On his www.renamebkrobertshallnow.org website Danni Vogt under "Current Situation" gives us "My Personal Story", 

"My Personal Story

I am Danni Vogt, 63 year old creator of this website.  My parents raised me to do what's right, which inspired this quest to rename B.K. Roberts Hall for a more appropriate person. 

 

I am a 3-time FSU graduate (Florida High School 1972, B.A. 1977 and J.D. 1984) and remain a strong FSU supporter.", 

which is next to a 1983 picture of him and an FSU law school classmate, Mark Roeder, with Virgil D. Hawkins, yet perhaps Vogt does not know that the year 1983 is when Hawkins began stealing money from his mentally incompetent nephew's Veterans Administration account leading Hawkins in 1986 to plea nolo contendere to felony grand theft, a theft in Lake County that prompted the Florida Bar to begin an investigation which would ultimately force Hawkins to resign from the bar. 

Vogt goes on to say on this webpage that, 

"Virgil Hawkins made a triumphant return to Tallahassee and the fiery speech he gave in the student lounge of B.K. Roberts Hall on February 10, 1983 remains one of the highlights of my life, and my role in providing him a stage to voice his side of the story and explain the injustice of his struggle was very satisfying. "

and,

"Many of my classmates in law school also were upset and our repeated vows to sneak on campus in the middle of the night to knock down the B.K. Roberts Hall sign with sledgehammers (originally suggested by visiting speaker Millard Farmer) never came to fruition.", 

There is a Millard Farmer who in 1978 wanted to represent Ted Bundy in Leon County Circuit Court and was a co-plaintiff/appellant with Bundy in the federal case of, "Theodore Robert Bundy, and Millard C. Farmer, Jr.,plaintiffs-appellants, v. John Rudd et al., Defendants-appellees, 581 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1978)".

 

and according to a November 4, 2019 Atlanta Journal Constitution article by Bill Rankin, titled "Noted Atlanta civil rights lawyer disbarred for ethics violations", 

"The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday disbarred an Atlanta civil rights lawyer known for his outspoken opposition to capital punishment and racial bias in the criminal justice system.

In banning Millard Farmer from practicing law, the court cited several ethical violations committed by Farmer during scorched-earth litigation in a divorce and child custody case in Coweta County. “Sometimes when you call it like it is, you get punished,” the 85-year-old Farmer said. “There’s no doubt that’s exactly what happened here.”

Farmer began practicing law in Georgia in 1967.", 

 

"Over his career, Farmer has been a lightning-rod for controversy. In 1991, a federal judge accused him of making “scandalous statements” in a civil rights lawsuit filed against Macon’s police chief. The suit was filed on behalf of a widow whose husband had been shot and killed by police the previous year. (The city later settled.) A year later, Farmer was accused of tampering with evidence in a case in Texas." and

 

"In January 2018, a federal judge found Farmer liable for $242,835 in damages from a racketeering lawsuit brought against him by John Murphy. "

 ******************************************************************************

 

Danni Vogt's  Rename B.K. Roberts Hall "Court Cases" webpage opens with,

"Here in chronological order are the court cases in Virgil Hawkins's 9-year legal battle to gain admission to the UF law school. His quest was ultimately unsuccessful thanks in part to B.K. Roberts who in 1955 and 1957 wrote key opinions as Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice denying Hawkins admission to UF because he was black, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no reason for delay."

False Information: B. K. Roberts was not the Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice when he wrote his 1955 and 1957 Hawkins opinions nor when these two opinions were issued nor was he Chief Justice during any of the other Florida Supreme Court Hawkins opinions - 1950, 1951 and 1952. Roberts served as Chief Justice for three intervals - March 14, 1953 to January 11, 1955; July 1, 1961 to July 1, 1963 and January 5, 1971 to January 1, 1973.

False Information: The U.S. Supreme Court never ordered Hawkins admission to UF's law school either with or without delay.  There were a total of four U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the Hawkins case - 1951, 1954, 1956 and 1957. The 1951 and 1954 U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the Hawkins case are verbatim as follows,

November 13, 1951 at 342 US 877 - "Denied for want of final judgement. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion certiorari should be granted."

May 24, 1954 at 347 US 971 - "The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgement is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in light of the the Segregation Cases decided Many 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483, 98 L ed 873, 74 S Ct 686, 38 ALR 2d 1180, and conditions that now prevail."

thus Vogt falsely claims that prior to B. K. Roberts' 1955 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered Hawkins prompt admission.

