Ms. Becker of among other things, civil theft (exhibit G).

The only thing I ever threatened Mr. Libow with was legal action if he did not go
away and leave us alone. I never once threatened to do anything unlawful or
physical to Mr. Libow or anyone else. At this point all communication between
us had been via e-mail, so, this is an easily verifiable fact. However, that fact
would not prevent Mr. Libow from contacting the Boca Raton Police Department
and the Jacksonville Police Department, concocting a story and filing a false
police report. He claimed that I had made physical threats against him and that
he and his family were in eminent danger of physical violence from me. (exhibit
G 1)

This attorney, made a calculated effort to gain some advantage in this civil
controversy and at the same time avoid his ethical obligations as dictated by
(DR-7-105 rules; 4-3.1, 4-4.4, 4-8.4 (c) and 4-8.4(d)). Apparently this pathetic

Page 11 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

excuse for a man went home and convinced his wife that she and her children
were in eminent physical danger from me. This obviously had the desired effect
on Ms. Libow and a police report claiming imminent physical violence was filed
against me with the authorities.

This incident speaks volumes as to the character and total absence of ethics in
Mr. Libow. Now one of two things has happened. Either this man had no
compunction whatsoever about frightening his wife and children in a calculated
attempt to gain some advantage in this controversy, or his wife is his co-
conspirator. I dont believe the latter to be the case. I suspect that it is possible if
not probable that Mr. Libow modified (forged) some of the e-mails in order to
accomplish the desired effect on his wife. Also, I am told that his wife is on the
verge of divorcing him for other transgressions; perhaps this is why he had no
compunction about scaring her and involving her in this controversy.

An example of Mr. Libows propensity for and expertise at twisting the truth to
suit his psychotic agenda can be found on exhibit G. After convincing his wife
to file a (false) police report on me, he says, I too will be forced to provide an
information statement concerning your physical threats of taking me task etc.
Well, on the third from last paragraph of exhibit D you will find the quote that
he refers to. In total it says that I will, seek every lawful remedy available to me
under every relevant authority to take you to task for your transgressions.

Now, you have to be a pretty creative, twisted, lying son of a bitch to convince
your soon to be ex- wife to report that to the police as a physical threat. This
man deserves to be disbarred. He is a pathological liar. He is intellectually and
emotionally unfit for his position of trust in the community. And he is a disgrace
to his profession.

I have just learned that on August 4, 2004 Mr. Libow sued my wife and I in Palm
Beach County Court. He could have simply filed his threatened charging lien. But
no, that wouldnt allow him to inflate the costs and expenses would it?

Mr. Libow has wrought untold damage on my wife and I. The litigation that we
are so heavily invested in is falling apart, thanks in very large part to Mr. Libow.
Something needs to be done to protect the public from the likes of Mr. Libow
and his band of thieves. I believe thats your job.

