MEMO
TO: Dr. Tally Eddings, II, M.D.
FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
DATE: August 21, 2002 A.D.
SUBJECT: Eddings et al. v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
Greetings Tally,
I spent a few hours going over your papers in detail.
I also went to the website of the Florida Secretary of State, to get information about your Defendant, Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
Here is what I found:
Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
(a Florida Profit Corporation)
880 Carillon Parkway
P.O. Box 12749
St. Petersburg 33733-2749
FLORIDA, USA
Registered Agent (for service of process):
Lynn Pippenger
880 Carillon Parkway
St. Petersburg 33716
FLORIDA, USA
Status: ACTIVE
FEI: #591531281 (Florida Employer Identifier, perhaps?)
On 12/15/1998, they changed their company name from:
Investment Management & Research, Inc. (“IMRI”) to their current name
There were five (5) accounts involved:
50064481
78044714
78044728
83326855
83326860
I presume these were internal Raymond James account numbers. Please confirm whether or not my presumption is correct.
None of the papers you gave me identify the names on any of these accounts, however.
In what name(s) were these five accounts opened, please?
I would also like to see copies of the checks that Raymond James issued to IRS, if you have those.
In the first draft of your Initial COMPLAINT, page 2, paragraph 6, it states that two checks were issued in the amounts of:
$445,834.28 (is this correct?)
$731,420.71 (is this correct?)
-------------
$1,177,254.99 (my total)
However, on page 6, paragraph 28, you allege negligence in the amount of $1,180,254.99, and again on page 9, paragraph A, you allege actual damages in the same amount ($1,180,254.99).
Please explain the difference between $1,177,254.99 and $1,180,254.99?
These two numbers are quite similar, differing only at 177 v. 180.
Your punitive damages on page 9, paragraph B, applied a triple damage multiplier to $1,180,254.99 x 3 = $3,540,764.97, yes?
Is there an error in the amounts of the two checks in question?
Now, at this point, I would recommend that we do everything possible to simplify this case.
What keeps it from being simple is that there appear to be multiple plaintiffs: you and at least 2 professional corporations (or some other fictitious entities I know very little about).
I think we can make faster progress with a State judge by sequencing the following propositions in this order:
#1: you had no federal income tax liability for the years in question (this point can be made in a negative averment, e.g. “Plaintiff specifically denies that He had any federal income tax liabilities for the years in question: no liability statutes, not a withholding agent, etc.”);
#2: the 5 accounts were in the names of fictitious entities that also did not have any federal income tax liabilities for the years in question (this point can also be alleged, but please remember that you may not be permitted legally to represent these fictitious entities);
#3: you controlled those 5 accounts, as Trustee (or in some other responsible capacity) (I remain unclear as to your exact relationship to these entities/accounts: please clarify further: the judge will definitely want to know what authority and responsibility you had for each of these accounts: put yourself in his shoes);
#4: the 5 accounts you controlled were levied under the false pretense that you did have a federal income tax liability for the years in question, when you did not (see Form 668-C, which only names you as the liable party);
#5: there was never any allegation, presumption or pretense that the fictitious entities identified with these 5 accounts had their own federal income tax liabilities for the years in question (again, see Form 668‑C, which only names you); is this a correct statement?
#6: the Defendant corporation was negligent for proceeding on the basis of the rebuttable presumption, without any court order(s) or judicial determination(s), that these 5 accounts were “nominees” for your private assets;
#7: by permitting the 5 accounts to be levied without the Warrant of Distraint required by the holding in U.S. v. O’Dell, the Defendant corporation breached its fiduciary duties arising from binding contracts implied in fact, if not also binding written contracts, with you and/or with the fictitious entities in question;
#8: you never waived your fundamental Right to due process of law in this matter, and the Defendant’s silence in the face of your DEMAND for same is further proof that no waiver ever occurred;
#9: at a minimum, honoring your fundamental Right to due process of law (by filing and serving a lawsuit) would have been a necessary pre‑condition to issuance of any Warrant of Distraint, and also a necessary pre‑condition to any judicial determination designating the 5 accounts as “nominees” for your private assets;
#10: no such Warrant of Distraint was ever issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
#11: no such judicial determination was ever made or decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction; and,
#12: the Defendant corporation is estopped, after your Initial COMPLAINT is filed, from thereafter exhibiting any evidence of any waiver(s) of your fundamental Rights to said Warrant of Distraint and to said judicial determination.
