IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT¬¬
CASE NO. 3D08-2233
LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15
NORMAN LANSON,
MERYL LANSON, and
BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.
RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ.,
KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida
Professional Association, MARK
COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A.,
a Florida Professional Association,
SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and
MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida
Professional Association,
Respondents.
_______________________________/
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
Petitioner Meryl Lanson, Pro Se, petitions the Court pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.100 to issue an order to show cause and a peremptory writ of prohibition, prohibiting Judge Jeri Beth Cohen from presiding in Miami-Dade Circuit Court Case No. 99-21062 CA 15.
BACKGROUND FACTSMeryl and Norman Lanson are the sole shareholders of Baron’s Stores, Inc., a fifty-two year old Florida men’s retail clothing chain. In December 1993, it was discovered that the Chief Financial Officer, David Peterson, had embezzled more than $3 million from Baron’s over a five year period. Mr. Peterson was able to accomplish this without detection, although Baron’s and the Lanson’s accounting firm, Morrison, Brown, Argiz, had provided them with certified audited financial statements. In January, 1994 Barons and the Lansons retained attorneys Ronald Kopplow and Marc Cooper to pursue an accounting malpractice action against Morrison, Brown, Argiz. Kopplow and Cooper were negligent in the handling of the accounting malpractice action, in many instances, including but not limited to, failing to name the Lansons, individually in the lawsuit and allowing the statute of limitations to expire on the Lansons claim. Ultimately, when Kopplow and Cooper knew that they had committed malpractice, instead of alerting their clients to their negligence, they hid their malpractice by advising the Lansons to place Baron’s in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They recommended Sonya Salkin to pursue the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Three separate Affidavits were filed by the attorneys, under the penalty of perjury, claiming no connections and/or conflicts of interest when in fact there were more than sixty connections and/or conflicts of interest between Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin. As a result of the three attorneys’ negligence, both pre and during the bankruptcy proceeding, the Lansons were financially and emotionally destroyed. In 1999, the Lansons instituted a legal malpractice lawsuit against Kopplow and Cooper which was amended in 2001 to include Baron’s as a Plaintiff and Salkin as a defendant. There is an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal now pending regarding the bankruptcy ruling. These almost fifteen years have caused the Plaintiff’s unimaginable emotional distress in so that five years ago Meryl Lanson was diagnosed with PTSD/LAS (Legal Abuse Syndrome). Meryl Lanson’s condition has been exacerbated to such a degree that on June 19, 2008 she was placed on daily medication.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTPetitioner filed her renewed Verified Motion to disqualify Judge Cohen on August 20, 2008. (A#1) Judge Cohen denied Petitioner’s Motion on August 28, 2008 (A#2), the subject matter of this Petition.
This Court is vested with jurisdiction to consider this petition for writ of prohibition to prohibit a circuit court judge from presiding in an action. Southern Coatings, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 840 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Art. V § 3(b)(7), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(3).
STATEMENT OF FACTS1. Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, believes that she and the other Plaintiffs named, cannot and will not, receive a fair trial based on the level of bias and pre-judgment exhibited against her and the Plaintiffs’ counsel by Judge Cohen during the status conference held on May 30, 2008 and then again at the ADA Accommodation Hearing held on July 16, 2008.
The Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, left that hearing before it ended, because of this Court’s inability to recognize and speak the truth. This Court lied on the record, which greatly exacerbates Plaintiff’s PTSD/LAS. That lie is explained in detail with supporting transcript testimony below.
2. On Wednesday, August 6, 2008, Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, received a copy of the transcript of the hearing held on July 16, 2008. It was at that time that Plaintiff became aware of what transpired during the balance of the hearing, in which she was not present, which absolutely confirms Plaintiff’s continued belief that this Court is biased against Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson. The Court made numerous comments and concessions to substantiate Plaintiff’s belief which will be further explained below. Petitioner’s Motion was timely filed on August 20th as the courthouse was closed on August 18th and 19th due to Tropical Storm Fay.
3. The May 30, 2008 Status Conference began at 10:25 A.M. and ended at 11:35 A.M. on the same day. Therefore, the entire status conference took one hour and ten minutes.