Sincerely,

David & Jane Johnson

Cc Florida Attorney Generals Office

The Federal Trade Commission
Governor Jeb Bush

Page 12 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Mrs. Johnson had not actually signed the Bar complaint, but apparently Mr. Johnson had signed
his name alone at the bottom between Sincerely and David and Jane Johnson, so Libow
admittedly made her a party to the suit in hopes of getting all the Johnson property whether held
jointly or severally, something that would irk David Johnson to no end.
Johnson would later infer from court records that Libows firm, with the assistance of Arthur W.
Tifford, Libows father-in-law, appeared to have quite a racket going, and he supposed that he
was one of their unwitting victims. All told, he said that 81 of clients of Libows firm would
eventually be sued after their lawyers departed the firm. For example, one lady who allegedly
owed only $187 wound up settling for $11,000 rather than pay an attorney to defend a claim for
more. As for departing attorneys, Johnson said he counted 12 attorneys who sued Libow after
they departed. That information was reported to the F.B.I. in 2014, along with hearsay alleging
that Tifford asked his son-in-law to help him set up an offshore account to keep Tiffords fortune
secure.
Johnson did not actually send copies of the letter to the Florida attorney general and governor,
and the Federal Trade Commission. Even if he had done so, reasoned the appellate court in his
favor, the publication to agencies besides the Florida Bar would not make the communication
actionable as defamation because we cannot expect people to know exactly what government
offices are responsible for handling particular complaints. Indeed, many complaints feel like ping
pong balls after being paddled back and forth between government agencies.
Johnsons counterclaim against the Libows firm was that it had violated debt collection and
trade practices law.
Fee shakedowns were nothing new to Florida at the time. David J. Stern would become notorious
for running a mammoth robotic litigation operation, signing and filing false affidavits in
foreclosure cases after the Great Recession led by Floridas overheated real estate collapsed. As
far back as 2000, Stern had been ripping off clients for excessive fees. Characteristically, the
Florida Bar did not follow through back then on its original suspicions that Stern had acted
contrary to honesty and justice, collecting excessive fees and making false statements, and other
unethical behavior. The Florida Bar via the Florida Supreme Court merely doled out the lowest
possible discipline, a public reprimand. He settled a class action suit regarding questionable fee
collections for $2.2 million in 2000. Another class action suit filed 2009 in Palm Beach County,
the very county where Libow was operating, sought damages under Floridas debt collections
practices statute and Floridas Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Other causes of action
stated by various plaintiffs included causes under the Federal Debt Collections Practices Act,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and securities fraud. So, while Sterns
business grew to have 1,200 employees, becoming, in 2010, the largest foreclosure filer in
Florida, processing upwards of 75,000 cases a year, with each lawyer handling 2,500 cases at a
time, he was gaining a reputation for malpractice violation of ethical standards.
During the course of the Libow vs. Johnson small claims court litigation, at the February 1, 2005,
hearing in the Palm Beach County Court, one Eric J. Stockel, a lawyer with Libows firm, Libow
& Shaheen LLP, now representing Libows former firm, Libow & Muskrat LLP, and also
counter-defendants and counter-plaintiffs Allen and Melissa Libow, against whom the Johnsons
had filed a counterclaim which they had to counter, indicated that the Libows were countering
the Johnsons counterclaim against them with a suit against the Johnsons for defamation, claiming

Page 13 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

damages in excess of $15,000, an amount that would require moving the case to the circuit court
where the complicated rules of procedure would apply. That would force David Johnson, who
was appearing pro se without benefit of counsel, to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer to
defend himself and his wife, while the Libow firm kept the case in house at no expense to the
firm other than court costs. Stockel said that since the small claim had been filed on August 4,
2004, a great deal of correspondence had gone back and forth between the parties, therefore the
defamation counterclaim for relief in excess of the courts $15,000 jurisdiction.
Judge Debra Moses Stephens said she could not see how there could possibly be more than
$15,000 in damages. Stockel responded that, according to the rules of general pleading, the
actual amount of damages does not have to be stated: all you have to do is say they are more than
$15,000.
THE COURT: Okay. If you would please be patient with me and help me to
understand, I do not understand how you can get yourself into Circuit Court
without saying specifically what your damages are that bring you there.
MR. STOCKEL: Again, the general rules of pleading and its a notice state, as
Your Honor is aware, you just need to present the allegations that the claim is
being brought in excess of the minimum jurisdictional requirements of that court.
In this case for defamation were seeking, you know, the damages sought thereto,
the publication of that, the filing of certain documents with both the Florida Bar
which is permitted but Governor Jeb Bush, the Federal Trade Commission, other
areas where that was sent..
THE COURT: Thank you. And the reason Im going over this with you so
carefully is because the last time we were here Mr. Johnson had filed a
counterclaim which claimed a jurisdictional amount that would have put it in the
Rules of Civil Procedure and he withdrew that jurisdictional amount because he
believed that if he went into if they used the Rules of Civil Procedure that he
would be completely lost.
MR. STOCKEL: Okay.
THE COURT: And so it seems strange that now we come back and have a -- now
a lawsuit filed in which in effect takes it into Circuit Court. I have to be very sure
that and this is no reflection on you but just to state because the Court has to be
neutral, I have to be sure that bringing this into Circuit Court is not a ruse to get
where you want it to be prior to this.
MR. STOCKEL: I understand, and I anticipated Your Honor questioning me on
that. Subsequent to that hearing in the meantime there have been several
correspondences back and forth via e-mail and regular mail. This is not a matter
of the record at this point in time, and I present it to Your Honor with the
acknowledgment that Mr. Johnson has not seen a copy of this document. We
believe this is a letter that Mr. Johnson prepared and sent to Melissa Libow and
would support this evidence of the defamation claims.