Lastly, I notice that the first draft of your Initial COMPLAINT names a Profit Sharing Plan by the name of:
“Tally H. Eddings, II. M.D., P.C.”
and it names a Pension Plan by the name of:
“Tally H. Eddings, II, M.D., P.C.”
If these P.C.’s are abbreviations for “Professional Corporation”, you must now confront the legal reality that you will not be permitted to represent these professional corporations, at least not initially.
More specifically, if the money disbursed by the Defendant corporation was disbursed contrary to law, it would only be logical to request relief that restores those accounts to their original balances. In other words, the Defendant corporation should deposit into those accounts enough funds to restore the balances to what they were before the levies were executed.
But, if I were Counsel for the Defendant corporation, I would argue that you (Plaintiff Tally H. Eddings, II, M.D.) have no standing to request that relief on behalf of any of the entities named on those 5 accounts BECAUSE YOU CANNOT REPRESENT THEM IN COURT WITHOUT A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA!
So, I think we were correct to leave these entities unnamed as “Doe’s 1 thru 10” in the Initial COMPLAINT. This will prevent other serious and knotty problems that will develop for you, if it turns out that these Professional Corporations (“P.C.”) were not in good standing with the Florida Secretary of State, for example.
I did not check to see if any such P.C.’s are listed at the website of the Florida Secretary of State.
If you reach a point in your case at which the judge bars you from requesting any relief on behalf of these professional corporations, quite obviously at that point you have to go shopping for a licensed attorney you trust, to represent those corporations as Co-Plaintiffs.
Further along in this scenario, however, we anticipate that you will not be able to find any properly licensed attorney qualified to represent those professional corporations; so, I would start shopping now, so that you will be able to tell the State judge about the problems you have already encountered locating a duly licensed attorney to represent them (when you cannot represent them, because you’re not a licensed attorney).
Also, be sure, at the outset, that these P.C.’s have given you specific authority to shop and retain a licensed attorney to represent them in this case. Remember, corporations are completely separate legal bodies, with their own “corpus” of rights.
So, this is a rather involved way of saying that using “Doe’s 1 thru 10” will leave open an important option, namely, admitting a possible mistake on your part and getting a ruling from the State judge that these never were professional corporations in good standing (if that approach is something that you agree is valuable for its ultimate outcome).
In other words, you would, under this scenario, stipulate that the accounts in question were, indeed, just nominees for your assets. Happily, this is a decision which you don’t need to make before the Initial COMPLAINT is filed, using “Doe’s 1 thru 10” as I have recommended.
The advantage to you of stipulating to “nominee accounts” is that you can then argue for relief which restores the stolen funds by paying those funds directly to you.
This approach also avoids other potential problems you will be facing, if the State decides to impose civil sanctions for operating as a corporation that is not in good standing, or worse, one that was never properly chartered in the first place. Your latest email promised to send me more details about these entities, so I’ll reserve further analysis in this regard, until I have reviewed those documents.
The only other relief I can honestly justify, before seeing these other details and under the facts you have shared with me to date, is to hire a Florida State Bar member to represent the Doe’s, and to avoid any debate about his license (or lack thereof). That BAR member would then request the court to order the funds restored to the original accounts, by appearing on behalf of the entities in whose names those accounts were first established, e.g. the P.C.’s.
Alternatively, you could stand tall and confront the missing licenses by telling the judge you could not find a single BAR member who had a valid license to practice law. But, this latter thrust will generate a whole lot more litigation for you.
The cheapest path to either outcome (funds restored to you, or funds restored to the 5 accounts) seems to have you appearing on your own behalf at the beginning, and a BAR member you trust appearing on behalf of the Doe’s later on and only after the legal status and standing of those Doe’s is determined judicially by the court.
With a little luck, you won’t need to retain the BAR member, particularly if the Defendant corporation tries to appear with an attorney who lacks a valid license. At that point, I am trying to steer your case into one which gives the State no alternative but to grant a SUMMARY JUDGMENT and to permit you (the only named Plaintiff) to request relief which restores the accounts on behalf of the P.C.’s, but without needing to hire a BAR member to request that relief.
The rest of your case should then devolve into subordinate decisions about the consequential and punitive damages, and to whom (or to what) those damages should be awarded. Specifically, after a SUMMARY JUDGMENT is entered, you can then enter the damage phase of your case and convene a jury to issue verdicts about the total damages you and the P.C.’s should be awarded.
Okay, I hope this helps. If you have a better way of sorting out the problems I anticipate with multiple plaintiffs (one human and the others fictitious), I am all ears!
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General