February 25, 2009

Judge Herbert Stettin
5401 Hammock Dr
Coral Gables, Florida 33156

Re: Lanson/Baron’s et al. v. Kopplow, Cooper, Salkin et al.
Case No. 21062 CA 15

Dear Judge Stettin:

This is a follow-up to my previous correspondence to you dated February 19, 2009.

The excerpts of the transcript of the October 15, 2008 hearing, in front of Judge Cohen, are as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of the entire Transcript.

Page 13 – Line 3 through Page 15 – Line 2

Ms. Gwynn: Well, this was filed before. It was filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs. This was filed by Steven Katzman. It was a motion to strike sham affirmative defenses, and it goes right to the heart of this motion for summary judgment. And that has not been heard yet. And that’s one of the motions that were set here that we were supposed to hear this morning. And we requested a stay on the Court’s ruling on the summary judgment because there were two outstanding verified motions directed toward that pleading. There was the affirmative defense motion to strike affirmative defenses at Paragraph 87 and 88 which deals with the amended plan and the amended disclosure statement. There’s also two verified – there’s a verified motion to strike the motion for summary judgment as a sham pleading based on the fraudulent documents. You need to have an evidentiary hearing, Your Honor, on that particular issue -

The Court: I already told you that I’m going to rely on the bankruptcy order, Judge Hyman’s order. I’ve already told you that. I don’t know how many times I need to tell you that. I am not having a hearing on it I believe – I understand you disagree with me, and you can appeal it; that’s fine. We can’t agree. I don’t understand the law that way.
My understanding of the law is that I have to follow the bankruptcy order and rely on Judge Hyman’s opinion. I am not going to have a hearing on it. I’m not going to do it. That’s why Judge Gerstein, I believe, sent you back to the bankruptcy court for that evidentiary hearing; they refused to give one. I am not going to do it. I am –

Ms. Gwynn: That was on a totally different –

Ms. Lanson: That was on a totally different matter.

The Court: Well, look, I’ve ruled, Okay?

What you need to do is appeal it, at least against the lawyers. I have ruled based on the res judicata effect of the bankruptcy judge awarding and confirming the fees.

Page 19 – Line 11 through Page 20 Line 5

Ms. Gwynn: Your Honor, so the record’s clear, there’s two separate motions to strike sham pleadings. There was one that Mr. Throckmorton mentioned. There was also the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the summary judgment. So for the record, they’re both denied?

The Court: Yes.

Ms. Gwynn: And both of the requests for an evidentiary hearing on these two motions are denied –

The Court: Yes, they’re denied, just so we can get a record that you can appeal.

Ms. Gwynn: Right. And there was another motion. There was a motion to stay the summary judgment until these two motions for sham pleadings were heard. So I presume that’s going to be denied –

The Court: That’s denied.

Page 22 – Line 9 through Page 24 Line 4

Ms. Lanson: Excuse me, Your Honor.

The Court: Um-hum.

Ms. Lanson: In the documents that we’re asking for an evidentiary hearing, the fraudulent documents that we had an expert say that are fraudulent, they haven’t refuted. And that you have a duty, and I’ve sent in pleading about this –

The Court: Okay.

Ms. Lanson: -- to report that, and they have a duty to withdraw them. In the documents that are fraudulent, what was taken out of the documents was Judge Hyman’s – there was a piece in there about that we can go after the attorneys, and there was – there were reservations of rights for Norman and myself against the attorneys –

The Court: But that’s a different issue.

Ms. Lanson: No, it’s not a different issue, because if you give us the evidentiary hearing that you’re required to under 1.150, you will know what happened and who was responsible. Aren’t you curious as to what attorneys were involved in the perpetration, preparation and submission of fraudulent documents to a court that are now using it in your court, and you are violating your judicial canons by not referring these attorneys to the property authority that is clear in the judicial canons that you must do it, and you’re not doing it, and it is clear in the rules regulating the Bar, that they must withdraw those fraudulent documents; therefore, that’s supporting their summary judgment –

The Court: Well, let me say something to you.