Page 14 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

THE COURT: Mr. Johnson, its probably time to get you in on this. Did you send
a letter to Mrs. Libow?
Mr. JOHNSON: No, maam, I certainly did not.
THE COURT: You havent sent anything to her?
MR. JOHNSON: No, maam, I certainly did not.
THE COURT: You havent sent anything to her?

MR. JOHNSON: No, maam. And if youd like to swear me in, Ill swear to it.
David Johnson had already been worried to no end by the lawyer who had engaged him in the
complicated legal process. He sat down and wrote another letter to the Florida Bar, referencing
email exchanges with Libow:

October 12, 2004

The Florida Bar

5900 N. Andrews Avenue
Cypress Financial Center, Suite 900
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309

Attention: Lillian Archbold and Joel Klaits

Re: Recent Threats and Extortion Demands from Allen Libow.

See attached e-mails

Dear Ms. Archbold and Mr. Klaits:

Attached are the most recent e-mails between Allen Libow and myself. Please
take note that Mr. Libows threats have taken on a more psychotic tone. Mr.
Libow initiated contact, I responded.

The first e-mail is from Allen Libow to me. It is dated 10/08/2004 @ 2:25pm. Mr.
Libow has taken exception to one of the nine grounds for a change of venue that
are enumerated separately within said motion for change of venue. He threatens
me with a 57.105 action unless I agree to withdraw the motion in total. Attached
as Complainants exhibit Z is a copy of the motion to which Allen Libow refers.

The second e-mail is from me to Allen Libow. It is dated 10/09/2004 @ 6:10pm. I

respond to Mr. Libows threats. I advise him that I acted in good faith. I advise
him that the alleged agreement that he attached to his civil suit was in fact an
un-dated un-executed copy. I felt that an undated unsigned agreement would be
unenforceable, so, I included that position as one of nine (9) enumerated within
my motion for a change of venue. In the e-mail, I go on to expound that, my
allegation (the one he took exception to) was supported by his evidence and

Page 15 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

thus a lawful point to be made. I suggest that he do some case research to verify
same. Mr. Libow does not take any exception to that argument. I advise him that
I hope to see him in a court of law here in Jacksonville. In describing his chances
of success with regard to his civil suit against my wife and I, I carelessly used the
word doom. I temporarily forgot Allen Libows propensity for twisting
whatever someone says into something that will fit within his psychotic
agenda du jour.

The third e-mail is from Allen Libow to me. It is dated 10/11/2004 @ 10:53am.
Mr. Libow wastes no time twisting my words. He has seized upon an opportunity
to revive his wild accusations of physical harm or death. He insinuates that I
plan to smuggle a weapon to court and reminds me that they have a, metal
detector. He goes on to say that he will enlist the services of a police officer to
escort he and his associate from the parking lot to the courthouse. Not
surprisingly his position is an exaggeration to the extreme. I believe him to be
mentally unstable. That makes him dangerous to himself and others.

The forth e-mail is from me to Allen Libow. It is dated 10/11/2004 @ 11:38am. I

make an effort to set the record straight. The e-mail speaks for itself.

The fifth e-mail is from Allen Libow to me. It is dated 10/11/2004 @ 4:06pm.
This e-mail also speaks for itself. Mr. Libow is delighted that we (my wife and I)
never really had a lawyer. He subsequently DEMANDS that I provide him, with
available deposition dates for you and your wife over the next three weeks.
This, for a $1,600.00 lawsuit in small claims court that he reasonably should
know has no such provision or requirement. He further advises that should I fail
to succumb to his demands that. I will unilaterally set the dates for you and
your wife. He then proceeds to try and extort money from us. He says, my wife
and I will walk away for $100.000.00. He ends by claiming that his extortion
attempt is in fact a proposal for settlement and thus inadmissible in any
proceeding before a court of law

How much longer is Bar Counsel going to permit this psychotic misfit to abuse
the process of law. This lawyer is totally out of control and uses the legal system
not as a tool for resolution but as a weapon of harassment and intimidation. This
is without a doubt one of the most psychologically disturbed individuals that I
have ever encountered. Something must be done to protect my wife and I and
the rest of the public from this mentally un-balanced individual.

