Login

Signup

Posted By

Did Jack Skinner Deceive The Court?

October 18, 2019 | 0 Comments

Jack Merle Skinner of Skinner Law Firm, Greenwood, Arkansas had filed a legal brief October 7, 2019 with the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Division 2, in the case of Potter V. Holmes.  In the legal document several statements made by Jack Skinner have been determined to be false, dishonest, and deceit before the court.

Take notice of the counselor’s statement Fredrick R. Potter, through Allen Potter and others, has established various websites, Facebook Pages, Twitter Pages, including a Justice For Fred Potter website…” 

Skinner Law Firm Deceit

THE STATEMENT “FREDICKR. POTTER, THROUGH ALLEN POTTER AND OTHERS HAS ESTABLISHED VARIOUS WEBSITES…”  THAT JACK SKINNER MADE IN THE LEGAL BRIEF FILED WITH THE COURT PERTAINING TO THE WEBSITES IS FALSE AND LEADS TO DECEIVING THE COURT.

On the front page of JusticeForFredPotter.com and under the title is a notice of ownership and content responsibility.

Jack Skinner, Skinner Law Firm Lies

Veterans March is the owner of the websites JusticeForFredPotter.com, JFP.news, Justice For Fred Potter on Facebook and TwitterNO ONE FROM THE POTTER FAMILY OR FROM ANYONE ELSE OTHER THAN PERSONNEL FROM VETERANS MARCH HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OWNERSHIP, DESIGN, AND CONTENT OF THE WEBSITES.

Jack Skinner knows that Veterans March owns the website due to the notice of ownership on the Justice For Fred Potter website.  “He also should be aware because he had issued subpoenas to obtain information concerning Veterans March.”   Veterans March Spokesperson

Jack Skinner’s statements pertaining to Fredrick R. Potter collecting donations online is completely false.  The donation page on the website was designed by Veterans March and is in the account of a third party and not Fredrick R. Potter.  To date, no donations have been collected and as a result no attorney fees have been paid.

Please keep things in perspective by understanding that Fredrick R. Potter will be 90 years old in December of 2019.

Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct

[13A] A lawyer owes a solemn duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public. To accomplish those objectives, the lawyer must strive to avoid not only professional impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety. The duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety is not a mere phrase. It is part of the foundation upon which are built the rules that guide lawyers in their moral and ethical conduct. This obligation should be considered in any instance where a violation of the rules of professional conduct are at issue. The principle pervades these Rules and embodies their spirit.

Rule 8.4. Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Justice For Fred Potter and Veterans March had contacted the office of Skinner Law Firm but no reply has been made.

How do you know when an attorney is lying?

Veterans March is the exclusive owner of Justice For Fred Potter. Meterans March and it's network is solely responsible for the contents, and maintains intellectual property control of said content therein found in JusticeForFredPotter.comVeteransMarch.org is the exclusive owner of JusticeForFredPotter.com.  Veterans March and it's network is solely responsible for the content, and does maintain intellectual property control of said content therein found in JusticeForFredPotter.com.

Nothing is to suggest or make claim(s) that the Justice For Fred Potter website, and social media sites are maintained, and owned,  by any parties thereof connected to the case of Potter V. Holmes.