The 1956 U.S. Supreme Court less than one-page ruling in the Hawkins case is in its pertinent part verbatim as follows,

March 26, 1956 at 350 US 413, 100 L ed 486, 76 S Ct 464 - "The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded on the authority of the Segregation Cases decided May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483, 98 L ed 873, 74 S Ct 686, 38 ALR 2d 1180. As this case involves the admission of a Negro to a graduate professional school, there is no reason for delay. He is entitled to prompt admission under the rules and regulations applicable to other qualified candidates."

The 1957 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Hawkins case is verbatim as follows,,

October 14, 1957 at 355 US 839, 2 L ed 2d 49 - "Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied without prejudice to the petitioner's seeking relief in an appropriate United States District Court."

with neither ruling mentioning anything about prompt admission but rather the 1956 ruling merely stating that Hawkins like any other White or Black applicant post-Brown is entitled to prompt admission only if he is qualified and as the record irrefutably shows in the Hawkins case he was never qualified to attend UF's law school either academically or morally because he did not have a college degree when he applied and would not get one until three years afterwards and because he lied  to the court on an attached sworn and notarized affidavit to his 1949 and 1954 mandamus petitions swearing that he had an AB degree from the prestigious HCBU Lincoln University in Pennsylvania at the time of his one and only application to UF's law school, his 1949 application.

Florida ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413 (1956)

The above information is starting to become well-known to both current and former Hawkins advocates.

 

Misleading Information: B. K. Roberts never denied Hawkins admission to UF because he was Black as evidenced by Vogt's own State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control, 83 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1955) link which he provides on his webpage and has at 23,  

"The theory of "separate but equal" facilities under which this state has developed its educational system since Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, was decided in 1896, has been abolished by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686; and we deem it to be our inescapable duty to abide by this decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the federal constitution. It therefore follows that the respondents may not lawfully refuse to admit the relator to the University of Florida Law School merely because he is a member of the Negro race and "separate but equal" facilities have been provided for him at a separate law school. Nor can we sustain the contention of respondents that "the adverse psychological effect of segregation on Negro children on which the case of Brown v. Board of Education, supra, rested would have no application to the petitioner who is a college graduate and 48 years of age," which they present in defense of their action in refusing to admit relator to the University of Florida Law School."

Also keep in mind as you read the Florida Supreme Court's 1955 and 1957 Hawkins opinions especially the dissenting opinions that the phrase "issue the peremptory writ" does not mean to admit Hawkins to UF's law school but rather that the University of Florida must process Hawkins' law school application without regard to his race. The following Southern Reporter 2d published court report irrefutably confirms the meaning of this legal phrase, 

"I am of the opinion, therefore, that the amended return of the respondents fails to present any valid defense to the allegations of the amended petition and that consequently a peremptory writ in favor of the relator should be issued commanding the respondents to consider the application of the relator for admission to the College of Law of the University of Florida on precisely the same basis that the respondents would consider the application of a white person, and that if, upon this basis, the relator is found to have the necessary qualifications for admission, he should be admitted College of Law of the University of Florida under the same rules and regulations, and upon the same conditions, that a white person would be admitted. ", by Justice Sebring who dissented in part and concurred in part, 83 So. 2d 20, 33-34.

 

Other irrefutable evidence that the U.S. Supreme Court never ordered Hawkins admission to UF's law school is the point blank refusal to grant Hawkins such relief in the Court's first post-Brown II decision, Florida ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413 (1956), even when such relief was requested by Thurgood Marshall and Robert Carter of the NAACP LDF, 

"Robert L. Carter and Thurgood Marshall, both of New York City, Horace Hill, of Daytona Beach, Florida, and Elwood H. Chisolm and William L. Taylor, filed a brief for petitioner:

Petitioner is entitled to an order requiring his immediate admission to the University of Florida law school. "

relief which was plainly not granted by the U.S. Supreme Court as enunciated by their,  

"He is entitled to prompt admission under the rules and regulations applicable to other qualified candidates.", 

 

and as we know today Hawkins was never qualified as even he himself was forced to admit during June 1958 federal court testimony which is why his NAACP LDF attorneys dropped him as a plaintiff from the class action lawsuit that he had brought, thus Hawkins was not a party to the final order, an order that was never appealed. See this website's first blue slider titled, "Truth, Lies, Videotape" for more Hawkins information and a trove of court documents and other historical records.