PLEASE ADVISE, ASAP

I remain sincerely,

David Johnson

Page 16 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

CC by fax to the law office of Libow & Muskat

Attention: Allen Libow

Libow and Johnson had exchanged several other rather heated if not flaming emails in
conjunction with the small claims case. Libow offered to settle the case for $100,000 or else,
implying that he would bury Johnson in the perverse legal process if he refused. At one point, as
we have seen, he called the police to say he had been threatened, and he even accused Johnson of
a hate crime because he, Libow, happened to be Jewish.
Libow even went so far in one of his email communications to identify Johnson with the January
2005 murderer of Libows babysitter, Shanette Jones, and her two daughters, Ashley and Joanna
Robinsonthe family had made a lot of money in real estate; Libow would represent Shanette
Jones parents in the wrongful death civil suit. Most alarming was Libows CAPE FEAR email
to Johnson. Johnson did not realize that he was dealing with a legal mafia whose main stock in
trade is legalized extortion, so he filed the complaint with the Florida Bar.
Little did Libow and Tifford know that Johnson would rather die in battle than abandon his ship
to a piratical Black Beard carrying letters patenta law license. The defamation case in circuit
court dragged on and on, as did the small claims case in the county court, thanks to the dilatory
and vexatious tactics of the Libow faction in its futile effort to shake Johnson down. A small
claims case is supposed to be resolved in at least six months, but over four years passed while all
the while Johnson was begging for a speedy trial. Still, Johnson was not about to be extorted by
the legal profession: he was a pitbull clenching the bone of justice, far worse in terms of tenacity
than the lawyers the Bar tried to discipline for advertising themselves as pitbulls. He himself had
said he would be willing to use the lawyers tactic, burying his opponent in legal minutia, rather
than pay a bill that was not due, although he had not actually done that in the small claims case
nor had his attorney Mark Perry resorted to it in the circuit court case.
Johnson, being deposed by Tifford on December 22, 2006, was referred to what he had written in
an email exchange with Libow in 2004:

"Buy yourself a helmet. Before I send you $2,000 that I don't owe you, I'll spend ten times that
much to bury you so deep in litigation and legal minutia that you won't have time to scratch your
ass."
Recognizing legal extortion for what it was, extortion, Johnson had even dared to pronounce it as
such during the deposition:
If you think I'm going to roll over and write you a check, he explained, you have got another
thing coming. You better prepare yourself for a battle, because I'm letting Mr. Libow know that I
am not going to be like the other 20 people that you and he managed to extort some settlement
out of by threatening them.
Did you just accuse me of extortion, Mr. Johnson? Tifford asked, as if his professional had not
legalized extortion for its own benefit as well as its clients, twisting arms behind peoples back
every day so that the wealthy power elite with superior resources might win their cases without a
trial.
What are we sitting here for right now?

Page 17 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Excuse me, Mr. Tifford, interjected Johnsons attorney, trying to interrupt a line of questioning
obviously intended to imply that Johnson was defaming him by accusing him of the felonious
crime of extortion, although knowing full well that Johnson had resorted to what is known in the
defamation trade as hyperbole, which is not actionable in Florida defamation cases if the judge in
his infinite wisdom feels he wants it to be hyperbole instead of a statement of fact. As far as
Johnson was concerned, it was defensible as a true statement; extortion is what lawyers regularly
do and have a license to do: they extort concessions from people, which is perfectly legal and
ethical according to the courts and bar associations. But lawyers have difficulty calling a spade a
spade when they are the spade.
No doubt former judge advocate Tifford was convinced that he had an insurgent, a Charlie,
before him on the grill, one that should be bulldozed into a pit with the others after being grilled
and stripped of his life.

