Stevens Rebuttal #2 Crawford Bar Complaint

7/31/2019 Stevens Rebuttal #2 Crawford Bar Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/stevens-rebuttal-2-crawford-bar-complaint 1/4

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Theodore P. Littlewood, Esquire, Bar CounselAttorney Consumer Assistance ProgramThe Florida Bar651 East Jefferson StreetTallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Re: Complaint by Timothy Stevens against William Gentry Crawford, Jr.Florida Bar File No. 2012-50,051 (171)

Dear Mr. Littlewood:

I am responding to Attorney Stephen McDonalds’ May 1, 2012 letter to the Florida Bar.

My response is as follows:

1. With regard to McDonald’s comments in the 1st paragraph of his letter, I opine hisrecollection of the facts is, at best, skewed and incorrect. While it is said every good liecontains 80% fact, in this matter that number is actually 5/6.

Those other dismissed complaints matter not; however McDonald hopes by waving“shiny keys”, he will distract the Florida Bar’s attention by obfuscating his client’sdiffering treatment of Mr. Lee Giannino.

To wit:

1. Then-Vice Chairman of the Board, Mr. Richard Sales, served for nearly a decadealongside of Giannino. Relatively speaking, both enjoyed nearly the same lengthof Board service.

2. However, during the summer of 2010, citing various possible ethical and criminalconcerns, Mayor Peggy Noland did not renew either individual’s re-appointment.

3. Referencing those ethics complaints submitted to the Florida Commission on

Ethics, one was filed against Sales, the other against Giannino.4. On behalf of Sales, Crawford crafted, invoiced, and submitted a response letter.

5.

However, most tellingly, Crawford did not write the same for Giannino. Here,Crawford’s inaction is very suggestive and based on his emails (which have beenoffered as evidence), it is readily apparent McDonald’s client knew Giannino’sactions crossed the criminal line. The question that begs asking is “why, givensimilar situations, did Crawford stand up for one (Sales) but not the other(Giannino)”.

2. In Paragraph 2, McDonald grossly mischaracterizes the long-time relationship



between his client and Giannino because of some “difficulty nailing down your[Giannino] address." Are we to believe that a requirement of a professional association,or even an inappropriate quid pro quo for that matter, is the knowledge of another’shome address? Serving nearly a decade together, it is not germane whether or not theyexchanged Holiday cards.

3. Finally, Crawford’s physical location at the time of any vote is inconsequential.Mattering even less is what I did, or did not, accomplish during my Board appointment.

However, I will note for the record:

1. Giannino is now under dual active investigations -- the Florida Commission onEthics and the Broward State Attorney’s Office.

2. The Deerfield Beach Housing Authority has recently filed suit in small claimscourt against Giannino for his failure to repay the outstanding debt obligation.

Concluding…

As evidenced by his own email to Giannino, Crawford acknowledges of being placed inan ethical conflict. Then, with full knowledge of this transgression and well aware of theimplications, Crawford makes matters worse by assisting Giannino in the drafting of aloan payment agreement.

Crawford’s backpedaling at the 11th hour does not change the stark reality that heknowingly aided his client in preparing a contract that clearly violates Florida Law.

I firmly suggest Crawford should have known better.

For in the end, and above and beyond all else, Crawford’s long-standing Florida Barmembership demands a higher standard of understanding as to breeches of ethical andcriminal conduct.

Should you require further assistance, I stand ready to help.

Regards

Timothy “Chaz” Stevens818-468-5433

Attachment (1): May 1, 2012 letter from Attorney Stephen McDonald to the Florida Bar.

Stevens Rebuttal #2 Crawford Bar Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Stevens Rebuttal #2 Crawford Bar Complaint