Ms. Lanson: Yes.

The Court: I have Judge Hyman’s order. See, I may be curious about a lot of things. I may be curious. But I have Judge Hyman’s order. He did not set aside the bankruptcy.

Ms. Lanson: He didn’t address the fraudulent documents –

Page 24 – Line 24 through Page 26 – Line 12

The Court: Okay, Miss Lanson, I’m going to ask you to appeal my ruling. I’ve spent hundreds of hours on this reading –

Ms. Lanson: And we’ve spent ten years getting justice –

The Court: Miss Lanson –

Ms. Lanson: -- and we haven’t gotten justice because – if you would only give us the evidentiary hearing that we are entitled to that you have to give us under the law – that motion to strike those sham pleadings was filed in March of 2008. You’re ignoring those motions to strike the sham pleadings which go to the heart of the summary judgment to protect these attorneys. This is all the cronyism that I’ve been complaining about to the JQC, everything that I’ve complained about to the FBI, to the attorney general. And you are violating your rules, you’re breaking the law, you’re exacerbating my situation. You are not following the law. It says specifically that you must refer these attorneys when they violate rules regulating the Bar. They have submitted false evidence. They did not refute the false evidence. They did not withdraw the false evidence. And you’re sitting there saying it’s okay that you give false evidence. I’m going to protect you because you’re a member of the Bar like I am. I have a real problem with that. And that’s what you’re doing right now.

The Court: Okay. I understand that’s the way you feel—

Ms. Lanson: No, it’s not the way I feel. I am following the law. And you’re supposed to follow the law and you’re not doing it.

Page 35 – Lines 2 through 7

Ms. Gwynn: However, Your Honor, known since the end of July, but in the meantime, we filed all these motions that if you would have followed the law that we needed an evidentiary hearing on these fraudulent documents, we wouldn’t be there –

Page 35 – Line 22 through Page 37 – Line 15

Ms. Lanson: Excuse me. Nine years they keep saying we didn’t have experts. We had a damage expert in 1998; that we still have that damage expert. I have a fraudulent document expert. In nine years they didn’t produce one expert. They had their insurance company say we will get a damage expert to refute your damages. They never produced a damage expert. They said they would have 60 depositions. They delayed this thing for nine years. They got to all of our attorneys, because they’re all connected through the Florida Bar and its insurance company. I sent you – the latest motion that I filed outlines this. And this is what they’re saying for nine years. And now they come in with all their experts. A few months ago, they have the entire Dade County Bar supporting them. This is the cronyism and the corruption that’s going on in this case because this case is so huge. And you, by violating the law – well, that’s a real problem for me—

The Court: Miss Lanson, I know that it is –

Ms. Lanson: Yeah, so it’s a problem a judge violates the law and doesn’t give me -- you are obstructing justice, and you have denied me due process by not giving me the discovery we need get to the bottom of those fraudulent documents.

The Court: Okay. Miss Lanson, we’ve been over and over and over this. I respect your opinion on it, but I believe that the bankruptcy judge, that’s where it was –

Ms. Lanson: He never looked at the documents. He even said in there if the documents were fraudulent, you’re in a better position because of it. Are you as judge, are you okay to say even if they’re fraudulent documents, I’m not curious what attorneys were involved in it?

Page 48 – Line 24 through Page 49 – Line 13

Ms. Lanson: Your Honor, when you say that you don’t want to ever go behind Judge Hyman’s order – on Judge Hyman’s order on the first fraud trial –

The Court: Excuse me.

Ms. Lanson: Excuse me. You said you don’t want to go behind his order. He said it is clear to the Court that the Lansons had suffered damages at the embezzlement, at the bankruptcy and at the liquidation. If these damages were suffered and we retained Kopplow and Cooper and the Court is clear as to these damages, how could these attorneys not be responsible?

Page 49 – Lines 16 through 21

Ms. Lanson: Why are you protecting these attorneys?

