Mark Turner Russell Edgar: Turners Bar Complaint Response Back to Edgars Comments

There has been a lot of conversation here at Maggie's Notebook about Mark Turner, a man living in the Pensacola, Florida area. At the bottom of this post, you will find links to the background of Mark Turner's case.

Today, I want to focus on complaints Mr. Turner made to the Florida Bar. When a citizen feels they have been unjustly treated by the justice system, they can file a "Bar Complaint" with the State's Bar - the organization that generally registers and tracks lawyers in the area. I received the documents in this article directly from the Florida Bar. The letter below is the third in a series:

First was Mark Turner's complaint to the bar about Florida Special Prosecutor Russell Edgar, the second is Russell Edgar's response back to Mark Turner's complaint, and the third is the letter shown below - Mark Turner's response back to William Wilhelm, counsel for the Florida Bar. So this is only the third letter. Turner is attempting to show what went wrong with his trial. I have copied these documents accurately - with two changes. I made paragraphs smaller to be more easily read, and added some font colors, bolding and italics for emphasis. When you see brackets, like these [ ] with text in red, those are my comments and explanations. With the purple text, I attempted to show Mark's bottom-line thought as he addressed each of Edgar's responses.

If you are "skimming," when you see the purple, you might want to read what is before it or after to get the point. The green text is just to keep the focus in the midst of the purple. Normally, differing font colors are not a good idea, but your eyes will glaze over if you try to read every word. I hope I'm directing you to the flavor of the comment. Also, using all capital letters is not a good idea on the Internet, but this is directly from the letter the Bar sent to me.

Again, Mark Turner needs the help of an attorney who is not afraid of the prosecutors who do what appears to have been done below. Please pass this on. Mark Turner can be contacted directly here. Again, I am not an attorney. I'm just working from public records and presenting Mark Turner's side. I believe he definitely has a "side" to present.

Please note that Mark Turner has filed charges against Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr., the man accused of killing Byrd and Melanie Billings in Beulah, Florida. The Billings were also in the auto/used car business. See the link to background at bottom article.

*****

[from] Mark Turner
(redacted address)
Gulf Breeze, FL (zip redacted)
(phone number redacted)

[to] William W. Wilhelm, Esquire
Florida Bar Counsel
651East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

RE: Russell Edgar, The Florida Bar File No.: 2009,00,884(1A)

June 23, 2009

Dear Mr. Wilhelm,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Russ Edgar's rebuttal. Russ Edgar claims I was charged in July 2006 (Case No. 2006 CF 003365 A) with "racketeering and money laundering offenses". Not True. See Exhibit A: Arrest Report. Charges were 2 Counts Grand Theft of over $100,000 from alleged victims David Turner and Lisa Levin-Zolnoski.

Russ Edgar claims my charges "stemmed from... several thousand dollars of proceeds of the sale of 'consigned or floor planned' used cars". Not True. See Exhibit A: Arrest Report. The charges I was arrested for did not involve consigned or floor planned cars.

Russ Edgar claims that he "was assigned the case by the State Attorney in May 2007"and that he "first appeared...one year after the case was filed." He chooses his words carefully. The point is that Edgar was INVOLVED prior to 2007. In response to his paragraphs Al-3. Not True. I have video (I can provide URL upon the Bar's request) where you can hear Russ Edgar speaking with Greg Smith [attorney], Rick Hamilton [General Manager of Pete Moore Chevrolet] and Anthony Ramsey [prior employee of Mark Turner and then-current employee of Pete Moore, and David Turner's son-in-law] in 2006. Russ Edgar was INVOLVED.

Edgar also carefully chooses his witnesses just as he chooses his words. The absence of recorded statements from Charles Pelezo and Chris Bailey speaks volumes. Neither is still employed with Pete Moore. Edgar purposely chose to interview Rick Hamilton who shares liability in my civil lawsuit against Pete Moore/PMC. Edgar purposely chose to interview Anthony Ramsey who admits in Sworn Deposition that he received a $5,000 payoff and an SUV for his participation in this case.

