Jeremy Banks' Lawsuit Against FDLE, Agent Rodgers, Removed to Federal Court, Assigned to New Federal Judge Brian J. Davis

The lawsuit by Deputy JEREMY BANKS, which Sheriff DAVID B. SHOAR apparently ginned up against FDLE and agent Rusty Roberts, has been removed to federal court.

It has been assigned to United States Dstrict Judge Brian J. Davis, the first African-American Chief Deputy State's Attorney in the State of Florida, who served for nearly twenty (20) years as a Circuit Court Judge in Nassau County.

Judge Bian J. Davis' United States Senate confirmation was held up for 660 days by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who did not like the "lens" through which Judge Davis " viewed the world." Bigoted Senator Grasskey was referring to Judge Davis being an African-American and NAACP member who has criticized Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the treatment of former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders.

The attorney for Sheriff's Deputy JEREMY BANKS, who is suing the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and Agent Rodgers on Banks' behalf, is ROBERT LESTER McLEOD, II, a/k/a "MAC McLEOD," (Florida Bar Number 369632, 1200 Plantation Island Drive, Suite 140, St. Augustne, Florida 32080-3114, tel: 904-471-5007, fax: 904-461-5059, mmcleod@themcleodfirm.com).

Attorney ROBERT LESTER McLEOD, II has previously sued two national consumer groups on behalf of the Whetstone family for criticizing a child safety issue on its Easter candy (a piece of plastic surrounded by chocolaste); the SLAPP suit failed in two federal courts.

ROBERT LESTER McLEOD II also advised the local Chamber of Commerce in its successful, efforts to criminalize singing, painting and playing music on St. George Street, violating the First Amendment.

Removal of the Banks v. Rodgers lawsuit to federal court took place because McLEOD alleged vioaltion of civil rights, a federal claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the removal statutes in 28 U.S.C.

Now the apparent SLAPP lawsuit against FDLE and Agent Rodgers, brought by attorney ROBERT LESTER McLEOD, II in state court, will be heard by Judge Brian J. Davis, who is an Article III federal judge with lifetime tenure.

BANKS' lawsuit against FDLE and Agent Rodgers will now be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide for ions against attorneys and clients who bring bad faith claims or file bad faith filings.

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.


Let Justice be done.

Justice for Michelle O'Connell in 2014.