4. At the Status Conference on May 30, 2008, Plaintiff, Norman Lanson’s attorney, Mary Alice Gwynn, presented to the Court “Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by “Baron’s Stores, Inc.”...Filed February 8, 2008, for Fraud on the Court.” The Motion was filed, as well, with the Clerk of the Court on the morning of May 30, 2008. The Motion, with Exhibits, was a total of 157 pages. (A#3)
5. The following is from the Transcript of the May 30, 2008 hearing:
Page 11 - Line 15 through Page 12 - Line 7 and Page 54 - Line 17 through Page 55 - Line 4 : (A# 4)
Ms. Gwynn: One other issue, Your Honor, for the record: We believe what transpired in the bankruptcy court, fraud in the bankruptcy court, really doesn’t have bearing in a negligence trial here in state court. They’re totally different burdens. And because the defendants are using fraudulent documents attached, which we believe and have an expert opinion, to a pleading in this Court, we have filed today, and I have a copy for Your Honor, a motion to strike, for fraud on the Court, their motion for summary judgment, and we’ve also moved to strike all of their pleadings, for fraud on the Court. So that’s another reason why we need Ms. Salkin’s deposition.
Mr. Klein: When was this filed?
Ms. Gwynn: It was filed this morning.
Ms. Gwynn: Your Honor, before we - - there’s something I need to clarify. I filed a Motion to strike their motion for summary judgment and strike all of their pleadings. Are you already denying that motion? (Emphasis added)
The Court: Right now, that is denied. It is denied without prejudice. I mean, I’m denying that right now. I’m not striking their pleadings. (Emphasis added)
Ms. Gwynn: In essence, this motion is denied?
The Court: It is denied without prejudice.
6. The Court never looked at the Motion, never read the Motion and ignored an independent Forensic Document Expert’s report declaring fraudulent documents. The Court did not even order an evidentiary hearing when fraud on the Court allegations were made against three (3) Florida attorneys. The Court then outright lied about reading the Motion to Strike in its entirety, and was caught in that lie at the July 16, 2008, ADA Accommodation Hearing.
7. After the May 30, 2008, Status Conference, Plaintiff, Meryl Lanson, on June 2, 2008, filed her first Motion to Disqualify and/or Recuse The Honorable Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, along with a supporting Affidavit. (A#5)
8. On June 10, 2008, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen denied Plaintiff’s Motion. (A#6)
9. On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson filed a Verified New Motion to Disqualify/Recuse, which was denied on July 7, 2008. (A#7 and A#8)
10. On June 13, 2008, Plaintiff filed her “Report and Request for ADA Accommodations” in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Miami Dade County. A courtesy copy of that Report was hand delivered to Judge Cohen. (A#9)
11. Plaintiff has been suffering from PTSD/LAS for at least the last five years. Plaintiff had been able to control her disability without medication during that period of time.
12. After the May 30, 2008, Status Conference, Plaintiff’s disability deteriorated as a result of the trial Court’s unfair treatment and its obvious bias against Plaintiff.
13. Because of the trial Court’s biased and unfair treatment of Plaintiff, on June 19, 2008, plaintiff sought medical attention and was immediately placed on daily medication for the first time in the ten years of this ongoing litigation.
14. On July 15, 2008, Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, filed a Complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12111 et. seq., TITLE II, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, against Jeri Beth Cohen, individually and as an 11th Circuit Court Judge in and for Dade County, Florida - Case Number 08-22009-Civ-SEITZ/O’SULLIVAN. (A# 10)
15. One of the accommodations that Plaintiff ‘s Access Coordinator has requested was a change of venue. Plaintiff believes that the only way there can be a level playing field in this legal malpractice lawsuit is a change of venue outside of the state of Florida. The belief stems from the fact that the defendant attorneys are members of The Florida Bar, defense counsel are members of The Florida Bar, Judge Cohen is a member of The Florida Bar, the majority, if not all Judges, in the state of Florida are members of The Florida Bar as the Florida Bar is a mandatory Bar operating as a Union. Two of the defendants are insured by The Florida Bar’s created and sponsored malpractice carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants are insured owners of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants have escaped disciplinary action by The Florida Bar, although they committed numerous and egregious violations of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. John Harkness, the Executive Director of the non-profit Florida Bar, responsible for protecting the public by bringing to the attention of The Supreme Court of Florida attorneys who engage in unethical conduct, sits on the Board of Directors of the for profit Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, who defends those very same attorneys in malpractice actions. Lauri Waldman Ross is a Special Counsel for the JQC, appointed by The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. The Governor has jurisdiction over the non–judicial members of the JQC. Governor Crist is a member of The Florida Bar. Lauri Waldman Ross is a 2008 candidate for the JNC for the Third District Court of Appeals. The Plaintiff believes that many attorneys and judges, through their prior law firm affiliations, may have a vested interest in the outcome of this lawsuit by their connection to the for profit Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. Plaintiff has a well founded fear that such unchecked power and influence is the reason behind the withdrawal of the attorneys who represented Plaintiff and the other Plaintiffs during this ten year litigation. It would appear to any reasonably prudent disinterested person that a legal malpractice action cannot be fairly heard and tried in the state of Florida under such conflicts, connections and circumstances as outlined herein.
