I.O.L.T.A Case law and the Court Trend Toward TYRANNY

FREEDOM USA CAMPAIGN “ DO THE RIGHT THING ” 2012-2013

N.O.I.

Repeal I.O.L.T.A. NOW

Interest On Lawyers Trust Accounts

I am challenging the U.S., Florida Bar, American Bar Association and all Legislators and Courts, “Do the Right Thing.”

I am revealing this ROBBERY.

If they want to fund the indigent or any other Constitutional  special interests, let them

DONATE Their TIME and PROFITS from their OWN FEES.

IOLTA- NEEDS Repeal along with Florida Wrongful Death Act and CAPS 

It is: The taking of clients money and property generated through mal-practice litigation settlements and awards, in Civil Courts in 44 states.

It is: Legislated extortion and it is, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It is one more Constitutional Abuse come to light, instituted by forced incremental legislation by degree and  duress, currently instituted by attorneys in a specious manner, having a false look of truth or genuineness and by non-disclosure. It is another example of our constitutional fredom under attack. FLORIDA was the first state to institute this collusive arrangement.

How did I.O.L.T.A. a well-funded              

BANKING ‘operation’

Establish itself, without the consent or knowledge of the donors??

 Answer: It was originally, a voluntary program. Now it is:

 “Incremental legislation by, “FORCED CONVERSION.

N.O.I.

Repeal I.O.L.T.A. NOW

1980 Case Law and Findings-449 U.S. 155 (1980). In Webb’s, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Florida law declaring interest earned on interpleader funds to be the property of the court clerk. Id. at

164-65. The Court relied on the general property rule that ‘interest follows principal’ to hold that the retention of the interest earned on the interpleader funds constituted an impermissible taking. Id.

1999] THE FUTURE OF IOLTA- and the traditional property doctrine that “interest follows principal.”110 However, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that without Florida’s IOLTA program, no interest would have been generated for the benefit of Cone or anyone else.111 Therefore, the operation of Florida’s IOLTA could not be said to deprive Cone of a property interest.112 The court further distinguished Webb’s from the case at bar by stating that the crucial distinction is in the circumstances that create “a legitimate expectation of interest exclusive of administrative costs and expenses.”113 The court stated that the $90,000 in interest involved in Webb’s created the necessary expectation,whereas the $2.25 of earned interest involved in Cone did not.114

Similarly, in Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation,115 the Foundation claimed that the Massachusetts IOLTA program116 constituted a ‘taking’ of a client’s property without just compensation as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.117 Realizing that many courts have been slow to recognize a property interest in IOLTA generated interest,118 the Foundation did not claim a property interest in the interest itself, but rather in the “beneficial use of the deposited funds, and more specifically, the right to control and to exclude others from the beneficial use of those funds.”119 The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis by stating that it is the plaintiff’s burden to first establish that they have a recognized property interest that is 110 Cone, 819 F.2d at 1004 (citing Himely v. Rose, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 313, 319 (1809)); see  also Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, 449 U.S. at 155. 111 Cone, 819 F.2d at 1004.112 Id.

113 Cone, 819 F.2d at 1007.114 Cone, 819 F.2d at 1007. The court stated “We do not wish to imply that the state may constitutionally appropriate property so long as the property is very small property.” Id.Regardless, the court in Cone felt that the $90,000 dollar in interest at issue in Webb was sufficient to warrant protection, while the $2.25 in Cone was not. The court stated “The district court concluded as a matter of law that the use of . . . [Cone’s] money had no net  value, therefore there could be no property interest for the state to appropriate. We agree.”Id. The district court had reasoned that the $2.25 generated in interest would not have been

enough to offset the administrative charges associated with placing Cone’s funds in an  individual interest bearing account. Id. But see Kenneth Paul Kreider, Note, Florida’s IOLTA

Program does Not “Take” Client Property For Public Use: Cone v. State Bar of Florida, 57 U. CIN. L. REV. 369, 370 (1988) (suggesting that the line of reasoning used by the court in Cone would be “subject to re-examining by later courts”).

115 993 F.2d 962 (1st Cir. 1993). 116 For more on the Massachusetts IOLTA program, see supra notes 80-82 and accompanying text. The Washington Legal Foundation also claimed that the Massachusetts IOLTA program violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. See supra Part III.A.117 See U.S. CONST. amend. V. For the pertinent text of the Fifth Amendment, see supranote 101.118 See Washington Legal, 993 F.2d at 973 (citing five cases where courts have refused to recognize a client’s property interest in interest earned on an IOLTA).

119