 ******************************************************************************

STATE ex rel. HAWKINS v. BOARD OF CONTROL OF FLORIDA et al., 47 So. 2d 608 (1950).

Vogt's analysis: "The court recognized that Virgil Hawkins had a right to attend a public law school in Florida, but said the state had done enough to uphold this right by creating a public law school for blacks at Florida A&M University and since Hawkins could go there, he had no right to admission to the UF law school, opinion written by Justice Sebring.  The court noted Florida law limited UF admissions to white students."

 

False and Misleading Information: Vogt’s analysis does not mention that Hawkins filed a motion for a peremptory writ thus acknowledging that everything in the Board of Control's answer was true including their claim that FAMU’s law school when completed will be the equivalent of UF’s law school, thus the Florida Supreme Court as they later state in their 1952 decision could have dismissed Hawkins case in their first ruling but in fact did Hawkins a big favor and decided to keep the case open so Hawkins could subsequently provide, as was done in the Sweatt v. Painter case, evidence showing that FAMU’s law school was either “separate but equal” or “separate but unequal” to UF’s law school, thus Vogt's " the state had done enough to uphold this right by creating a public law school for blacks at Florida A&M University" and "he had no right to admission to the UF law school" are incorrect; see State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control of Florida, 47 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1950), 616-617, the decision's closing two paragraphs, 

“Due to the nature of the issues arising out of the pleadings, it is our conclusion that the entry of a final order herein should be withheld and the jurisdiction of the cause retained until it be shown to the satisfaction of this court either that the Board of Control has furnished, or has failed to furnish, to the relator, in accordance with the principles stated in this opinion, and after his due application for enrollment, such opportunities and facilities for pursuing his desired course of study as are substantially equal to those afforded all other students duly enrolled in the same or a like course of study at any of the tax-supported institutions of higher learning within the State wherein such course is offered.

Either party to this cause may apply in this proceeding for the entry of an appropriate order finally disposing of the case, after due and regular application for enrollment has been made by the relator and such opportunities and facilities have or have not been made available to him in such a tax supported institution of higher learning.” 

Misleading Information: Vogt’s "he had no right to admission to the UF law school" does not account for the Florida Supreme Court's, "[The Florida Board of Control] will stand ready to furnish law instruction, temporarily, at the State university maintained exclusively for white students, in the event adequate facilities for teaching the course are not actually and physically available at the state law school established for Negroes at the time of relator's application and enrollment.", State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control of Florida, 47 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1950), 613-614, which guaranteed Hawkins' constitutional right, if he could show that he was a qualified applicant, to attend UF's law school while the FAMU law school was being built.

******************************************************************************

State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control, 53 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1951)

Vogt's analysis: "Court again denied Hawkins admission to UF saying there were no new reasons evident to change its opinion from 1950, and that the law school at Florida A&M satisfied the state's obligation to offer Hawkins a public legal education, opinion written by Justice Sebring."

 

It is misleading for Vogt to say that the Florida Supreme Court in 1950 and 1951 denied Hawkins admission to the UF law school since those two decisions were not final orders but rather the Court as stated in each order was waiting for Hawkins, whose burden it was, to provide the court with "separate but unequal" evidence for the court to evaluate under the Plessy equal protection standard and furthermore Hawkins' mandamus petition was not petitioning the Court to order his admission to UF's law school but rather to order UF to consider his application without regard to his race and then if Hawkins is denied admission for UF, being the respondent, to show cause as to why Hawkins was not admitted.

******************************************************************************

State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control, 60 So.2d 162 (Fla. 1952)

Vogt's analysis: "Court again denied Hawkins admission to UF saying the alternative of attending law school at the public law school established at Florida A&M adequately provided Hawkins his right to a legal education, opinion written by Justice Sebring."

 

After giving Hawkins two years to provide Plessy "separate but equal" evidence comparing FAMU's law school to UF's law school, the Florida Supreme Court finally gave up and dismissed the case. Vogt's 1950, 1951 and 1952 analysis bluntly claims that because FAMU's law school was built that Hawkins had to go there, but the Florida Supreme Court never said that but rather the Florida Supreme Court said that until Hawkins, whose burden it was, demonstrated with evidence, as was done in the Sweatt v. Painter case, that the Black law school was inferior to the White law school, he had no constitutional right to go to the White law school.