16. At the July 16, ADA Accommodations hearing, the following exchange took place and is reflected in the Transcript - Page 10 - Line 8 through Page 13 - Line 8: (A#1, Exhibit A)
Ms. Gwynn: Your Honor, can I interject? Because if we are going to sit here and go through every accommodation there is one accommodation that may even short stream this whole, you know, process.
The Court: Okay.
Ms. Gwynn: One of the accommodations Ms. Lanson is asking is she wants a change of venue in this case and for very good reasons why she wants a venue change. And I think that you ought to listen to Ms. Lanson as to why she wants a change.
The Court: A change of venue?
Ms. Gwynn: Yes.
The Court: You mean to another city?
Ms. Gwynn: I don’t know. I don’t know. Haven’t - -
I don’t know what you mean by a change of venue. Out of the state of Florida?
Ms. Lanson: I have already - - I have already contacted the Governor. We have contacted the Department of Justice. These ten years I am dealing with attorneys who are members of the Florida Bar who are - -
No. Two of them are insured by the Florida Bar’s carrier. Lauri Ross sits as special counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission appointed by the Florida Bar Board of Governors. She is sitting here and knows that fraud upon the Court was presented. You allowed the fraud on the Court to go unnoticed.
You didn’t - - You didn’t want to deal with the fraud on the Court. You didn’t want to deal with their rulings violating the Florida Bar that they allowed for fraud on the Court to be brought on this courtroom in violation of a ruling.
She did not report you to the J.Q.C. for violation of the judicial canons that you acknowledged that - -
The Court Reporter: I am sorry. That you acknowledge - -
Ms. Lanson: That you acknowledged - - You acknowledged that there was fraud on the Court. We filed a motion to strike.
The Court: I don’t remember acknowledging - -
Ms. Lanson: We filed a motion to strike that pleading for, pleading for fraud on the Court. The motion was this thick, two inches thick. You didn’t even look at the Motion. You did not - - denied it without looking at it.
The Court: Okay.
Ms. Lanson: They - -
The Court: Ms. Lanson, I really need to stop you. I understand that you may be suffering from P.T.S.D. But this is absolutely out of order.
I read that entire motion. I did not say that I was condoning fraud on the Court. I told you even though you didn’t want to hear it that the bankruptcy Court had ruled on this issue.
And that I was bound by it and would not go behind the bankruptcy - -
Ms. Gwynn: Excuse me. Your Honor did not read the entire motion because it was given to you the day of the hearing.
The Court: I am telling you that I did.
Ms. Gwynn: No. You didn’t read it. Okay. She, she filed it on May 30 in the morning.
17. Judge Cohen lied about reading, in its entirety, the 157 pages of a Motion filed at the May 30, 2008, Status Conference. The fact is Judge Cohen denied the Motion without even reading a single word of the 157 pages. The Court insisted that the Court read the entire Motion. That is a blatant lie that Plaintiff brought to the Court’s attention, that counsel, Gwynn, brought to the Court’s attention and that counsel, Thompson, brought to the Court’s attention. Furthermore, Defendant’s counsels were at that hearing, and witnessed the fact that the Court denied the Motion without even looking at it. Plaintiff’s accommodations require misinformation to be corrected. How can Plaintiff move forward with a Court that blatantly lies at hearings and feel comfortable that Plaintiff would get fair rulings and a fair trial? Returning to the July 16, 2008, Transcript: Page 13 - Line 9 through Page 14 - Line 17: (A#1, Exhibit A)
The Court: Ms. Lanson, I understand - -
Ms. Lanson: This is the reason - -
The Court: Okay. Your motion to move out of the venue, the jurisdiction is denied. We need to go down the list. And we need to do, deal with accommodating you.
Ms. Lanson: Well, you are not accommodating me because you are striking out the truth now that I need all misinformation corrected on the record.
And you are telling me that you read that entire motion which was filed in your Court on May 30.
Ms. Gwynn gave it to you. You denied it without prejudice and never looked at the motion.
And you are telling me that you read the entire motion. And that is not the truth. Okay. And you were caught.
You have – You are the ones that have exacerbated my situation to such a degree - -
The Court: Well, I am sorry about that.
And we have - - We are moving forward. I am sorry you feel that way. But you were not running the proceedings here. I am.
Mr. Thompson: Judge, forgive me. She handed you the motion and you denied it within three seconds. You didn’t read it.
