Originally Posted - November 29, 2005

return home

CLEARWATER---Did you know that a judge can enter a judgment for several thousand dollars against you without you even being made a party to a lawsuit?

Did you know that a judge can bring baseless criminal charges against you, have you arrested, and bring you before him to be tried without a jury?

Of course, most of us realize that injustice like this happens in third world dictatorships, but this is happening right now in the United States in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida.

Worst of all, the appellate courts appear to be backing up a judge's actions in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, rather than exposing judicial corruption. Apparently, attempting to maintain the appearance of a fair judicial system is more important than the fundamental right to a fair trial.

The Sixth Judicial Circuit? Yes, the same circuit where George W. Greer presides as a probate court judge, the judicial executioner in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case.

Is there justice for all in the United States of America, or just courts that do the bidding of the connected?

You be the judge.

The court of public opinion has docketed the case of Tampa attorney Mark Adams.

Mark Adams, 41, a young attorney, married, with two children, is in the middle of one of the most egregious cases of legal abuse seen in Pinellas County and is obviously being penalized for having dared to utter the words "judicial corruption" and attempt to effect needed changes.

He challenged the system----and the system retaliated.

It all started when he was retained to represent several clients in what appeared on the surface to be a routine breach of contract matter. But it has now mushroomed into the judge signing a warrant for his arrest on contempt charges, the judge filing a complaint against him with the Florida Bar and the politically connected, high-powered legal adversary in the case allegedly bragging about the influence they wield in the Florida court system.

Documents are now allegedly missing from court files, docket cards have allegedly been altered and affidavits allegedly falsified amid allegations of intimidation and retaliation.

"When people see and read about my case, they are shocked", Adams says. "If you attack the integrity of judges or officers of the court, they come after you". He says that not only is he a victim of judicial corruption but that the good ole boy network is out to destroy him, his family and his career. He faces up to six months in jail on the contempt charges and possible disbarment for being a judicial whistleblower.

And even though the judge filed charges against him with the Florida Bar and signed a warrant for his arrest on contempt charges after he had uttered numerous biased and prejudicial statements against Adams on the record, the judge steadfastly refused to recuse himself from the case, maintaining that he could be impartial.

Why, even the judge's wife, the administrative judge, who reviewed the decisions of her husband upheld her husband's action. Appearance of impropriety for the judge's wife to rule on matters involving her husband? Not according to the Pinellas County court system.

In January, 2000, Jeff Smith went to work as a salesperson for Corporate Sports Marketing Group, Inc., (CSM), a sports marketing firm in Clearwater, Fla., and he quickly became one of its best.

During the summer of 2001, CSM began asking its sales staff to sign non-competition agreements which would prohibit them from selling advertising for another company if they left CSM. As a result, many of CSM's sales staff left, and in October of 2001, Jeff Smith also left. Salesman John Kerin also left and in October of 2001, Kerin and Smith formed their own advertising sales company, Lafayette Marketing Group, Inc.

At the time Smith left, he claimed he was owed over $20,000 in commissions, and Chris King, CSM's president, refused to pay him. Instead, Chris King called the Clearwater Police Department and, allegedly falsely reported that Jeff Smith had stolen $800,000 worth of art work.

When King allegedly called Smith's home, Smith's 10-year-old son answered the phone. King allegedly told the boy that his daddy was a thief,that he had called the police because his daddy had allegedly stolen $800,000 worth of art work, that the police would be coming to search their home and would take his daddy away to jail. When Smith's wife took the phone, King allegedly repeated his comments.

In November, Smith retained Tampa attorney Mark A. Adams to file suit to recover the commissions allegedly owed to him by CSM and to recover the Smith's tax documents that CSM' comptroller Dwayne Martins had allegedly refused to return to him. In addition, the claim also addressed the allegations of theft levied against Smith to his wife and son.

Smith alleged that he and his wife had retained Martins, who allegedly represented himself to be a certified public accountant, to prepare and file Federal tax returns for the Smiths. However, the Smiths claimed that although Martins allegedly accepted payment for tax services, he did not perform them. Smith also alleged that Martins had refused to return their financial documents to them.