****************************************************************************** 

 State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control, 83 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1955)

Vogt's analysis: "The Florida Supreme Court in an October 19, 1955 opinion written by B.K. Roberts acknowledged the U.S. Supreme Court's instructions to admit Hawkins to UF law school immediately, but thought up reasons to avoid doing so.  B.K. Roberts refused to admit Hawkins and came up with delaying tactics requiring Florida to first assess the problems integration would cause and the danger of serious public mischief and possible embarrassment of the orderly functioning of government.   One remarkable concurring opinion by Justice Terrell cited natural law and stated segregation has always been the unvarying law of the animal kingdom and that it was God's plan to allot each race its own continent with Europe for whites and Africa for blacks. 

Notably, two justices dissented and said the U.S. Supreme Court had spoken and that Hawkins should be admitted to UF immediately, and the Florida court had a binding obligation to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court and--notwithstanding one's personal views on segregation--for Roberts to defy a legitimate order of the U.S. Supreme Court violated the oath all justices had taken to "support, protect and defend" the federal constitution."

 

False Information: The U.S. Supreme Court never instructed Hawkins to be admitted to UF's law school immediately, thus Vogt's opening, "The Florida Supreme Court in an October 19, 1955 opinion written by B.K. Roberts acknowledged the U.S. Supreme Court's instructions to admit Hawkins to UF law school immediately, but thought up reasons to avoid doing so." is false. Furthermore the legal phrase "issue the peremptory writ" which is used profusely in the 1955 and 1957 Florida Supreme Court decisions does not mean that Hawkins is to be admitted to UF's law school but rather that UF's law school must consider Hawkins' application without regard to his race; this is illustrated clearly by Justice Sebring's closing paragraph of,

"I am of the opinion, therefore, that the amended return of the respondents fails to present any valid defense to the allegations of the amended petition and that consequently a peremptory writ in favor of the relator should be issued commanding the respondents to consider the application of the relator for admission to the College of Law of the University of Florida on precisely the same basis that the respondents would consider the application of a white person, and that if, upon this basis, the relator is found to have the necessary qualifications for admission, he should be admitted to the College of Law of the University of Florida under the same rules and regulations, and upon the same conditions, that a white person would be admitted." at 83 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1955), 33-34.

 

False and Misleading Information: Vogt's "Notably, two justices dissented and said the U.S. Supreme Court had spoken and that Hawkins should be admitted to UF immediately, ..." is misleading since the two justices who "dissented" according to Vogt in fact dissented in part and concurred in part. Also Vogt's analysis is false here in that once again neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Justices Sebring or Thomas, Vogt's two dissenting justices, ever said that "Hawkins should be admitted to UF immediately" with Vogt probably misunderstanding the legal phrase "issue the peremptory writ" to mean that Hawkins is to be admitted to UF's law school when in fact in this case that legal phrase means that the Court is commanding UF and the Florida Board of Control to consider Hawkins' application without regard to his race.

****************************************************************************** 

State ex rel Hawkins v. Board of Control, 93 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1957)

Vogt's analysis: "Despite the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stating there was no reason for delay, in this opinion B.K. Roberts again came up with more reasons to delay Hawkins' admission, among them "states rights" and the likelihood of "great public mischief."  Among the mischief expected was the probability white students would drop out of UF if a black were admitted, a loss of white alumni support, and a decline in revenue to white institutions.   Roberts, in justifying his decision to again deny Hawkins admission to UF, said admitting blacks would lead to violence in university communities and a critical disruption of the university system (the disruption to life for blacks like Hawkins apparently was not important enough to be considered).

Again, two two justices dissented and said the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and Hawkins should be admitted to UF immediately, with Justice Hobson noting that federal law was paramount and to defy the order of the U.S. Supreme Court to admit Hawkins to UF without delay would "stultify (his) oath of office."  Once more, a concurring opinion by now Chief Justice Terrell relied on a natural law theory to justify segregation noting segregation was as old as the hills and was practiced at least since ancient times when the Egyptians segregated the Israelis.

 

False Information: Once again and as demonstrated with court records and reports throughout this website, the U.S. Supreme Court never instructed Hawkins to be admitted to UF's law school either immediately or otherwise, thus Vogt's opening, "Despite the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stating there was no reason for delay" and "Again, two two justices dissented and said the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and Hawkins should be admitted to UF immediately, ..." are false. 

Misleading Information: Justice B. K. Roberts does invoke state's rights but not interposition as is implied by Vogt's nefarious reference to "states rights", rather Roberts rightfully claims that a state court when presented with a petition for a writ of mandamus has broad and near absolute discretionary powers in the common law as to when they shall grant the petition, consequently the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged Roberts brilliant, correct and insurmountable analysis and suggested to Hawkins that he refile in federal court with their one sentence ruling of 355 US 839 (1957) ,

"Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied without prejudice to the petitioner seeking relief in an appropriate United States District Court."