18. An analysis of the contents of the transcript of July 16, 2008, in terms of dialogue and message, yields confusion. Plaintiff, Meryl Lanson, asserts sixteen times that she does not trust the Judge, substantiates her assertions with witnesses and asks to be heard. Plaintiff’s ADA Accommodations Designer, and advocate, requested specific accommodations for all legal proceedings. Judge Cohen granted accommodations four times and stated she was knowledgeable regarding Plaintiff’s condition, PTSD, and would be sensitive regarding symptoms. Then, she almost artfully interspersed with her words of human understanding, eighteen strong assertions that not only negated Plaintiff’s concerns, and what accommodations that she had granted, but that created the very environment that will exacerbate PTSD. They are outlined herein and clearly show Judge Cohen functions in a realm of her own impenetrable perception and anyone challenging it is invalidated, and finally outstripped of any power in her courtroom regardless of evidence, forensically sound witnesses and assertions.
19. Karin Huffer, M.S., M.F.T., author of the book “Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome,” is Plaintiff’s advocate, and accompanied Plaintiff to the hearing. The following is one of the many exchanges occurring at the hearing involving Ms. Huffer:
Page 21- Line 9 through Page 31 - Line 17: (A#1, Exhibit A)
Ms. Huffer: The concern I have is, is, is the level of trust that is lost with Ms. Lanson.
The Court: I understand. But I can’t do, can’t do anything about that. She was suing her lawyer.
Ms. Huffer: But you can. You can. And I have written to the Department of Justice asking for guidance as you know on this because this has been unprecedented in my experience.
The Court: It isn’t unprecedented in this kind of litigation where people - -
Ms. Huffer: Well, perhaps. But not in my experience.
The Court: Okay. Well - -
Ms. Huffer: It’s unprecedented.
The Court: Okay.
Ms. Huffer: That, you know, she wouldn’t be given service, discovery, all that - - that - - that kind of thing as I said in my letter. But it’s kind of simple. I think the biggest problem is misinformation not being properly corrected.
The Court: No. That is your conception. That’s your perception of this.
Ms. Huffer: There is a ten year longitudinal study of litigants - -
The Court: Ma’am, just because - - Just because you wrote something in your pleadings doesn’t mean it’s true or it isn’t true. In other words, you have your perception of things. They have their perception of things. I am the Judge. But just because something is put on paper does not mean it is true for me from either side. So I just want to predicate that for you.
Ms. Huffer: That’s not the point. The point is when Ms. Lanson senses or feels that misinformation has been placed on the table the important thing at that point for her – And this comes from a ten year longitudinal study of litigants. The most critical thing that causes the P.T.S.D., in the, in courtroom which you are seeing more and more of is my guess is misinformation takes on a life of its own. It should be properly and immediately corrected.
The Court: Let me ask you something. What if I - - And I am not saying this is true or not. What if - - Did you ever consider that because of the P.T.S.D. she is misperceiving misinformation? What if that’s the case? Should she be allowed to hold the system hostage?
Ms. Huffer: I don’t understand what you are saying.
The Court: What if something is put on the table and she perceives it as misinformation, a misperception - - The Judge said there is fraud on, fraud on the Court.
Ms. Huffer. Oh. This is excellent.
The Court: - - and it’s a misperception, and the, the syndrome is part and parcel of the misperception. Should she be allowed because of her syndrome to hold the system hostage?
Ms. Huffer: Her syndrome has nothing to do with it.
The Court: No. But say it feeds her, into - -
Ms. Huffer: I say it depends.
The Court: - - feeds into the misperception? Say there are people that because of a mental health issue - - and P.T.S.D. is a form of a mental health issue - - may misperceive, may be anxious - -
Ms. Huffer: It’s a psychiatric injury. It’s a normal - - It’s a normal human being that has experienced abnormal circumstances.
The Court: Okay. It’s a psychiatric injury.
Ms. Huffer: A human being is just fine as long as she was in a safe environment and, and as long as their rationality - -The minute misinformation or misperception is going back and forth there is an opportunity for irrationality.
The Court: A Judge - - Hold on. Hold on. A Judge needs to be able to say: “Ms. Lanson, I understand that you perceive something this way. I understand that you feel there is misinformation. I understand that you do not believe that either I read something or I ruled on something. But I am telling you that this is my ruling. This is the way I perceive it. I don’t - - I respect your, your feelings and I respect your beliefs. But that is not the way I am ruling. In other words, what I hear you almost saying is that because she may perceive something a different way that the system needs to be held hostage.”
Ms. Huffer: I have great respect, Your Honor, for you and your position. But you are sounding more like the therapist here. All she is asking is for you to hear hard evidence. That’s all she is asking for. That’s all the accommodation - -
The Court: But I am the Judge of what the evidence is, you see.
Ms. Huffer: Right.
The Court: You see. You want her - - You want to allow her to control this process.
Ms. Huffer: No. No. No. Access to evidence. In other words, full discovery, full everything.
The Court: We will get her that.
Ms. Huffer: That is important.