In December, 2001, Adams filed a lawsuit against CSM on behalf of Smith in the Sixth Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, and it was assigned to Judge Crockett Farnell. According to Adams, shortly thereafter, Chris King began boasting to Jeff Smith and others that his attorneys, the Battaglia firm, were connected and that "they were going to bury Jeff Smith".

Farnell's wife, Dee Anna Farnell, is the administrative criminal judge in the Sixth Judicial Circuit.

The principal of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus and Wein firm of St. Petersburg is Anthony S. Battaglia, member of the Republican National Committee for Florida from 1956-64; member of Florida Bar Board of Governors; past president of St. Petersburg Bar Association; past president of the U.S. Attorneys Association of the Middle District of Florida. He has also served as chairman of the federal district courthouse for St. Peterburg and as chairman of the Judicial Nomination Committee of the Sixth Judicial Circuit.

Battaglia was the defense attorney for Republican Congressman Richard Kelly, a former Pasco County Circuit Court judge, in the FBI Abscam sting. Kelly was the only Republican Congressman to be convicted in Abscam.

Battaglia has also represented Straight Inc., now known as the Drug Free America Foundation Inc.. Straight was founded in 1976 by Mel Sembler, U.S. Ambassador to Italy, and his wife, Betty. He successfully represented Straight when the organization sued the state of Florida giving parents the right to force their children into drug rehabilitation without a court order.

Timothy Weber of the Battaglia firm represented CSM in the Smith suit. Weber was admitted to practice law in 1996 and joined the Battaglia firm in 1997. According to the firm's website, Weber "works closely" with Battaglia, "using his own highly creative and aggressive approach to complement Mr. Battaglia's leadership and unique style of handling complex litigation".

Adams says that Weber and other members or employees of the Battaglia law firm had allegedly boasted that they could influence Judge Farnell and the ensuing decisions rendered by Farnell would seem to lend credence to that assertion.

In January, 2002, the Battaglia firm issued a subpoena to Kerin which required Kerin to produce all of the records of the company which he had formed with Smith. Kerin timely objected to the production of confidential information and trade secrets, and Weber scheduled a hearing on Kerin's objection. Just before this hearing in March, 2002, CSM filed several counterclaims against Smith, Kerin, and their new company which their attorney, Adams, labeled as "frivolous".

At that hearing, Judge Farnell ordered Kerin to produce all of the records of Lafayette because he said that only attorneys can object on the behalf of corporations despite the fact that Florida Statutes Section 90.506 provides that a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose trade secrets and that this privilege can be claimed by the person or the person's agent or employee.

At this hearing, Judge Farnell also ignored objections and case law cited by Adams as attorney for Lafayette to the productions of all of Lafayette's records which required him to protect these documents from disclosure or use by CSM. Farnell ordered Kerin to produce all of these documents at a deposition, an order which was contrary to law.

On April 18, 2002, before the deposition of Kerin began, Martin Richardson, a vice president of CSM, who was the firm's corporate representative at this deposition, asked to speak privately with plaintiffs Kerin and Smith. During this conference, Richardson allegedly stated that his attorneys, the Battaglia firm, were "very well connected", that his attorney had said that Smith and Kerin did not have any representation, that his attorney said that Adams didn't know what he was doing, that his attorney said that they were going to "bury" the plaintiffs, and that he was authorized to offer to settle this case for nothing.

The intimidating statements made by Richardson just before Kerin's deposition began upset both Kerin and Smith. Due to these statements and King's previous alleged statements about the Battaglia firm's connections and Adams' lack of ability, immediately after this deposition, Adams says that Kerin and Smith told him that they felt that they needed to hire a larger firm with more experienced attorneys. Adams says he asked them to move quickly.

In May, 2002, Lafayette and Kerin retained new attorneys to defend them and terminated Adams' representation but Smith asked Adams to continue representing him and his wife and to coordinate his efforts with the new attorneys retained by Lafayette and Kerin.

In June, 2002, Weber and CSM filed a motion for contempt seeking to hold Kerin in contempt of court based on his delay in answering questions and producing documents on the morning of his deposition, a delay whichAdams says was caused by CSM's intimidating behavior. In order to avoid facing contempt charges, Kerin paid CSM to settle even though CSM owed him over $5,000 in commissions.

The law firm's tactics had worked.