Russ Edgar claims that I was arrested by a deputy of the Escambia County Sheriffs Office "after a finding of probable cause". Not True. This case was started in December 2003. I was arrested only after the evidence in the Sheriffs custody was provided to the civil attorney's representing Pete Moore/PMC and their Memorandum was the "probable cause" that resulted in my arrest 3 years later. NOTE: MEMORANDUM DATE WAS MARCH 28.2006. BY JUNE 20th A WARRANT WAS SIGNED FOR 812.014.2 LARCENY S20.000 TO UNDER $100.000 AND BY JULY 6™ 2006 I WAS ARRESTED. See Exhibit B: Warrant signed by Judge. The record shows, in 2004, Investigator Busbee states on videotape that the "State Attorney's Office wants me to investigate this matter...this cases is instigated against you...they want me to prepare a case against you...the finger is pointed at you". See Exhibit C: Deposition of Charles Monroe Busbee September 2006, Page 5, Lines 6-14. Investigator Busbee admits the investigation was started by the State Attorney's Office "about three years ago". Why did it take 3 years to attain "probable cause"? Answer: because this was a civil matter until Edgar got involved.

David Turner claimed to be a victim in December 2003 but "probable cause" was non-existent until I refused to drop my civil case against Pete Moore/PMC. See Exhibit D: Cancelled check from alleged victim David Turner to Anthony Ramsey, former AGOP manager and currently PMC employee, shows their collusion in their attempt to rob me. David Turner claimed to be the victim but do victims give away $5,000 checks and SUV's? Please don't disregard the check for $30,000 that David Turner wrote to his mistress Linda Kehoe on the same day. This money was stolen from my company AGOP. Edgar knew this prior to the trial but ignored David Turner's theft and money laundering from his personal account to that of his mistress.

 It should be noted that during this time of dispute between me and my brother, any funds received by me were placed in my attorney's Trust Account until all of the cars and complaints were satisfied and Pete Moore had taken over my business, as agreed in the Merger. In Section A4: Edgar states that when I was "caught" , I misappropriated the funds. Russ Edgar continues to skew what really happened before, during and now even after the trial.

The record shows: In sworn testimony, the DMV officer Hope Lunsford admits the license for the business was incorporated during the time in question; this means the business did not belong to David Turner. In Kevin Hausfeld's Memo to the Sheriffs Department, he states the funds of AGOP belonged to the corporation. The Bank of Pensacola's attorney Phillip Bates states the funds of AGOP belonged to the corporation. The Federal Income Tax Returns for AGOP proved that I was the only shareholder. David Turner's CPA Randall Sansom, stated in Court Testimony, that David Turner never claimed any involvement with AGOP nor did he ever pay taxes on any revenue arrived from AGOP. David Turner admits to Investigator Busbee in the Sheriffs Department videotape that he ordered Stock Certificates in 2004 and backdated them to 1998. He did this in an effort to steal all the funds from the AGOP corporate account.

In Sheriffs Department videotape in 2004, Investigator Busbee claims this dispute "sounds civil" and fails to make an arrest until after receiving the Hausfeld Memorandum in 2006. In later Sheriffs Department video tape, my civil attorney Jim Chase and I were unaware that we were being recorded. It was brought to my attention that this is a violation of my attorney-client privilege. Investigator Busbee states that he informed David Turner that he had "serious tax problems" if he was claiming ownership of AGOP. David Turner had to believe that he would be compensated if he could prove AGOP was his. This was not the case in the criminal trial. So if the money from AGOP belonged to anyone other than the corporation, where is the documentation supporting Edgar's claim.  