The Court: We will get her that. But I can’t say: “Well, because she perceives something a certain way it must be so. Because she perceives what I have done a certain way it must be so.”
Ms. Huffer: But she is never to be invalidated due to P.T.S.D.
The Court: I am not invalidating her at all. In fact, I want to go through these accommodations and give them to her. I would never invalidate –
Ms. Lanson: Well, you have caused me great stress today already, Your Honor.
The Court: I am sorry.
Ms. Lanson: Well, that - - That’s a big problem for me.
The Court: I am sorry I cause you, caused you stress.
Ms. Lanson: You caused me stress because you weren’t honest about that fraud, striking of the fraud.
The Court: You see. That is a misperception.
Ms. Lanson: That isn’t a misperception.
Mr. Thompson: It isn’t, Judge. Let me just say one thing and then I would like to leave if I may.
The Court: Oh, please. Go ahead. Yeah.
Mr. Thompson: You know the first time I was here for a hearing before you, Judge, you attributed what was this woman’s sole reason for living. You said that on Record.
The Court: Uh-huh.
Mr. Thompson: You have also - - I have heard you make a misstatement out of cloth about her desire to control the process. She didn’t say that. I can’t imagine a rationale person, Judge, or otherwise coming to that conclusion.
The Court: Well, I am sorry for that Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson: Judge, here you go, you go - - Here you go again - -
The Court: Anything else?
Mr. Thompson: You, you - - You have made comments not only in this case, but other cases that reflect a lack of judicial temperate - -
The Court: Mr. Thompson, do you have anything else to say before you leave - -
Mr. Thompson: Yeah.
The Court: - - decide to go?
Mr. Thompson: Yeah. Well, I have decided to - - to - - to go. But you are simply going to get another motion for recusal based upon the intemperate comments - -
The Court: That’s fine.
Mr. Thompson: And you do it in other cases.
The Court: Mr. Thompson - -
Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Judge.
The Court: That is fine.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you. I am going to leave before you give me P.T.S.D.
The Court: Thank you very much for coming. Now let’s keep going through this. The videotaping of legal proceedings. Now how can we get that to proceed? Can that be with a - -
Ms. Lanson: I want to leave now.
The Court: - - a personal video camera or what? How can we do - -
Ms. Lanson: Your Honor, I can’t - - I can’t continue with you. I filed a lawsuit against you in federal court yesterday.
The Court: Okay. That’s fine. You can do that.
Ms. Lanson: And I am - - You are causing me so much stress. You are - - You have exacerbated my situation to such a degree that it is, it was difficult for me to want to live until I went to a Doctor on June 19 because what - -
The Court: You caused this hearing.
Ms. Lanson: You can accept service from me or you can have a process server serve - -
The Court: You can serve me formally and I will give it to the attorney general. That’s fine.
Ms. Lanson: Okay.
The Court: Okay.
Ms. Lanson: There are two copies of what was filed yesterday.
The Court: You can do whatever you want, Ms. Lanson.
Ms. Lanson: Have the process server serve you - -
The Court: The reason that that is causing you stress is because, is because you want to make the rulings and litigate this the way you want to. And I cannot allow it.
Ms. Lanson: No. I want you to be truthful. I don’t want you to lie to me and tell me you saw things that you didn’t and you had bias towards the other side. And you let fraud go in this court without, without, without holding them accountable.
20. Continuing an exchange on Page 40- Line 1 through Page 43 -Line 16:
Ms. Huffer: I mean that’s one of the problems with being pro se is it’s, you know - - It’s hard to do it. It’s very time consuming. But we do find is that people with anxiety disorders or traumatic stress - - traumatic stress are exploited in the courtroom. Because you have the adversary is zealously doing what they do. And sometimes they are not aware. They can stomp all over them without being aware.
The Court: I know. But I have got - - I have to, to balance because - - because I have - - because I do have an adversarial process here.
Ms. Huffer: Right.
The Court: You know, so I have - -
Ms. Huffer: Just so you are aware.
The Court: I am aware, you know. I am aware. But they are - - They are entitled to a day in Court. And, quite frankly, I am entitled to rule and be given some deference as well. And everybody - - She is entitled to have accommodations.
Ms. Lanson: And we have a playing field which I haven’t had for ten years.
The Court: Well, I can’t go back. I wasn’t here then. You know, I am certain - -
Ms. Lanson: But you are the only Judge that’s caused me this much, much grief and anxiety. And you are the only Judge that misrepresented facts. And you are the only Judge that stood here just now - - And that is the classic example that you said you read something that was an absolute impossibility.
The Court: Well, you have tried to or you have recused several other Judges in the past. And I am not the Judge - -
Ms. Lanson: No. I haven’t recused several other Judges in the past.