By late July, 2002, Adams says it became obvious to him that the Smiths were no longer taking his advice in regard to completing the discovery requests directed to them by Weber. As a result, Adams told them that he was going to have to withdraw from representation of the Smiths. In August of 2002, a notice of substitution and withdrawal was filed.

On Oct. 1, 2002, Judge Farnell approved Adams' withdrawal as to all parties without reserving jurisdiction over him. After Adams' withdrawal, Weber scheduled a hearing on CSM's motion for summary judgment, apparently an attempt to take advantage of the fact that the Smiths did not have any legal representation. In late November, the Smith's new attorney filed a notice of dismissal for some of the Smith's claims.

In late December, 2002, Weber and the Battaglia firm filed a motion for sanctions seeking sanctions against Adams and the Smiths. Florida case law provides that once a person has been dismissed from an action, the trial court is divested of personal jurisdiction over that person and the trial court may only regain personal jurisdiction over that person by personal service of original process. Adams was no longer part of the case, his withdrawal having been approved.

Despite the fact that Judge Farnell had approved Adams' withdrawal without any reservation of jurisdiction as of Oct. 1, 2002, Adams says Weber didn't bother to seek to amend CSM's claims to add Adams as a party and didn't serve him a summons or a subpoena. Adams says that apparently the Battaglia firm was not very concerned with any fundamental due process issue stopping Judge Farnell from granting sanctions against him. Adams was not a party to the action before Farnell.

Adams says that Weber then sent him a notice of hearing on CSM's motion for sanctions, and Adams appeared at that hearing in April, 2003, raising a number of issues in defense of CSM's motion. After Judge Farnell indicated that he was not going to dismiss CSM's motion for sanctions, Adams moved to disqualify Judge Farnell based on the affidavits of Smith and an independent witness, Scott Dias. Dias had knowledge of comments made by agents of CSM about their attorney's connections and based on Judge Farnell's numerous comments and rulings which Adams says gave the appearance that Farnell was biased in favor of CSM. However, rather than disqualifying himself to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, Judge Farnell denied Adams' oral motion for disqualification at the hearing.

Shortly after this hearing, Adams filed a written motion for Farnell's disqualification, and Judge Farnell sent a letter to counsel for the parties seeking comment on Adams' disqualification motion despite the fact that the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a judge should not look beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice when considering whether a motion establishes grounds for his disqualification.

On July 30, 2003, Judge Farnell entered a judgment for sanctions and a judgment for expenses on a motion to compel against Adams and the Smiths. The judgments against Adams were for over $20,000 as were the judgments against the Smiths.

In late August, 2003, the Smiths filed a notice of appeal seeking to overturn these judgments. Adams says he didn't find out that these judgments had been entered against him until Aug. 28, 2003, so he was not able to post a bond within 30 days of the entry of these judgments to obtain an automatic stay as provided by law. Therefore, in early September of 2003, Adams filed a motion to vacate these judgments and a motion for a protective order seeking to stay discovery in aid of execution of these judgments.

In September, 2003, CSM attorney Weber reportedly threatened Smith with contempt of court if he did not dismiss his appeal and pay to settle. Adams says that as a result of this threat, Smith entered into a settlement agreement where he agreed to pay $15,000 to settle this case with CSM even though he was owed over $20,000 in commissions by CSM.

After Adams contacted Weber to schedule a hearing on his motion to vacate the sanction judgments, Weber threatened to file a motion to hold Adams in contempt of court, and on Oct. 1, 2003, Judge Farnell issued an order to show cause why Adams should not be held in criminal contempt.

Adams scheduled the hearing on his motion to vacate and motion for a protective order for Oct. 29, 2003 at 3:30 p.m. Although Farnell had notice of these motions and the hearing scheduled for them, he scheduled the hearing on the order to show cause for Oct. 29 at 2:15, prior to the time set for the hearing on Adams' motion to vacate and motion for a protective order.

Florida Civil Practice provides that the Court may relieve a party from a judgment or decree that is void. Once a timely motion for a protective order has been made, the court should allow that motion to be heard before sanctioning that person.