The Court: I am not protecting these attorneys.

Ms. Lanson: Yes, you are protecting these attorneys.

Page 71 – Line 8 through Page 72 – Line 4

Ms. Gwynn: Your Honor, wait a minute. I want to put on the record that if – we filed motions to stay, we filed the motion to strike the sham pleadings that we wouldn’t even need a standard of care expert if we would have had a evidentiary hearing on the fraudulent documents because we would have gotten to the bottom of the fraud, and we would only have a trial on damages. The expert that the Lansons has is the handwriting expert that declared those documents fraud. We’re not dealing with that expert. But that is the expert, the only expert they needed, because at this time there’s fraudulent documents in the court record, and you do not want to address them.

The Court: Okay.

Ms. Gwynn: So that’s why we filed all the motions –

Ms. Lanson: You’re allowing – I mean, I don’t understand how you’re allowing attorneys to support their motions by fraud.

Page 81 Lines 18 through 19

Ms. Gwynn: But do you know what was really so unfair –

Page 81 Line 24 through Page 82 – Line 7

Ms. Gwynn: There was a motion to strike the affirmative defenses back in February –

Ms. Lanson: Correct.

Ms. Gwynn: -- and it was never heard. And that addressed the heart of the motion for summary judgment – that should have been heard first, but the defendants were allowed to sneak in a motion for summary judgment before that was even heard. So –


Page 85 – Line 5 through Page 86 – Line 3

Ms. Lanson: But we need the affirmative defenses that we filed that motion that’s sitting there. What is -- I don’t understand how this works. I’m pro se. We filed a motion to strike their affirmative defenses 87 and 88. We agreed to allow them to amend the second – why aren’t you going to hear that?

The Court: The affirmative defenses for 87 and 88 were what?

Ms. Lanson: They deal with the fraudulent documents.

Ms. Ross: We’ve gone over—

The Court: And I have spoken to the fraudulent document issue.

Ms. Lanson: But we filed a verified motion for a sham pleading on Nos. 87 and 88 in February. How could you go against the law when the law says under 1.150 that you must give us an evidentiary hearing?

The Court: I told you that I considered Judge Hyman – it was sent back to him by Judge Gerstein – wasn’t it Judge Gerstein?

Page 86 – Lines 16 through 25

Ms. Gwynn: They’re two different things.

Ms. Lanson: They’re two different issues. You’re mixing up the two.

Ms. Gwynn: They’re using fraudulent documents to gain an unfair advantage in this litigation to gut it out, and that’s what’s happening.

Ms. Lanson: And that’s what’s happening, and you’re buying it.

Page 87 – Line 17 through Page 88 – Line 17

Ms. Lanson: I want a hearing on those fraudulent documents that we are entitled to.

The Court: I’m not giving you one.

Ms. Lanson: You’re not giving me a hearing on the 87 and 88 –

The Court: No, because I’ve explained to you on numerous occasions why not, and I’m not going over it again.

I will be filing a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction back to your Trial Court to conduct the evidentiary hearing assured in your Order, which was denied by Judge Cohen. Had I known that this was a trick, in order for me to sign the Agreement allowing the defendants to amend their Affirmative Defenses, and that I would be deprived the right to challenge, in direct contravention of your signed Order, I would have never agreed to such a Motion. I respectfully request that you intervene in this matter, in the same manner in which you conducted a “Contempt Hearing” in the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines case, or in the alternative, to please disclose this matter to the proper Judicial authorities pursuant to Judicial Canons.

Respectfully,



Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se

Enclosure: As stated herein, only with Federal Express Delivery

cc: (without enclosures but will be provided upon request)

Judge Jeri Beth Cohen
Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.
Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.
Robert M. Klein, Esq.
Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.
Reggie Sanger, Esq.
Elliot H. Scherker, Esq.
Kerri L. McNulty, Esq.
Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.
State Investigative and Regulatory Agencies
Federal Investigative and Regulatory Agencies
Media