The Peter Schorsch Files

This is the Florida Bar complaint documents that Michael Pinson filed against Peter Schorsch's attorney Paul Phillips. The complaint was dismissed. Phillips admitted in a written statement that they were two off-the-record sources for very questionable hit piece story by Noah Pransky of WTSP. Pransky is friends with Schorsch and Phillips. Peter Schorsch has a criminal history. Pransky should be asked why he would trust the word of someone with Schorsch's troubled history.

Phillips - Additional Info - Part 2 by Michael Robert Hussey

Object_3B7792_0 by Michael Robert Hussey

Object 348D1E 0 by Michael Robert Hussey

Peter Schorsch's Criminal History

Michael Pinson listed Peter Schorsch's wonderful criminal history in his bar complaint against attorney Paul Phillips. The complaint was dismissed but there is wonderful information in the complaint.

Schorsch has been cited for numerous criminal and civil wrong doings over the past five years. He has nine Civil Judgments against him and two criminal arrests with time being served.

Why anyone political figure would hire Schorsch as a political consultant is beyond me.

SaintPetersGate Redux

Peter Schorsch sent me an email claiming that his former attorney Paul Phillips made no statement to the Florida Bar Association. So I am to believe that Pinson lied to the Florida Bar about Phillips making a sworn statement to the Florida Bar. That doesn't pass the laugh test. Conservative blogger Javier Manjarres found this gem in the Florida Bar complaint.

“I did provide the information in that email to my client [Peter Schorsch], and any news stories which occurred based on that information, complaints filed with the State of Florida, were done by my client and Channel 10 News Personnel.”- Paul Phillips, Florida Bar Complaint, TFB No.: 2013-10,093 (13E)

I saw this same statement by Phillips in a document leaked to me. When I asked Schorsch and Phillips about the leaked document they threatened me with a libel suit. It is no secret that Schorsch dislikes Conservative activist Michael Pinson. It is no secret that Schorsch will go after people who don't support Charlie Crist. According to Pinson in the complaint, he dropped his support for Crist and supported Marco Rubio's Senate campaign. It wouldn't surprise me if that is how the feud actually started.

My interest in the Florida Bar complaint was the media angle. Noah Pransky is friends with Schorsch, Phillips and Chris Kapper. Pransky used three men who were friends and disliked Pinson. Adam Smith of accused Schorsch of being a serial liar to the media. The fact that Pransky would use Schorsch as a source for the Pinson story should be called into question.

There is also the allegations by Tampa politicians that Schorsch threatened to keep writibg negative posts on SaintPetersBlog if they didn't pay a for an ad on the blog. Pinson wad one of the people presented with a contract. The contract was negotiated on Schorsch's behave by Phillips. The contract presented to Pinson is part of a Pinellas Sheriff's Office investigation into Schorsch.

Peter Schorsch is a disgrace to political blogging and represents everything that is bad about politics. Schorsch needs to be disappear from blogging and politics forever. If Schorsch is still working as a shadow agent for the Charlie Crist campaign then Crist needs to come clean. If not then Crist's judgment is called into question.

Peter Schorsch Has No Control Over Pushing Rope

This is from a text message Paul Phillips sent to Michael Pinson. There was talk about deleting the Noah Pransky story from this blog. I am not sure how Peter Schorsch planned to pull that off.

PHILLIPS: Peter is reviewing now. He has no control over pushing rope however, but we can check.

Please do. Pinson ended up never signing the contract. The Tampa Bay Times reported that notarized and signed by Schorsch.

Breaking: Florida Bar Complaint Proves Schorsch & Phillips Source For WTSP Story

Here it is boys and girls. The Florida Bar complaint proves that Paul Phillips and Peter Schorsch were off-the-record sources for Noah Pransky's WTSP negative hit piece on the Michael Pinson Foundation. Phillips admitted under oath that both Schorsch and him were sources for the WTSP story.

The bar complaint itself was dismissed. It is not illegal for Peter Schorsch and Paul Phillips to talk to the media. What should be noted is Schorsch has been accused of repeatedly lying to the media by Adam Smith of Tampa Bay Times.

Still, for his very campaign event Crist turned to Schorsch who routinely and unapologetically lies publicly to the press, who owes nearly $68,000 in outstanding fines to the Florida Elections Commission, who six years pleaded no contest to grand thef and scheming to defraud charges. Really?