The Court Record shows that David Turner's allegations of fraudulent behavior on my part were dismissed.Where are the letters written to Jim Chase from anyone claiming that the corporate funds belonged to them? There were no claims, no letters. I would like the record to show that AFC produced documentation shown in Edgar's "Exhibit P" to the contrary of Edgars claim. David Turner and AGOP Inc were responsible for the debt owed to AFC. Nowhere in the letter to AFC from Jim Chase, does it say that David Turner is the "Owner". See Exhibit E: Letter from Jim Chase to Barry Beroset proving AFC is not a victim with attached email from AFC to Jim Chase stating "Mark Turner does not owe any money to AFC."

David Turner was associated with some documents pertaining to AGOP but that did not make him the owner and The Courts agreed so his allegations were dismissed. IF I, MARK TURNER, WAS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AFC OUTSTANDING DEBT, THEN WHY DID EDGAR MAINTAIN THAT CHARGE? IF THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING DAVID TURNER AND LEVIN-ZOLNOSKI ALLEGATIONS, THEN WHY DID EDGAR MAINTAIN THOSE CHARGES? IF THERE WAS A CANCELLED CHECK FROM MYSELF AND THE BOND COMPANY TO CHRISTENSEN, THEN WHY DID EDGAR MAINTAIN THOSE CHARGES? EDGAR PURPOSELY MAINTAINED ALL THE CHARGES TO CONFUSE THE JURY. IN FACT, AT THE BENCH, EDGAR REFERRED TO MR. CHRISTENSEN AS "ROBIN HOOD". IN RUSS EDGAR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT AT TRIAL, HE REPEATEDLY ASKED THE JURY TO "PICK OUT JUST ANY TWO CARS AND THE JUDGE WILL TELL YOU THAT HE'S GUILTY OF ALL THE CHARGES". Edgar knew the Judge would never make such a biased statement to the Jury but hearing this proclamation over and over again was an attempt by Edgar to convince the Jury that the Judge somehow agreed with his statements.

As to Bl, it is meaningless whether the prosecution was "instituted in good faith" by a different ASA. Edgar is supposed to be responsible for every step until the end of the case but he did not prosecute in good faith. B3 and B4, Edgar misses the point. It is not at issue how the civil case could assist the prosecution. The accusation of wrongdoing flows the other way: that the prosecution was to assist the civil case specifically, to force me to drop it.  

Abandoning the civil case would have resolved the prosecution, to "assist" Edgar in proving the case. The letter from the Berosets established that the connection between the civil and criminal case was discussed with Edgar. He [Edgar] does not respond to my accusation of his abuse of power and does not deny the relationship; he just attacks the merit of my civil case, which does not speak to the criminal case or the strategy to use the prosecution to force me to drop my civil case.

Edgar claims that I have not pursued my civil case. Not True. Within 2 days after my criminal trial, Honorable Judge Geeker ruled in my favor. Last week he informed counsel and me that this civil case will now be accelerated. As to C: The SAO and the Sheriff work together in bringing an arrest and prosecuting it. Edgar cannot deny that his office continued to prosecute an arrest, valid or not. As to D: Curtis Golden, former State Attorney, was still active in office in 2003 when David Turner made the allegations against me. In fact, other Golden family members still work in the State Attorney's Office with Edgar to this date. Curtis Golden is the Uncle to Mrs. David Turner and the Great Uncle to Mrs. Anthony Ramsey. I did not know it was up to me to make any demands on the State. I relied on my attorneys John and Barry Beroset to inform me of any rights I was privileged to. Edgar's move in limine to prevent raising this point to the jury is exactly this bias. This restricted my right to put forth a defense, on a critical issue of the motive of the SAO to prosecute and for the arrest. Mr. Wilhelm. Paragraphs E and F were missing on my copy from Edgar's Response to the Bar.