Is what we are doing today extortion, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. Tifford Perry tried to intercede again.
Oh, my God, yes, Johnson confessed.
Okay, continue.
Now Tifford had more ammunition he could use against Johnson, purportedly a confession that
Johnson was not only a contenacious (sic) person but a slanderer as well! The circuit court
case was all about defamation. And Tifford would introduce this circuit court deposition in small
claims court at the March 26, 2007, ex parte hearing before Judge Hafele, contrary to three court
orders prohibiting him from introducing any discovery whatsoever.
Furthermore, during the December 22, 2006, deposition, Col. Tifford, the Rambo litigator posing
as a gentleman lawyer, would imply that Johnson was what any insurgent worth his rice paddy
must be, an armed terrorist. Tifford dwelled on Johnsons email advice to Libow after Johnson
had perceived that Libow was trying to extort money from him:
"Once your threatened bullet has left the barrel, no matter what you do, you can't recall it. If you
are of a mind to take that shot, then that is your prerogative. Be advised that after you do, you
should clear your calendar and buy yourself a helmet."
Of course Tifford knew very well from his history lessons that our modern trials evolved from
trial-by-combat, where might rather than right proved the case, and he was determined to beat
Johnson to a pulp over his metaphors, pretending they were not metaphors.
Do you know what a metaphor is, Mr. Tifford? posed Johnson.

But of course Tifford knew what a metaphor wasan opportunity to take it literally to prove a
man mad enough to assault a lawyer ala Cape Fear.
I'm asking you, what was the helmet for, Mr. Johnson? Tifford persisted, no doubt recalling
the feel of the helmet he sometimes wore in Vietnam.
Do you know what a metaphor is, Mr. Tifford?

Page 18 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Are you going to answer my question?

It was a metaphor.

Was it really a metaphor?

Yes.
It wasn't a threat, Mr. Johnson, to do physical violence? Was it a threat to do physical violence,
Mr. Johnson?

No.
You didn't have a flashback to any of those earlier assaults and batteries
Objection.
you told me about, Mr. Johnson?
Objection. Don't answer the question. We'll go to court on that one.
Did you have a flashback to those earlier assault and batteries?

No.
Not a single one?
No, because, you see, Mr. Tifford, unlike your client, I'm not psychotic. I don't take any
psychotic drugs.

David, just answer his questions.

I don't smoke dope. I don't take Effexor or things like Xanax

Keep it coming, Mr. Johnson.

or smoke dope and hashish. I don't do any of those things.
You just take people in the back yard and beat them up, if they have got it coming.
Let's take a break, Perry suggested, noting that the proceeding was becoming too
argumentative.
No doubt former U.S. Marine judge advocate Tifford, perhaps himself having an acidic
flashback to Vietnam given the popularity of LSD back then, must have figured he was
bringing out the Charlie in Johnson. After all, Johnson had emailed Libow that arrogance and
stupidity go hand in hand, and that he had taken to school several people who could only learn
by experience, spending considerable time and money in doing so. He stated in the deposition
that he was referring to a company he worked for; that it took debtors to court; that he made the
decision whom to pursue, taking into account any legitimate excuses the debtors might have, but
if someone told him to go to hell, refusing to pay, he sent them to school i.e. court.

Page 19 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

The drug references were related to Libows admission to taking prescription drugs to allay his
anxiety, and to rumors from alienated partners that he had inhaled; the legal professions
grunts are as disposed to resort to such escapes from combat fatigue and hysteria as were the
grunts in Vietnamthe Florida Bar diverts lawyers to rehab programs to salve the symptoms
instead of disbarring them, but that does not extirpate the roots of the contention disease, for that
would end the practice of law as we know it. Alas that drugs prescribed by psychotherapists can
make the cure worse than the disease. Johnson had no sympathy for Libow after an attempt at
Christian charity was rebuffed, but an examination of the public records in this case gives us
some cause for sympathy with Libow, whom Johnson called crazy as a shithouse mouse in the
deposition, and to wonder why his father-in-law did not get the beleaguered lawyer into rehab
instead of a monumental defamation case.
As for the Tiffords reference to assault and batteries, Johnson had gotten into fisticuffs between
what he would call consenting adults some thirty years prior, brawls that he referred to as
taking opponents to school in the alley. He would insist that they were harmless fights which the
police broke up, arresting him for brawling, but no one was hurt, and his record is clean because
he was never convicted of assault and battery.