See also Roberts, "We point out, additionally, that the relator, having a choice between a federal and a state court, selected this court as the forum in which to try his cause; he thereby selected the rules of practice and procedure long established in this jurisdiction. We have no doubt that the Supreme Court intended that we should adhere to such procedure in the instant controversy. The relator's contention in this respect cannot, therefore, be sustained.", 93 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1957) at 358.

 

False and Misleading Information: Vogt's,

"Again, two two justices dissented and said the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and Hawkins should be admitted to UF immediately, with Justice Hobson noting that federal law was paramount and to defy the order of the U.S. Supreme Court to admit Hawkins to UF without delay would "stultify (his) oath of office." 

is misleading because it implies via ambiguous and therefore poorly written language that Justice Hobson was a dissenter when in fact Hobson "(concurred specially)" and Vogt's analysis is out of context since it does not provide the premise nor the sequence of Hobson's concurring reasoning and is false because Hobson, the concurer, clearly states, "convinces me that the immediate admission of relator to the University of Florida College of Law would result in great public mischief". Here is Justice Hobson's complete opinion, 

"HOBSON, Justice (concurring specially).

I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority because the testimony which was taken at the direction of this court by the Honorable John A.H. Murphree, and which is now before us for consideration, was not in the record when the Supreme Court of the United States said "there is no reason for delay". This testimony, as well as the revealing incidents (of which we may take judicial notice) which have occurred since the repudiation of the "separate but equal" doctrine, convinces me that the immediate admission of relator to the University of Florida College of Law would result in great public mischief.

In the interest of both races, that is to say, the common weal, the writ of mandamus should, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, be withheld until the Supreme Court of the United States in this case, after consideration of those matters which it has not heretofore had an opportunity to weigh and evaluate, unequivocally directs that relator be admitted to the College of Law at the University of Florida. In such event the onus will rest, as it should, with the tribunal responsible for the initial departure from a constitutional interpretation which had served us for so many years. And since I am bound by the paramount federal law, if such ruling should be made by a fully informed Supreme Court, I could not fail to comply without stultifying my oath of office.",  93 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1957) at 362-363.

****************************************************************************** 

Hawkins v. Board of Control of Florida, 162 F.Supp. 851 (N.D.Fla. 1958)

Vogt's analysis: "The Court ruled that UF was prohibited from enforcing any policy, custom or usage of limiting admission to the graduate schools to white persons only.  The court, lacking evidence of Hawkins' qualifications, did not order UF to admit him to the UF law school."

 

False Information: Vogt's, "The court, lacking evidence of Hawkins' qualifications, did not order UF to admit him to the UF law school.", is entirely false and indicates that Vogt never even read the ruling which has, 

" With this testimony in the record, plaintiff rested whereupon defendants filed motions to dismiss the cause of action on the ground that plaintiff had failed completely to show his eligibility for admission as a student to the Law School of the University.", 162 F.Supp. 851 (N.D.Fla. 1958) at 853 and 

"When it comes to the relief that should be granted, the Court finds and holds upon the evidence submitted with reference to plaintiff's right to enter the University of Florida Law School that plaintiff failed completely to establish any such right under the law applicable to cases of this character and he will be denied the right to enter the Law School.", 162 F.Supp. 851 (N.D.Fla. 1958) at 853 also.

Furthermore there was a two-day evidentiary hearing held on June 16-17, 1958 which I have the complete transcript to and which the above case relied upon and references and it was here, the only evidentiary hearing during Hawkins nine years of litigation, 1949-1958, that Hawkins during in-court testimony was cornered by the judge, not opposing counsel, and was forced to admit that he had lied about having a degree from Lincoln University when he made his one and only application to UF's law school, his 1949 application, and that he did not get his first college degree until three years later from Bethune Cookman College. See also the first transparent blue slider "Truth, Lies, Videotape" which proves step-by-step with court and historical records that the Virgil D. Hawkins narrative is completely and shamefully 100% false.

****************************************************************************** 

Virgil D. Hawkins was never qualified to be admitted to UF's law school and neither B.K. Roberts nor the Florida Supreme Court ever defied a U.S. Supreme Court order as this website and its six blue transparent slider "VDH: What The F***!!!" homepage webpages have demonstrated and proven.