Pinson claimed in the Florida Bar complaint that Noah Pransky attended Schorsch's wedding. Pransky would not answer that on-the-record. I asked Schorsch if he knew Chris Kapper. Schorsch would not comment. Kapper made an on-the-record claim that Pinson was using charity money to host hot tub parties. No second source verified this story in Pransky's new piece. Schorsch is Facebook friends with Kapper.

Kapper thanked Pransky for his "activism on Facebook. I have no idea of the context of the quote.

In the Florida Bar complaint Schorsch and Phillips admit to knowing Kapper.

There is a lot more in the complaint but it is obvious that the WTSP story is garbage.

Paul Phillips Freaks Out On Twitter

Hey kids, Paul Phillips, the attorney threatening to sue me for libel, is in the middle of a flame war on Twitter.

@PaulPhillipsEsq @pushingrope @JohnPContiTPA I want your document, with typos #yougetwhatyoupayfor

— Javier Manjarres (@THESHARKTANK1) December 3, 2013

The flame war is still going on. Phillips says he is willing to give the Florida Bar complaint to anyone who stops by his office. I remember this less than friendly email from Phillips.

Based on an emaeil I received, I thought a few things should be made clear.

Pinson’s bar complaint against me was dismissed with no probable cause and remains, therefore, confidential within the bar system. Providing the contents to any person outside the system opens those individuals up to lawsuits. Because Mr. Pinson’s com"plaint was filled with untruths and lies, any publishing of such document would be actionable. I can ensure you I will use all avenues available to me should any unsubstantiated accusation of that complaint be used in any form.

Now I get this email from Phillips.

If you wanted the bar complaint and my response, just ask. Instead, you take the path all bloggers take and try to make something out of nothing, try to create some appearance of impropriety, and end up defaming an attorney with a clean record. That is just uncool. I have tried to be reasonable here.

My address is below. Call before you come and I can have copies made for you. You just have to post my response, and make it very clear that the complaint was dismissed for no probable cause because the accusations had not merit. That is the issue with defamation. Not spelling errors (which came from your bad copy paste and not from my email).

By posting one side of a complaint - that was dismissed without merit - and not clearly stating that it was dismissed, is irresponsible and the courts will find on my side (I have case law that shows it pretty clear). As a blogger who asserts that he is media, I can give you some free legal advice here. If you know the whole story, or have been given credible evidence contradicting a source, then you have to show both sides. Otherwise, you are open to lawsuits. What most people don’t realize is that lawsuits last a very long time, a year or more, and are very expensive, and any lawyer will want to get paid along the way for their work. I see bills all day long and they are 5 figures.

Again, I have been very reasonable, but your responses to my emails and posts about them have been irresponsible. Either you are not reading these emails in their entirety, or you are purposely taking things out of context to draw readership or something. I don’t know.

I seem to remember reading that part about Phillips threatening to sue me if I published any part of the Florida Bar complaint. Perhaps Phillips has a different definition of "reasonable" than I do. I think I am going to pass on that offer of legal advice. Phillips has threatened to sue for for libel. One of the reasons is pointing out the typos in his email.

Additionally, besides being sent with a disclaimer explaining that the November 22, 2013 email was to remain confidential, you posted an incorrect version of the November 22, 2013 email. The email sent to you does not contain the errors shown in your post. Instead, your post states:

The email with typos is posted above and here. Is Phillips serious? I still have the email. This will be laughed out of court.

What I am investigating is the WTSP story about the Michael Pinson Foundation and the accusations that Peter Schorsch pressured political official into paying for positive coverage on SaintPetersblog. Phillips was Schorsch's attorney for these contracts. Phillips told me in an email that no longer represents Schorsch. The Tampa Bay Times broke the story. Pinson was one of the people that told TBT about the contract he never signed. Phillips drew up the contract.

What kind of guy is Phillips. Phillips fire off this tweet at Javier Manjarres' Hispanic heritage.

you need to go back to mowing lawns buddy. Rhetoric not your thing. Partial truths, red herrings, ad hominems. Wow.

@THESHARKTANK1 you need to go back to mowing lawns buddy. Rhetoric not your thing. Partial truths, red herrings, ad hominems. Wow.

— Paul Phillips (@PaulPhillipsEsq) December 3, 2013

Pathetic.

GOP Consultant Peter Schorsch Threatens Me With Libel Lawsuit

I continue to get threatened by Peter Schorsch and his attorney Phillips. Schorsch sent this email to me.