Now Tifford might have been pleased with the results of his interrogation of Johnson in the
circuit court case at the time, for he would some of the results as ammunition in his ambush.
Mind you that it was not going well at all for Libow or Tifford when Tifford decided to ambush
Johnson in absentia at the March 26, 2007, ex parte hearing in the small claims court. Judge
Hafele was either defrauded in that hearing or had been enlisted into the plot by the Libow
faction, perhaps at a country club if not elsewhere.
Bar counsel sat on the Johnsons complaints and follow ups, causing Johnson to refer to their
bureaucratic asses, a reference that appears to have forever doomed his complaints to the circular
file from which they could not retrieved after one year.
The defamation case would wind up in the circuit court and the fee claim would stay in the small
claims court. Ultimately Johnson would lose the fee case, and the defamation case would be
pursued against him in the circuit and appellate courts until he finally won years later.

Although another small claims court judge, Judge Johnson (no relation), had expressly prohibited
Libow from introducing information discovered in the circuit court process in small claims court,
Tifford, with small claims court Judge Hafele on board, planned all along to use material from a
December 22, 2006, circuit court deposition Johnson in an March 26, 2007, in a small claims
court ambush. The masterful trickster had led Johnson to believe the small claims court case had
been dismissed, but he had the case switched over to Hafele over in the North Palm Beach
County courthouse for an ex parte hearing, surreptitiously reopening it behind Johnsons back.

The Honorable Donald W. Hafele, who had served in the county small claims court since 1999,
would be referred to as the Big Fixer after he was appointed in 2008 to the Palm Beach Circuit
Court by Governor Crist (who was a great friend of now imprisoned fraudster-lawyer Scott W.
Rothstein) allegedly for the express purpose of hearing litigation over the governors grandiose
$2 billion plan to restore the Everglades missing link by buying all of U.S. Sugars
agricultural land there so it could be returned to a more or less pristine state in order to allow
water to flow naturally, south from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades. According to

Page 20 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

anonymous West Palm Beach detractors venting on the Internet, the judge is so dishonorable,
dishonest, abusive, unethical, prejudiced, biased, and ego-maniacal that he has been called an
anti-Christ in some judicial corridors. He allegedly accepted biased testimony from business
associates and fixed cases for friends. Further, he is allegedly erratic, angers quickly, and is
generally a jerk whom West Palm Beach voters should have gotten rid of long ago when he
berated jurors for acquitting someone. He is allegedly a racist, a white Yankee boy who thinks
black churchgoers near his home make too much noise during services. Furthermore, the
governor and the good old boys of the Florida Bar, which he has served as a referee over
disciplinary cases, love him dearly.

Honorable Donald W. Hafele

On the other hand, we hear from Judge Hafeles anonymous supporters that he is a
compassionate and caring human being who volunteers his time helping people with drug
addiction and keeping juveniles away from drugs and crime. He said he enjoyed doing pro bono
work so much that he decided to get out of private practice and become a judge so he could do
the community some good on a full time basis. He allegedly enjoyed sitting in criminal cases
because he felt he was helping people, particularly the drug addicts whom he diverted to rehab
instead of sentencing them to jail. He is so beloved by some convicts that they thank him for
convicting them. His order of priorities is God, family and friends, and job satisfaction, Not only
is he kind and considerate, it is said, but he is man of integrity, a great jurist, an asset to the
bench who deserves in every way to be called Your Honor.
In any case, Tifford was with good reason anxious to get his son-in-laws small claims case
before Honorable Judge Hafele in order to prolong Johnsons misery. If Tifford did not do
something soon, both the small claims case and the circuit court case would be done with, and
the predators would lose their prey altogether and be subject to a suit for malicious prosecution
and abuse of process, not to mention their potential liability for fees and costs. Mind you that 38
of the 41 counts of defamation against Johnson had already been dismissed in the circuit court
and affirmed on appeal. The dismissal of the remaining defamation counts was a foregone
conclusion if Johnson could not be strong-armed into settling pretty soon. The last three counts
would indeed be dismissed and affirmed on appeal as well, but at great additional cost to
Johnson as a result of Tiffords ploy before Judge Hafele. Yes, Johnson was the winner in
circuit court but Florida like most states does not have a loser pays all law, so the winner is
often the loser. Johnsons attorney had unfortunately botched the wording of an agreement or
sort of wager between the parties for settlement of attorneys fees depending on the outcome of
the suit. In order to recover his damages, exceeding $250,000 not counting his psychological