The Court: Well, somebody has asked my - -
Ms. Lanson: That’s Crespo. He recused himself because he entered into ex-parte communications with one of the attorneys.
The Court: That is right.
Ms. Lanson: And he recused himself for one day. And he was - -He was a dying man. And they have been putting this on me for all this time. And you - - They have had the protection of the Bar. And this is not the proper form. This is not going to end here. I am already out to the Governor’s office (A#1, Exhibit B) because I am not getting a level playing field. You have exacerbated me to such a position that you have destroyed my family’s life and everything else, Your Honor. And what you did today is proof positive of what happened.
The Court: All right. Well - -
Ms. Lanson: I really want to leave. I - - I need to leave.
The Court: All right. Maybe you can help me go through the rest of these.
Ms. Huffer: You want me to?
Ms. Lanson: No. I don’t trust this Judge.
Ms. Huffer: All right.
Ms. Lanson: Well, this Judge is biased. I am sorry. You are not giving me a level playing field. You are giving the people - -the people on the other side that have supported you, the people on the other side that you knew violated the rules of the Florida Bar that you have a duty to report to under the rules and your judicial canons and Ms. Ross has a duty to report as a special counsel that you violated those rules. And she didn’t do it because she is gaining an unfair advantage for her client in this, in this litigation that is a sham.
The Court: Okay.
21. At this point, Plaintiff left the proceedings and did not return. It was not until Plaintiff received a copy of the transcript that she became aware of what transpired after she left.
Page 46 - Line 19 - Page 47 - Line 21:
Ms. Huffer: Here is the way we might work that out with the misinformation issue. What the clients - - And I am referring to other studies I have worked with and the research we have done. The problem is they feel like there are two sets of rules. If the rules are very clear - -
The Court: That’s - -
Ms. Huffer: - - and everybody follows the same rules then I believe we shouldn’t have any problem. The problem is the rules as Ms. Lanson reads them and thousands of other people I work with read them is that they come in believing that certain canons apply, certain rules apply. And I am in no position to comment on any of that on this case. I don’t get involved like I said in that part. But I know that the people that I work with feel that there are two sets of rules. And if you can assure her and perhaps gain some trust back by making sure that the same rules apply to everybody perhaps the misinformation issue won’t be an issue.
The Court: I will be very, very careful to make sure that all the rules apply equally to everybody.
22. Again, after Plaintiff left, the following prejudicial statements and obvious bias was expressed by the court.
Page 50 - Line 5 through Page 51 - Line 20: (A#1, Exhibit A)
The Court: I don’t hold grudges. I am not holding anything against her. I understand the syndrome. I understand that she has been through a lot. But I can’t allow her to hold the system hostage. And I see some of that, some of that - - that manipulation. I am being honest with you. She was honest with me. You are honest with me. And I am telling you that there is an element of manipulation here. I can be very sensitive to all of her needs. I will be fair and unbiased. I will follow the law. I can promise her that. I am sorry she doesn’t trust me. But that’s not a reason that I am going to recuse myself. I will expect the same things from them. But I won’t allow either side whether it’s Mr. Thompson, Ms. Lanson, Mr. Lanson or these attorneys to manipulate me. I will not allow it. I won’t. And if that looks like insensitivity then it will just have to look like insensitivity. But I will not allow this Court process to be manipulated. Having said that I will make every accommodation you have asked for in your motion, your request.
Ms. Huffer: I am happy. And we are substituting for misinformation that you will see that the rules are clearly - -
The Court: Correct.
Ms. Huffer: - - stated and followed and you will inform her - -
The Court: That’s fair.
Ms. Huffer: - - particularly?
The Court: That’s fair. That’s fair. That’s fair.
Ms. Huffer: Okay.
23. What is so remarkable about the immediate aforementioned exchange, is the fact that not only did the Court, Judge Cohen, state on at least three occasions that I am trying to hold the system hostage, insinuating that I am attempting to commit a federal crime, she called Plaintiff manipulative on a few occasions.
24. To further show the prejudice the Plaintiff has received the following exchange, on the record, speaks for itself.
Page 53 - Line 25 through Page 54 - Line 1:
Mr. Klein(counsel for defendant Kopplow): Well, I don’t want to communicate directly with a pro se litigant.
25. A clear example of this Court’s protection of the defense can be shown by the following exchange:
Page 54 - Lines 2 - 18:
The Court: Hold on. I heard what you were saying. This is the thing. Let me tell you what, what the other side is afraid of. They are afraid of anything they say is going to be misconstrued. The lawsuits are going to be filed. You know, quite frankly, Ms. Huffer, I don’t need this aggravation. I don’t need federal lawsuits filed against me. Now I am not afraid of it. I am - - I am not intimidated by it. But it’s manipulative. It’s completely manipulative. And that’s the modus operandi in this case. You see. That’s the thing. And that’s why they don’t want to communicate with her verbally.
