One more about Florida Board Of Bar Examiners

We are asked to determine to what extent the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, in furtherance of its effort to determine the fitness of applicants for admission to the Florida Bar, may inquire into an applicant’s sexual conduct.

Because of his position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession.

The board suggests that an applicant’s past homosexual acts are relevant to determine whether past conduct will prevent him from achieving the social acceptance necessary to enable him to discharge his professional responsibilities and whether the applicant intends to disobey the laws of Florida which he seeks to be sworn to uphold.

After dismissing 4 different lawsuits brought by different Bar applicants against the FBBE, is has been discovered that Judge Robert Hinkle was the former attorney for the FBBE.

FloridaBarWatch opens a full investigation into the Florida Supreme Court, after the Court was caught secretly releasing confidential Bar admission documents.

In his application for admission, petitioner disclosed that the Selective Service classified him 4-F, either because of a physical problem or because of his homosexuality.

He declined and petitioned this Court to order the board to certify him for admission to practice.

This issue arises from the application of an attorney admitted to practice in New York, who has successfully passed all parts of the Florida Bar examination.

March 12, 2007 Judge Robert Hinkle Becomes The Charlatan Of The Year Judge Hinkle is widley recognized as the dumbest judge in the history of this nation, but it was his firm commitment to promoting dishonesty and corruption in the Florida judicial system that earned him the distinguished award of “Charlatan of the Year”.

Proof of good moral character is required because lawyers play such a vital role in our legal system.

Board of Bar Examiners, 358 So.2d 7 , held that an admitted homosexual orientation is not sufficient to disqualify an applicant in the absence of evidence showing that the applicant had actually engaged in homosexual acts.

Licentious sexual activity between consenting adults of opposite sex, for example, is also prohibited by the criminal law, and this Court has upheld such prohibition.

I dissented on the ground that the applicant’s admitted “orientation” indicated a lifestyle that contemplated routine violation of a criminal statute.

In fact, Cantero was so impressed with Berry, Cantero recently hired him.

Private noncommercial sex acts between consenting adults are not relevant to prove fitness to practice law.

A former employee of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners has provided us with a top-secret Substance Abuse Protocol that the Board does not disclose to the public.

The state is not prevented from prohibiting homosexual acts by any constitutional principle of due process, equal protection, or privacy.

No person shall be recommended by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners to the Supreme Court of Florida for admission to The Florida Bar unless he first produces satisfactory evidence to the Board that he is of good moral character, that he has an adequate knowledge of the standards and ideals of the profession and is otherwise a fit person to take the oath and perform the obligations and responsibilities of an attorney.

FloridaBarWatch is demanding that the General Counsel of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Thomas Pobjecky, make a full and fair disclosure of the facts and circumstances surrounding his 11-month marriage to Geralyn Pennachio, which ended on October 27, 1978.

In the instant case the board may ask the petitioner to respond to further questioning if, in good faith, it finds a need to assure itself that the petitioner’s sexual conduct is other than noncommercial, private, and between consenting adults.

In a stunning breach of due process, William Hanlon is denied admission in Florida forever.

Because the legislature has chosen, on proper moral grounds, to prohibit homosexual activities, such activities involve moral turpitude as a matter of law.

Even minor violations of law by lawyers tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession, which in turn lessens public confidence in our judicial system and ultimately the law itself.

Petitioner admitted a continuing sexual preference for men but refused to answer questions about his past sexual conduct and indicated that he had no present intention regarding future homosexual acts.

Thus the majority there was able to limit the legal question to whether there was a rational connection between a mere homosexual “orientation” and the board’s refusal to find good moral character.