I am going to share with you ... the cover letter which clearly shows the proposed settlement came from Pinson's attorney not mine.

With this, you will be informed that what you have said to date is clearly wrong and, in our opinion, defamatory and libelous.

Therefore, you should delete any post or Tweet that is counter to the fact that Pinson initiated contact or you will be subject to a legal proceeding.

Michael, on a personal level, you have backed the wrong horse here. I truly suggest you look at your work and clean it up before Monday because that's when the legal action gets underway.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Michael Pinson and several other Florida political officials told the  Tampa Bay Times that Schorsch told then he would stop writing negative posts and deleting negative posts if they would pay a financial fee. TBT Reported that Schorsch came to Pinson with the contract.

The reinvigorated criminal inquiry into Schorsch stems from accusations made by Pinson, a Republican activist who over the last three years Schorsch has frequently criticized and mocked online. Pinson supplied a contract to the Times that Schorsch had presented him in May 2012. In it, Schorsch requested that Pinson pay him $3,200 in order for the blogger to delete all references to Pinson from his websites —and to write nothing more about him for the following three years.

The contract called for a $1,000 bonus if anything Schorsch wrote about Pinson didn't appear in the first 30 online search results.

The contract is notarized and signed by Schorsch. The Times met with the notary, who confirmed its legitimacy.

There was this gem from the TBT article.

More than a half-dozen people contacted by the Times declined to comment on Schorsch, esveral saying they feared retribution.

A source backed to me the TBT account of that Schorsch approached Pinson. I have posted the contract. You can see that Schorsch signed the contract and Pinson did not. One has to ask if this was Pinson's idea then why didn't he sign the contract.

I have asked Schorsch and his attorney Paul Phillips about a possible deposition that reveals if they were off-the-record sources of a negative WTSP story against Pinson. I also asked if a deposition relating the the WTSP story existed. The result was Phillips threatening me in a poorly written email. I am confused. If no depostion took place with the Florida Bar Association then why is Phillips threatening me with a lawsuit.  I tried to confirm with Phillips if a document I saw was a deposition and get an on-the-record comment.

It should be noted that Schorsch and Phillips did not offer a comment to me if they were off-the-record sources in the highly negative WTSP story about the Michael Pinson Foundation. Schorsch and Phillips would not say on-the-record if they knew Chris Kapper. No second source backed Kapper's allegation in the WTSP story. Kapper has worked with Phillips on activities relating to the Republican Party of Hillsborough County Board.

I will fact-check the document Schorsch sent me. I am not going to take Schorsch's word at face value. Schorsch has previously pleaded no contest to grand theft and was fined by the Florida Elections Commission for $64,000.

Update: the post was corrected to reflect that Schorsch pleaded no contest to grand theft. My Blogger app didn't upload the corrected post last night.

Ethics Complaint Against Jim Norman

Tampa attorney Paul Phillips has filed an ethics complaint against Hillsborough County Commissioner Jim Norman. According to the Daily Loaf blogger Chris Ingram, Phillips is a registered Republican. Norman is a Republican running for Florida Senate district 12. Norman's primary opponent is Kevin Ambler.

Phillips contends the $435,000 Arkansas home in Norman's wife's name was given as a gift by conservative activist Ralph Hughes. You may remember Norman had championed renaming the Moral Courage award after Hughes. The award's name was changed again after it was revealed Hughes owed $300 million in corporate and income taxes to the IRS.

Norman was asked by the St. Petersburg Times how his wife came about the money to buy the Arkansas house. Norman was less than forthcoming.

"It's an investment my wife has. I have gone there, but it's not mine," said Norman, who is facing state Rep. Kevin Ambler in the Republican primary for the District 12 state Senate seat on Aug. 24.

So how did his wife come up with $435,000 to pay for the house? "It came with my wife's investors," he said, though he declined to name them. "I'm not getting into my wife's investment portfolio. That's my wife's interests."

Norman is running for a state senate seat. He may feel it is an invasion of his privacy, but the voters have a right to know. Refusing to give answers will only instill distrust in his fitness to serve. Phillips alleges in his complaint that Mearline Norman has "does not have any visible means of earning income." According to Phillips, Jim and Mearline Norman have filed joint tax returns. The question is if Mearline Norman is not employed then how was she able to purchase a $435,000 home?

Mr. and Mrs Norman had two boats under both their names at the Arkansas house. Both boats were worth over a $1,000. Under law as a political candidate, Norman should have listed the boats in his financial disclosure. Norman failed to do so in 2006.