However, this does not surprise me because I believe Edgar did not write all the sections of this response to you. There is no way that anyone with as much involvement as Edgar has with my life and this case would make such erroneous statements about the Court proceedings. I will offer further examples later. I would like the opportunity to read and respond to Edgar's submission of Paragraphs E and F to the Bar. As to G: Once again a play on words. I believe that I am not the only one who thinks it is misconduct to outright lie to a defendant's spouse in a Sworn Deposition. Please refer to the very attachment that Edgar included in his response. See Exhibit F: Deposition of Nancy Turner, is "factual" basis. The quote is "I played you a tape of your husband and some other people."

This is misconduct and a lie. The statement was made, he admits he made it, it was inappropriate and reflects his lack of Ethics. Edgar, just like he did throughout my criminal trial, mixes everything together to confuse and mislead. In fact, See Exhibit G: A statement from the Trial Transcript Volume 12 page 2199 lines 5-17 where Honorable Judge Jones reprimands Edgar for taking sole personal responsibility when he so boldly proclaimed to the Jury and the entire audience, "I BROUGHT THIS CASE AGAINST MARK TURNER". Although I appreciate The Courts reprimand of Edgar and his instruction to the Jury to disregard the claim, the damage was already engrained. You can't un-ring a bell. He rang the bell like he does whenever he wants regardless of the consequence. As to Section H: Edgar claims that he is entitled to amend charges. I never said he wasn't. It is the number of amendments that I feel illustrates his agenda. It doesn't matter that he was not the first ASA to file the complaint. The point is he improperly amended charges despite evidence and information that negated the amendments.

Edgar amended my charges over 20 times and it wasn't' just the number of amendments, it was also the timing of those amendments which suggests something other than "legal" or appropriate motives. Edgar's citation of State Cases are very important and I am glad he has brought these up. It might behoove you, Mr. Wilhelm to investigate these cases further. Edgar admits he used the same pattern. They may contain similar facts that I have complained about. The previous prosecutor on the State vs. Dana Adkinson case informed me and my wife that there was no evidence the State had against Dana Adkinson to pursue her prosecution. He said the "evidence was fabricated by Russ Edgar". I purposely do not mention the prosecutor's name because this is a small town, but I am sure that the truth will surface.

Regarding Russ Edgar's extensive Footnote #6 cited in H3: On the contrary, the record shows that NO PROOF was presented at trial that supported any of the comments in this footnote. The record shows otherwise and this is another example justifying my belief that Edgar was not the only author of his response to the Florida Bar. Edgar states in Section H4 that he objected to my defense's request to delay prosecution. What he fails to acknowledge is that Edgar amended the charges the night before the hearing and that my attorney had not been privileged to this new amendment, in fact, at the hearing, Barry Beroset asked Drew Pinkerton, my wife's criminal attorney, his advice about the overnight changes and they both agreed that without a request to postpone, Barry Beroset could be sued by me. Of what I do not know but it is what my wife and I both heard.

The lack of a request for speedy trial does not automatically suggest that the defense accepted the continuously amended charges or agreed that they were valid amendments. He wanted me to drop my civil case outright or use the Pleas to render my civil case moot. Edgar did not expect or want the case to go to trial.He only went to trial when I refused to take the Plea, when I refused to be bullied by escalating amended charges, when I refused after my wife's arrest, and when I refused to drop my civil case against Pete Moore.

Edgar boldly claims in Section H6 that "There is no legal "nexus" between Mark Turner's criminal case and his civil suit against PM and PMC." Again Edgar misses the point. The differences in subject are irrelevant. The issue is not how the conviction would be relevant evidence in the civil case. The prosecution was leverage that they all counted on to force me to drop the civil case. No one claimed that it would be "evidence" to embrace or be avoided. The "nexus" was that leverage. The "nexus" is that my civil trial had to be postponed at the recommendation of my criminal attorney because my criminal charges "took precedence". A successful conviction and incarceration would impede my pursuit of the civil case, as Edgar attempts to claim in this very Bar Response.