Adams says that his motion to vacate and motion for a protective order are authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure and case law, and therefore, such motions could not be the basis for any contempt proceeding. He cites case law which says that prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent judicial action when the judge is without jurisdiction to act in a cause, and may be specifically invoked against a judge when a party is about to be cited for contempt on the basis of acts which could not constitute contempt of court. The writ of prohibition may be used to restrain an excess exercise of jurisdiction, as well as to prohibit the exercise of judicial power where none at all exists." Adams says that Judge Farnell had completely ignored all his due process right to a hearing on his motion to vacate the sanctions judgments by scheduling a trial on an indirect contempt charge, so he filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the appellate court for a hearing before a new judge.

Without being requested, sua sponte, the 2nd DCA issued an order staying proceedings in the trial court before Farnell. But Adams says he later learned that the notes in the record show that Judge Patricia J. Kelly and Judge Douglas A. Wallace had indicated that an Order to Show Cause was to be issued on Oct. 29.

Had a show cause order been issued to Farnell as ordered by the two DCA justices, Adams says it would have most likely resulted in the removal of Judge Farnell from the case. Adams says that by failing to issue the order authorized by Judge Kelly and Judge Wallace, James Birkhold, clerk of the 2nd DCA , apparently violated Florida Statutes which prohibit falsification of official documents.

Adams charges that although Judge Kelly and Judge Wallace were originally assigned to the DCA case, the panel was rearranged. He says that an appellate panel is rarely rearranged, and if it is, it is because a judge has become ill, retired, or removed himself from the case due to a conflict of interest. On Nov. 24, 2003, the new panel composed of Judge Stevan T. Northcutt, Judge E. J. Salcines, and Judge Virginia M. H. Covington denied his petition for writ of prohibition with prejudice without opinion, without expressly vacating the stay and without issuing an order vacating the stay.

On Nov., 2003, when the DCA denied Adams' petition with prejudice without an opinion, he says the order was sent to him at an incorrect address. He learned about the order in time to file a motion for rehearing which, according to the rules and case law, should keep the stay in place. However, even though Farnell did not have jurisdiction due to the stay entered by the 2nd DCA, Farnell issued an order for my arrest on Jan. 12, 2004, and the 2nd DCA refused to enforce its stay.

The Battaglia firm attempted to collect the $20,000 judgment and sought to depose Adams but Adams says he wasn't properly served. Weber says otherwise and says that Adams failed to appear for three scheduled hearings and ultimately asked Farnell to cite Adams for contempt. Farnell issued a warrant for Adams' arrest in January, 2004.

Also in Jan. 2004, Adams filed a motion to enforce the stay with the DCA which showed that Farnell had issued an order for his arrest allegedly without jurisdiction and in violation of the Second District's order staying proceedings in the trial court. This motion showed up on the DCA's online docket, but on Feb. 4, 2004, Adams says it mysteriously disappeared from the docket.

Adams recounts that on Jan. 30 last year, his assistant called the court clerk's office to ask that the review of his motion to vacate Farnell's order for arrest and other motions be expedited.

According to Adams, the deputy clerk informed his assistant that she would need to speak with the DCA clerk Birkhold, about the matter and transferred her call to his office. Birkhold then reportedly told Adams' assistant that "mandates are not issued in those kinds of cases so the stay was no longer in effect."

Adams' assistant then called the clerk's office at the Second District Court on Feb. 5 to inquire why his motion to enforce the stay was not showing on the docket. Adams says there were several witnesses to the call and reports that the deputy clerk initially said that nothing had been filed since Jan. 27, 2004. When Adams' assistant explained that she had filed a motion on Jan. 29, and had a date stamped copy of it from the clerk's office, the clerk asked her to hold on while she checked the file. When she came back on the line, the clerk said that the motion which was filed on Jan. 29, was in the file and was being considered by the court. Adams' assistant asked why it was not showing on the docket, and the clerk replied that it must have been a computer error and that she had never seen anything like that before.

Later on Feb. 5, 2004, Adams says the DCA decided to treat his motion to enforce its stay as a new petition for a writ of prohibition apparently in order to explain its disappearance from the online docket the previous day. Curiously, the court clerk supposedly made the decision to treat Adams' motion to enforce the stay as a new petition on Feb. 4, 2004 as shown by his notes on this motion. However, on Feb. 5, the deputy clerk did not mention anything about treating this motion as a new petition. Adams charges that Birhold as DCA clerk allegedly tampered with the case file by back dating this "decision" to cover up the disappearance of Adams' motion from the docket, which he says is yet another violation of Florida Statutes prohibit falsification of official documents.