Page 57 - Lines 11 - 13:
The Court: Because they see that she is filing a federal lawsuit, you know, things like that. And its scares them.
26. Page 57 - Line 24 through Page 58 - Line 20:
Ms. Huffer: said the picture being drawn here is of a person that is manipulating the situation, that is emotionally unstable. It’s easy to discredit her under those kind of characterizations. I think if I understand Ms. Lanson well - - And I will be working with her on, in terms of peak performance. We work literally like you would preparing for a tennis match or something. We work on mental stiffness. We stay with the issue. The issue at hand must be the focus. Period. If we keep focused on the issue and not anything about the personality or what they said or what they did or any of that I believe we can avoid all of that. That will be my training with her.
The Court: Ms. Huffer, if you can get her focused that way a lot of this will go away.
Ms. Huffer: That’s exactly what will happen.
27. Page 60 - Line 15 through Page 61 - Line :
Ms. Huffer: And I think that but for her lack of trust today - - And I don’t know what you do when you have lack of confidence in your position.
The Court: I can’t recuse myself in every case where somebody says, you know: “Maybe I don’t trust you. Maybe I don’t like you.” Or that’s not the basis for recusal. I am sorry. And you see. I feel that that is a manipulation of the system and I am not going to allow it.
28. The evidence of actual prejudice in the case at bar does in fact transcends the evidences of the appearance of prejudice in each of the foregoing precedents. The fact that predecessor Judge Crespo had previously “recused” himself has no impact on the foregoing analysis. Fogan v. Fogan, 706 So.2d (Fla. 4 DCA, 1989).
29. “Following the denial of the cruise line’s motion for disqualification, the appellate court held that the motion should have been granted where the judge’s remarks suggested she had pre-existing unfavorable opinions about the management and litigation tactics of the cruise line industry - See Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 767 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) In conclusion, the record above is legally sufficient and is replete with a clear showing of bias and pre-judgment before any evidence had even been taken. Any reasonable prudent litigant would fear that the trial judge already had pre-existing unfavorable opinions about her, the Plaintiff. Thus, diminishing the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial court.
PETITIONER RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING LEGAL
AUTHORITY AS SUPPORT FOR HER PETITIONA. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3E(1)(a), provides that a Judge has an affirmative duty to enter an Order of Disqualification in any proceeding “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The object of this provision of the Code is to ensure the right to fair trial and hearing and to promote public confidence in a fair and independent judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of partiality. The central question in every Motion for Disqualification is whether the moving party has cause to believe that he or she will be treated unfairly. While it may be true that the judge could treat the litigant fairly in spite of the alleged facts, that is immaterial to the Motion. As the Florida Supreme Court explained in Livingston v. State, “the question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge’s impartiality rather than the judge’s perception of his ability to act fairly and impartial.” Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983). The Petitioner has presented a plethora of evidence of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen’s impartiality which might be reasonably questioned by any reasonable, independent third party when reviewing the various transcripts cited in this Petition.
For example, Judge Cohen’s refusal to even consider striking Defendants’ pleadings even though they may contain fraudulent false documents, is evidence of bias; not to mention a violation of her judicial canons and the ethical Rules regulating The Florida Bar.
B. In the case of Fogan v. Fogan, 706 So.2d 382 (Fla. 4 DCA, 1998), the Court reversed a trial Court’s Order denying the party’s successive Motion to disqualify, based on the following trial Court’s admission:
“I’ll tell y’all that right now if the parties engage in the course of conduct which calls for punishment by the bench, I would have to step back from the case.”
The 4th DCA, found that a judge who is unwilling to impose all the remedies which the law entitles a party to have imposed, is an indication of bias and unwillingness to abide by the law.
Clearly Judge Cohen’s statement at the May 30, 2008, Status Conference, that she would not even consider striking the Defendants’ pleadings is an indication of her bias and unwillingness to abide by the law.