Whether he admits it or not, it is evident to anyone that the two are interrelated. Section H7: Larry Matthews, civil attorney for PM/PMC told Kevin Hausfeld to prepare the Memo [memorandum suggesting charges to be brought against Turner]. Together their firm did so as shown in prior documentation. The threat came from Larry Matthews not Kevin Hausfeld. The charges are threat enough; they didn't need to come from Russ Edgar in person.

As to I: Edgar states the check for $205,000 is "irrelevant" [Turner's payment to Pete Moore that was never recorded and that Pete Moore's comptroller knew nothing about]. It was relevant because Edgar had to prove value to support the larcenies and thereby support the racketeering that was comprised of the larcenies (had to be in excess of $ 100,000). If the value was reduced by any amount, Edgar could not charge what he charged [racketeering and money laundering], nor could the Jury convict me. 

Edgar trumped the values up intentionally to overcharge, so as to again use the leverage against me to drop my civil case out of fear of the number of potential years of incarceration with each higher count, and to confuse the Jury. He ignored the other counts in the charge. It was not just the money laundering. The $205,000 went to the grand larceny counts that supported the racketeering, so it is not a defense by Edgar to defend the $205,000 in the context solely of the money laundering. As shown in the restitution hearing, Pete Moore's debts and AFC's debts combined only totaled $83,000+. Edgar fails to mention the Verdict Sheet which did not specify what I was found guilty of [*****]

After the Restitution Hearing, Judge Jones, Russ Edgar and Barry Beroset discovered no one had done the math and properly added up the dollar amounts of the charged vehicles. This puts the 6 vehicles in which I was charged with Theft only totaling $45,300. This left a balance of $38,343.73 to be owed to AFC, however please refer to Exhibit E again which would have eliminated the AFC charge. Referencing Edgar's footnote #6, he cites Florida Law pertaining to delivering of titles. He does not properly cite the law. There is no law that mandates Pete Moore had to deliver anything nor does it mandate that Pete Moore is to pay off my debt. Pete Moore did these acts in accordance to our Business Merger Agreement.

Also in this same footnote, Edgar continues to misuse the wrong dollar amounts even after the Restitution Hearing. Once again, Edgar could not have authored this Section of the Bar Response. He was at the Restitution Hearing and the combined charges were found to be $83,000. This is also where the cancelled check for $205.000 is relevant. I overpaid Pete Moore. If I overpaid Pete Moore with the $205,000 check then the money in the corporate account did not belong to Pete Moore so Edgar's charge of money laundering does not hold water. If the money was mine to move from the corporate account to the Trust Account then to another business for capital, then Edgar's charge of racketeering does not hold water.

Edgar claims that I moved the money 4 times so that equated to 4 times the amount of money. During the Restitution Hearing, Edgar claims that a person moving $26,000 four times is guilty of money laundering $104,000 and RICO because it was done 2 or more times. Edgar references a "Bust Out" Theory and continues to make claims about my brother's ownership of the company when it was clearly stated hi The Courts that the accusations made by my brother were unfounded and thereby dropped. Yet again, Russ Edgar continues to reword this proclamation as if it means something.

 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT EDGAR'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE PROHIBITED ME FROM BRINGING IN ALL THE CIVIL FACTS IN THIS CASE. Edgar blocked my defense. See Exhibit H: State's Sixth Motion In Limine. Edgar knew he could not win this case unless he blocked the fact that this issue was civil. His Motions of Limine were focused on allowing the Jury and the Judge to only see part of the facts, not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As to J: The recovery from a third party went again to value. Like Section 12, Edgar trumped up charges to overcharge, for greater threat to me (to encourage a plea because he calculated that if I were facing more jail time, surely I would be persuaded to Plea), and to confuse the jury. If a prosecutor charges someone with theft of money, it is very relevant what money was actually owed.