On Feb. 10, 2004, the 2nd CDA issued an order vacating its stay of the proceedings in the trial court. This order clarified that Farnell's order for Adams' arrest which has been issued Jan. 12 has been done without jurisdiction and in violation of stay granted by the DCA. Adams says this exposed Farnell to liability for the damages that resulted from his order for Adams arrest.

"These damages are substantial as I had to drop out of cases which resulted in injury to my clients, my reputation, and of course, my ability to earn a living for my family", Adams said.

On Feb. 12, 2004, Weber, filed a motion for clarification or reconsideration of the Second District Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2004 vacating its order dated Oct 29, 2003 which stayed proceedings in the trial court. Weber's motion asked the 2nd DCA to vacate its order of Feb. 10, 2004 without citing any rule or case law to support his request.

Adams points to Florida rules that provide that a party may serve a response to a motion within 10 days of service of the motion, and therefore, it was not appropriate to take action on Weber's motion until 10 days had passed so that Adams would have an opportunity to respond. However, DCA granted Weber's motion for clarification on Feb. 16, 2004 and vacated the order it entered on Feb. 10, 2004 "because the stay was lifted concurrently with the order denying the petition for a writ of prohibition on Nov. 24, 2003."

Florida court rules state, "If a timely motion for rehearing, clarification, or certification has been filed, the time for issuance of the mandate or other process shall be extended until 15 days after rendition of the order denying the motion, or, if granted, until 15 days after the cause has been fully determined." The mandate in any case functions to end the jurisdiction of the appellate court and to return full jurisdiction of the case to the trial court", Adams says, citing case law. If a stay has been entered, the mandate typically causes the stay to end. The mandate of an appellate court is the official method of communicating its judgment to the inferior tribunal", the law has held. Prior to issuance of the mandate, the inferior tribunal cannot usurp the appellate court's jurisdiction. The trial court and counsel for the parties should notice the absence of a mandate before proceeding without jurisdiction, Adams says in summarizing Farnell's action.

The entry of an order or judgment without jurisdiction is a fundamental error which requires the appellate court to vacate that order or judgment, Adams says citing case law. Adams says that In Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v Swan, the Supreme Court of the United States noticed that a judgment had been entered without jurisdiction, surveyed the case law on this issue, and held that an appellate court must vacate a judgment when the record does not affirmatively show that the trial court had jurisdiction. However, the Second District has apparently chosen to ignore the law for some reason or another.

"Although I have read every case regarding these issues", Adams says, "I have not found a single case which indicates that rules regarding issuance of the appellate court's mandate does not apply to petitions for a writ of prohibition or any other appellate action for that matter except for bond validation proceedings which are governed by law. Adams says that his opposition, the Battaglia firm, said that 15 day delay in issuance of mandate is necessary to allow a stay to remain in effect for purposes of rule 9.310(e) Florida Statutes also provide that a stay shall remain in effect until a mandate issues or the stay is otherwise modified or vacated. Moreover, the legislative comment to the new law provides that this rule does not limit the appellate court's power to issue stay orders.

Apparently, DCA entered the order of Feb. 16, 2004 without following the rule allowing Adams to respond in order which in essence protects Farnell, Weber and the Battaglia firm from liability for their actions taken in January, 2004 without jurisdiction and in violation of the Second District Court's order dated Oct. 2003 staying proceedings in the trial court.

Adams was arrested for contempt early in 2004 on Farnell's warrant which Adams says wasn't valid. Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice said it didn't make a difference if the warrant was valid or not, he was going to follow the order of the court and arrest Adams.

Adams is currently facing six months to a year in jail, assuming that he was actually guilty of contempt of court and that Judge Farnell complied with the law. According to Adams, Farnell said in open court that he intends to throw him in jail when he gets Adams before him which won't be anytime soon because in December, 2004, Farnell finally recused himself from the case after approximately 10 efforts by Adams for his removal.