Page 21 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

injuries and such, Johnson would have to sue the Libow faction for malicious prosecution and
abuse of process, which he would do on January 24, 2011. He declined to name Tifford as a
party in that filing, on the advice of counsel; Libow settled with him after an appeal was denied.
Judge Hafele would throw Johnson to the wolves in small claims court, awarding the predators
around $42,000 for a $1,621 fee claim. Indeed, the honorable judge took it upon himself in small
claims court to join his colleague-at-arms, Col. Tifford, ostensibly to defend the bar and bench
against this contemptuous insurgent, whom both he and Tifford described during the ex parte
hearing as a contenacious (sic) personcontentious perhaps being a term reserved for
licensed lawyers who prosecute vexatious lawsuits with impunity. He would hear Tiffords
motion to strike Johnsons pleadings on the ground that they were fraudulent, as well as his
motion to hold Johnson and his wife, who had had nothing to do with the case and whose name
had been removed as a defendant, in contempt of courtLibow had admitted she was named
only to get at her assets on judgment. He would allow Tifford to introduce the December 22,
2006, circuit court deposition although another small claims court judge had barred discovery
three times. He would swallow, hook, line, and sinker, everything Tifford said including
manufactured and misinterpreted facts.

Nothing in our series of articles on Johnson Ordeal is intended to assert or to imply that any of
the lawyers and judges concerned actually committed crimes or breaches of professional ethics
in regards to the Johnsons. The Johnson Ordeal is merely a description of what Florida lawyers
may do for a living with the consent and condonation of the Supreme Court of the State of
Florida and its Florida Bar. As for Libow, he is estranged from his wife hence involved in
protracted litigation with hundreds of actions already docketed. For all we know, he was a victim
of his father-in-law in whom he saw his missing father. He has previously decline comment.
The Florida Bar was made well aware of the Johnson case via several complaints that constitute
a long-running, extensive complaint over several years. Indeed, Johnson revived his complaints
against three of the lawyers after he won his causes at a financial loss to himself, and his most
recent were summarily dismissed by Florida Bar counsel in 2015 in a manner that appears to
violate Bar Rules supposedly upheld by the Florida Bar, as if Bar counsel were defense counsel
for the attorneys complained about. Paul Hill, general counsel for the Florida Bar, has been asked
to reopen the complaints, and to support legislation that would inhibit lawyers from bringing
defamation suits against people to shut them up or extort monies from them.
Suffice it to say that the Florida Bar, by its dismissals and silence, has condoned the sort of deeds
Johnson and hundreds of thousands of bar critics complain about, and so did the judges who
tolerated or assisted with the behavior in their courts. Wherefore we may consider the behavior
ordinary and ethical according to the professional standards as interpreted by lawyers and judges.
In fact, that is why we consider Arthur W. Tifford to be a good example of the actual standards,
and celebrate him as an exemplary lawyer of the Rambo-type.
Bred to jungle warfare, the noble-minded professionalism of the so-called public-spirited lawyer-
statesman has devolved into a sordid business to obtain filthy lucre. Gideon Kanner identified
Rambo litigation with "scorched earth," "take no prisoners," and "Godzilla" litigation (Welcome
Home Rambo: High-Minded Ethics and Low-Down Tactics in the Courts, 25 LOY. L.A. L.
RHV. 81-82 1991). Robert N. Sayler captures the essence of "Rambo" litigation in six traits:
(1) A mindset that litigation is war and that describes trial practice in military terms; (2) A

Page 22 of 23
 MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

conviction that it is invariably in your interest to make life miserable for your opponent; (3) A
disdain for common courtesy and civility, assuming they ill-befit the true warrior; (4) A
wondrous facility for manipulating facts and engaging in revisionist history; (5) A hair-trigger
willingness to fire off unnecessary motions and to use discovery for intimidation rather than fact-
finding; and (6) An urge to put the trial lawyer on center stage rather than the client or his case.
(Rambo Litigation: Why Hardball Tactics Don't Work, A.B.A. J., March 1988, at 79).
True, the public and the profession itself are increasingly convinced that lawyers are a plague on
society. But adherents to the side of class warfare that exacts economic rent or tribute from the
other side consider him and thousands of others like him to be heroes and patriots withal. In any
case, who would not want a successful gunslinger on his side?

Page 23 of 23