As to Section K: Assistance of Counsel, effective or ineffective, in motion practice is the subject of other legal matters, and are not a part of my Bar complaint. The absence of a motion to dismiss the RICO charge does not defend that Edgar did overcharge, rather, that is a legal response that is typically raised on appeal if the defense counsel did not preserve the issue for appeal. This is not a legal appeal. This is my complaint to the Florida Bar and there is no legal requirement that anything in a bar complaint has to be "preserved" by objection

As to Section L: I know that I am entitled to a public trial and it makes no difference if 3,4, or 5 friends or family members could attend. The constitutional right is violated if one person is denied his or her right to attend a public trial. The right flows also to the public who might be denied access to a public trial. Edgar's footnote #12 is misleading because it suggests that my wife and my mother were allowed to sit in on "proceedings" after testimony. My mother was not allowed to remain after she testified, at the request of Edgar and my wife was not permitted in until both sides rested, and they proceeded to closing arguments.

As to Section M: There were no charges filed against my civil attorney James Chase for money laundering, so there are no facts to support that. M4 is Not False. Edgar assumes that I meant he raised the matter in front of the jury. Instead, I am saying Edgar claims he would have to advise Mr. Chase of his rights in front of the jury, meaning when Mr. Chase took the stand, Edgar would suggest to the jury that Mr. Chase was guilty of something and not credible as a witness. Bottom line, Edgar denied me of my opportunity to present a defense.

If he wasn't trying to prevent Mr. Chase from testifying, if Edgar didn't want to scare Mr. Chase off, then why would Edgar say that he would have to advise Jim of his right "in front of the jury", rather than advise him outside the presence of the jury and give him the choice whether to proceed. This would taint the jury into concluding that my civil attorney must not be credible. It is not Edgar's call to make on what value the jury would have found in Mr. Chase's testimony and it is not a defense to my claim in the Bar Complaint. I had a right to present a defense, and the jury had the right to evaluate the facts, the credibility of the witnesses etc. Mr. Chase would have directly negated the money laundering charges, so his testimony was of great value to one of the major counts in the charge. If the charge suggested that I took ill gotten gains and used it illegally to start a new car business, then the testimony of Mr. Chase, who created the Trust Account to hold the money at issue until it was evident there were no claims against it, was directly relevant to whether I engaged in illegal financial transactions with that money. Bottom line is that Mr. Chase hurt Edgar's case so Edgar did not want him to testify. It had nothing to do with whether Mr. Chase would be of any value to the Jury or to me. The value to me was clear enough to Edgar that he did not want the testimony. The conflict in written statements on AFC only went to AFC and the trumped up larceny charges. That does not speak to the value of Mr. Chase's testimony on the money laundering count. Edgar is mixing up the counts so as to also confuse you Mr. Wilhelm. Edgar is counting on confusing you Mr. Wilhehn by complicating an uncomplicated matter. M6: Mr. Chase being advised by counsel does not negate Edgar's impropriety. Counsel or not, with a prosecutor improperly strong-arming you with prosecution that he never intends to make good on, that prosecutor is controlling the advice of counsel. If Edgar had never raised the issue of warning Mr. Chase of his rights, Mr. Chase would never have sought the advice of counsel.

Edgar did have 18 months to take Mr. Chases' deposition but never did.

Mr. Wilhelm, in conclusion, I have been told by my attorney friends that a lot of lawyers are mainly interested in settling cases out of court to avoid trial. Like car dealers, those attorneys are interested in making the deal. Both believe that a good deal is when everybody is happy, regardless of the money that was made or lost. These attorneys, like car dealers, can make you a deal you can't refuse. But if you're not in the market for a car, you won't buy no matter how good that deal is. I was not in the market for a Plea and although 10-months might have sounded enticing to anyone else to stop the pain versus 90-years which is equivalent to 3 life sentences, I had already lived through this same tactic Russ Edgar used on me in 1993. I also carried the burden of everyone else he misused RICO on. I stopped taking the Pensacola News Journal and prayed I would never have to face him again but the circumstances and the evidence speak for themselves. I was not in the market for what Russ Edgar was selling.