On Feb. 26, 2004, Adams received notice by mail that Farnell had scheduled his contempt trial for March 3, 2004. "Apparently, Judge Crockett Farnell felt that a week was enough time for me to prepare to be thrown in jail and that an hour was enough time for a trial", Adams says. And apparently, according to the comments allegedly made by Farnell, the judge doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence or the constitutional standard of being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial.

Adams says the Battaglia firm has successfully used threats of contempt to coerce settlements out of both of former clients. Adams says that on Nov. 24, 2003, the Battaglia firm drafted a letter to him indicating that they would settle with him for $63,000 even though the judgment that Judge Farnell initially granted against Adams was for approximately $20,000---a difference of more than $40,000 which would certainly seem to be somewhat of an extortion and intimidation by the Battaglia firm against Adams.

"If the Battaglia firm didn't know of the Second District's decision in advance, why would they demand a higher sum to settle when it appeared that the DCA would follow the law and issue a writ of prohibition because it had issued a stay on Oct. 29, 2003", Adams asks.

Adams says that it appears that someone has influenced the DCA clerk and possibly some of its judges, allegedly prompting them to take actions without any legal basis and in violation of the law. Adams says that he has been informed that his former client Smith was also pressured by the Battaglia firm to change his affidavit. "Mr. Smith also informed me that the Battaglia firm threatened Scott Dias if he did not change his affidavit", Adams says. "This appears to be a violation of Florida Statute § 914.22 which prohibits witness tampering".

And it would also seem to indicate that criminal charges may be warranted.

Adams says that he has filed complaints regarding the alleged actions of Judge Farnell and the Battaglia firm to various law enforcement agencies. Both the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI have stated that they are investigating judicial corruption in the Tampa Bay area, a fact documented during the recent trial of Sixth Circuit Judge Gregory Holder by the Judicial Qualifications Commission when Holder was acquitted of plagiarism charges. Ironically, Holder has now been assigned to a portion of the continuing case against Adams.

1. Adams has posed a list of questions concerning the conduct of the case against him which thus far have not been answered.
2. Why would the Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeals issue a stay after being directed to issue an order to show cause by Judge Kelly and Judge Wallace?
3. Why would a panel be rearranged to remove two judges?
4. Why would a judge issue an order for the arrest of an attorney when he does not have jurisdiction to do so?
5. Why would someone alter a docket to remove a motion?
6. Why would the Second District ignore a person's right to respond to a motion provided by Fla. R. App. P. 9.300(a) and enter an order which is not based on fact or law?
7. Why would the Second District fail to follow the law requiring it to vacate the order for my arrest issued on January 12, 2004 by Judge Crockett Farnell without jurisdiction?
8. Why would a judge charge Adams with contempt based on acts which are allowed by the law, and therefore, could not be the basis for a contempt charge?

"I cannot think of any legitimate explanation for these questions" Adams says. "It appears to be an example of an abuse of power and judicial corruption. I have talked with several local attorneys about this, but they just keep saying that although I am in the right, the old boy network is running over me".

In April, 2004, at the urging of Adams' counsel, Farnell agreed that the Battaglia firm had a conflict when it serves as both a witness and the prosecution in the contempt charges against Adams.

The Pinellas County state attorney's office of Bernie McCabe is currently prosecuting the case with assistant state attorney Rene Marie Bauer assigned. Farnell is a former Pinellas County assistant state attorney.

(TO BE CONTINUED-Part II: Farnell files complaint against Adams with Florida Bar for unethical conduct-Anthony Battalgia is a former member of Florida Bar Board of Governors; Farnell signs warrant for Adams' arrest for contempt; Farnell orders competency hearing for Adams; Adams makes numerous attempts to remove Farnell from contempt case in face of mounting evidence of bias and improper rulings; Pinellas County Sheriff Everett Rice says he doesn't care if Farnell warrant isn't valid, he's going to arrest Adams; criminal complaints made by Adams to FDLE and FBI against Farnell, Battaglia firm; Adams sues Battaglia firm for slander; Florida Bar schedules hearing that could result in Adams losing his law license; recently acquitted Judge Gregory Holder who has cooperated with federal investigation of alleged court corruption assigned to Adams' case)

This article was originally written by June Maxam and published on 8-18-05. It is republished here on 11-29-05. Other articles pertaining to the Mark Adams case appear on The North Country Gazette website.

© 2005 North Country Gazette