C. In Deauville Realty Co. v. Tobin, 120 So.2d 198, 202 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960), the judge was disqualified where he stated “that he feels a party has lied in the case is generally regarded as indicating a bias against such party” even though no testimony had been taken from that party. Judge Cohen made the following statement at the July 16, 2008, hearing, “I understand that she [Petitioner] has been through a lot. But I can’t allow her to hold the system hostage. And I see some of that, some of that - - that manipulation. I am being honest with you. She was honest with me. You are honest with me. And I am telling you that there is an element of manipulation here. I can be very sensitive to all of her needs.” Judge Cohen’s admission that she believes Ms. Lanson is manipulating the system is an admission she does not believe the Petitioner and is evidence of bias. Judge Cohen’s statement that Meryl Lanson is being manipulative is a level of prejudgment which warrants disqualification. See Kates v. Seidenman, 881 So.2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), a judge who prejudged an issue in a case was prejudiced and disqualified; and Irwin v. Marko, 417 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), a judge who prejudged an issue in the case was prejudiced and disqualified. Despite the fact that Judge Cohen made statements at the July 16, 2008, that she will be fair, unbiased and will follow the law, by her own admission Judge Cohen had already admitted she cannot follow the law, by stating she would not strike the Defendants’ pleadings. In addition, Judge Cohen’s admission that she believes “that there is an element of manipulation” being carried out by Ms. Lanson and Judge Cohen’s statement that she “can’t allow her [Petitioner] to hold the system hostage”, shows a clear prejudice against the Petitioner , which any reasonable, independent third party would have reasonable doubts as to whether Judge Cohen could act impartially.
In support thereof, see Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It is not our function to determine how the trial judge actually feels, but rather what feeling resides in the petitioner’s mind and the basis for such feeling. State ex rel. Brown v. Dewell, 179 So. 695, 697-98 (Fla. 1938); Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge’s impartiality rather than the court’s own perception of its ability to act fairly and impartially. Livingston, 441 So. 2d at 1086 (Fla. 1983). This litigant not only questions but has documented that Judge Jeri Beth Cohen cannot and will not act fair and impartially in the upcoming trial. In the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, Case No. 3D04-2079, Louise Valdes-Fauli vs. Gonzalo F. Valdes, in its Corrected Opinion stated: “While appellate judges reviewing a transcript may understand that trial judges have a crowded docket and frequently make statements to encourage the parties to settle, it is not our perspective that controls, but rather whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent litigant in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Furthermore, defendant Cooper’s counsel, Ms. Waldman-Ross, who claims to be an expert appellate attorney, represented the Petitioner in the successful Writ of Prohibition in the case cited herein - Case No. 3D04-2079.
Finally, this Court recognizes that:
“The courts of this state are firmly committed to the proposition that the due process guarantee of a fair trial contains in its core the principle that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”
Pistorino v. Ferguson, 386 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1980)
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence presented in this Petition along with the legal authority cited, the Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant her Petition for Writ of Prohibition prohibiting Judge Jeri Beth Cohen from presiding over the above styled case and issue an immediate stay of all proceedings.
NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT
The relief sought is (a) a peremptory writ of prohibition prohibiting Judge Cohen from presiding in the case and (b) the issuance of an order staying proceedings in the court below pending final disposition of this petition.
Respectfully submitted,
MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se
______________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that true copies the foregoing and of the Appendix thereto were forwarded by electronic mail, facsimile and/or U.S. Mail on September 2, 2008 to all parties on the attached Service List.
Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se
18652 Ocean Mist Drive
Boca Raton, Florida 33498
Telephone: 561-488-2740
Facsimile: 561-488-2861
By: _____________________
Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the foregoing comports with the font requirements of Fla. R. App. P. 9.210.
_______________________________
MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se
SERVICE LIST
Robert M. Klein, Esq.
Stephens Lynn Klein
Two Datran Center
Penthouse II
9130 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.
Two Datran Center
Suite 1612
9130 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156
Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.
Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, P.A.
2525 Ponce de Leon
9th Floor
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.
Josephs, Jack & Miranda
P.O. Box 330519
Miami, Florida 33233
John B. Thompson, Esq.
1172 South Dixie Highway
Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33145
Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.
805 George Bush Boulevard
Delray Beach, Florida 33483
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT¬¬
CASE NO. ________________________
LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15
NORMAN LANSON,
MERYL LANSON, and
BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Petitioners,
vs.
RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ.,
KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida
Professional Association, MARK
COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A.,
a Florida Professional Association,
SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and
MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida
Professional Association,
Respondents.
_______________________________/
____________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
____________________________________________________________________
Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se
INDEX TO APPENDIX
1. Plaintiff Meryl Lanson’s Motion For Disqualification of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen dated August 20, 2008
2. Order Denying Motion to Disqualify dated August 28, 2008
3. Motion to Strike for Fraud on the Court dated May 30, 2008
4. Transcript from May 30, 2008, Hearing
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse dated June 2, 2008
6. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse dated June 10, 2008
7. New Verified Motion to Recuse dated June 30, 2008
8. Order Denying New Verified Motion to Recuse dated July 7, 2008
9. Plaintiff Meryl Lanson’s Report and Request for ADA Accommodation
10. Plaintiff’s Complaint against Judge Cohen for Violation of Americans with Americans with Disabilities Act, filed July 15, 2008