But you see, this was all about the deal only his deal is about power. Russ Edgar has the power to charge me with RICO and a 90 year sentence to literally destroy my life or give me as little as 10 months. But all I have to do is "confess" to something I didn't do and drop the civil case.

Please see Exhibit I: Plea offer. We all know that a man tortured will say whatever it takes to make the pain stop. My pain never stopped. My pain continues. In 1993 Russ Edgar tortured me. Since that time, I did everything I could do. I dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". I had my rights restored and he had to give me permission to do this. He released me from probation early and told me he would never torture me again but I continued to look over my shoulder because a bully picks on the innocent, picks on the helpless. Every newspaper article, every case haunted me because I did not do the right thing the first time. I did not stand up and fight Russ Edgar.

Excessive Prosecution has become routine for Russ Edgar and like the serial killer, he has become desensitized to his heinous actions. I hope you understand what I am saying. In the car business, when someone writes you a bad check for a car, you don't have a stolen car. You have a bad check problem, in the car business, if someone does not return your rental car on time, it is called conversion theft because you gave them the keys. In both of these circumstances, you have a written contract.

Russ Edgar built his case on pure fabrication and admits it in his closing argument. He built it against me. My Contract with Pete Moore is enclosed as Exhibit J: Line Of Credit. Imagine being criminally prosecuted for not paying your credit card off at the end of the month when you had an ongoing revolving balance for 20+years. Does your Mortgage Amortization Sheet show pluses and minuses like my Line of Credit with Pete Moore does. This was a civil case. Everyone, everyone realized this case was civil except Russ Edgar. How I got prosecuted for matters regarding a line-of-credit is beyond me.

Anytime a person stands behind a badge, he takes a higher oath and responsibility to the State. Russ Edgar, if truly was looking out for the well being of the State, he should not have been allowed to offer me 10 months if in fact I was so much of a threat that I deserved 90 years. Russ Edgar goes beyond his authority to use "Substantial Truth" in attempting to elicit a confession or obtain information that can be used against the defendant. He is willfully malevolent and outright untruthful, as exhibited by his behavior documented in Trial Transcripts, closing argument and deposition of my wife. He is neglectful in his misstatements in his response to the Florida Bar. He obviously disregarded the parameters set forth by the Florida Bar about the limit of 25 pages. Once again, he deems himself as immune to anyone above him. Yes, this may be a minute detail but very telling.

Mr. Wilhelm, I am not trained in mincing words and over-complicating communication so that the truth can be lost in translation. I am dyslexic but I am not stupid. Respectfully Submitted, Mark Turner PS. I have included the many signatures of Russ Edgar. I think this supports my theory that there were many authors to Russ Edgar's Response to the Bar. When you sign your name to a check, you swear the funds are in the account. When you sign your name to a document, you've read it and it's your statement. Edgar allowing someone to sign his name is like renting his license out. Edgar would give a life sentence to a Doctor that allowed his nurse to sign his name to prescriptions. The attached are Edgar's signatures on the very documents he used to prosecute me.

Background and related:
Mark Turner's Bar Complaint Against Prosecutor Russ Edgar

Mark Turner Leonard Patrick Gonzalez: Mark Turner New Gonzalez Charges

Mark Turner Pensacola Injustice: Mark Turner Patrick Gonzalez?

Mark Turner Framed? Pensacolan Russ Edgar, Pete Moore Motive for Framing Mark Turner?

 Mark Turner, Pete Moore, Russ Edgar: Framing Mark Turner in Pensacola? 

  Sheriff Morgan, Patrick Gonzalez Contract Murders: Local Business Rivals Implicated?

Byrd "Bud" Billings Business: Mark Turner Bud Billings Connection

Mark Turner Pete Moore Lawsuit: Bud Billings Pete Moore Connection

Byrd Billings, Melanie Billings Murdered: Billings Parents of 16 Children