Norman receives a free car to use as an employee of the Salvation Army. Norman also a $233 monthly car allowance as a member of the Hillsborough County Commission. Norman receives taxpaid a car allowance to use a free car from a nonprofit organization. Norman's financial diclosure list two cars. Neither automobile is the 2006 Toyota Camry the Salvation Army allows Norman to use. Norman drove the Camry to a East Pasco Tea Party Patriots event. That certainly does not qualify as Commission or Savation Army business.

Norman works part-time hours at the Salvation Army. He is paid $90,000. I am positive many people would love to have a part-time job that pays that much and throws in a free car.

Best Press Release Ever by A Pol

Republican Paul Phillips is running for the Florida Senate. Phillips sent out the most wonkish press release I have seen in ages. Phillips notes that HR 1143 most originally streamline health care. The Florida legislature then put in language against President Barack Obama's health care reform. Republicans then put in the ultrasound language.

Phillips points out the Florida Constitution requires bills be single issue. My take is more flexible than that. I do agree that the Florida House made HR 1143 more confusing to citizens. Phillips also questions whether the the ultrasound language would have been deemed constitutional by the Florida Supreme Courts. This is an interesting question you will never hear Marco Rubio ask.

I take issue with the many candidates and politicians glomming on to Charlie Crist’s veto of House Bill 1143 (HB 1143) and focusing only on the Ultrasound issue. Their arguments are often weak, unfounded, and illogical, wreaking of emotionalism and conjecture. It is apparent that we have elected, and continue to elect, grandstanders who ignore Constitutional principles and continue to create a schizophrenic body of law as a result.

The issues, which were never debated, are much more complex than our elected officials or candidates have addressed today in their barrage of accusatory statements and misleading rhetoric. As such, I thought I would provide a statement.

First, prior to the late, undebated insertion of the Ultrasound language, House Bill 1143 went a long way to repeal obsolete and often duplicative provisions in nursing home licensing and related statutes.

Many of the changes HB 1143 made to the administrative rules would have resulted in a streamlined and more cost-efficient system, in a state that desperately needs to prepare for increased nursing home demand. Now, these changes will not take effect.

Second, any bill introduced should address only one idea, according to the Florida Constitution. Bundling disparate subjects into a single bill invites confusion, and I would argue, intentionally encourages it. When a politician votes for or against a bill with multiple subjects, it is impossible to discern why. In the case of HB 1143, a vote for or against the bill could have been a vote for or against one of the three, completely separate issues contained within. This is political a trick and nothing else. We should, as our Constitution requires, demand bills like HB 1143 only address single subjects. It increases the true transparency of the vote and clarifies a politician’s reasons for, or against a law. HB 1143 may, or may not, have withstood Constitutional muster by the courts on this issue; however, that is debatable. What is not debatable is that some politico will produce ads saying that “Representative so-and-so voted against HB 1143, a bill which would have reduced Medicare expenses and streamlined the nursing home system” of “Senator so-and-so is not pro-life.” In the end, it is a charade the wastes time and money.

Finally, we must remember, Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution provides Floridians with a higher degree of protection from government intrusion than the U.S. Constitution, since Florida’s Declaration of Rights include an express, freestanding Right of Privacy Clause. Together, the Declaration of Rights protects each individual from the unwarranted governmental intrusion into the private affairs of our lives; and, the Supreme Court of Florida has stated: “These Declarations of Rights . . . say to arbitrary and autocratic power, from whatever official quarter it may advance to invade these vital rights . . .’Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther.’” State ex rel. Davis v. City of Stuart, 97 Fla. 69, 102-03, 120 So. 335.

Whether or not the Ultrasound bill would have withstood the enhanced privacy requirement contained in the Declaration of Rights is also debatable. The law, more than likely, would have needed to withstand strict scrutiny, the highest level of review; and, the State would have to had to show that the law would further a compelling State interest through the least intrusive means. I am not a doctor; however, from what I understand to be a rather significant difference between first trimester ultrasounds and second/third trimester ultrasounds, the first trimester ultrasound method would definitely be more “intrusive” by my definition. As an attorney, I would have to say HB 1143 would have failed on this issue.

Our leaders continue to ignore the Oath of Office, which is to uphold and defend the Constitutions of both Florida and the United States of America. It’s time for us all to look behind the sound bites, study the facts, and come to our own conclusions.