Sunday, March 22, 2009

I, Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, am a disabled litigant suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - Legal Abuse Syndrome (PTSD/LAS). My husband and I are the owners of Baron’s Mens Clothing Stores. In April, 2008, after ten years of "legal malpractice" litigation, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen took over the Baron’s/Lanson litigation for a period of eight months. When Judge Cohen began presiding over this case, and became aware that she was dealing with a disabled litigant under the Americans With Disabilities Act, she assured me and Karin Huffer, M.F., M.S.T., ADA Consultant and Accommodations Designer, that she was competent and well equipped to handle this litigation and the accommodations that I requested under the ADA.

After being disarmed by Judge Cohen’s representations, her observance of my accommodations and rulings became progressively adverse to my and Baron’s interests. The following Chart shows Judge Cohen’s rulings in this litigation. While searching for a rationale to explain this incongruent behavior, it should be noted that the attorney defendants and/or their counsel all contributed the maximum donation allowed to Judge Cohen’s re-election campaign as soon as she was noticed to take over this case. After Judge Cohen destroyed our entire litigation, inapposite to the law, to the facts, and in violation of my due process rights, while obstructing justice, Judge Cohen announced, on the record, that she was "ill-equipped" to have dealt with this litigation from the inception, involving a disabled litigant, and was told so by her lawyers and the ADA. Judge Cohen did nothing to rectify the problem, and never vacated the Orders she entered, even though admitting to her incompetence. The Summary of the Court's Adverse Rulings in the Barons/Lanson litigation matter seems to speak for itself.

Summary of Adverse Court Rulings:
Specifically: February 4, 2008 to Present

1. Motion: 9/2005 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
Court’s Ruling: 9/3/08 Deferring Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend [and Order Deferring Ruling on Defendant’s Joint Motion to Deny Plaintiffs’ Outstanding Motion for Leave to Amend]

2. Motion: 2/4/08 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by Baron’s Stores, Inc or in the alternative, Motion to Strike Baron’s as a Party Plaintiff
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Granted - “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing

3. Motion: 5/28/08 Salkin, Defendant Motion for Protective Order
Court’s Ruling: 6/23/08 Granted - May 30, 2008, Status Conference

4. Motion: 5/29/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by Baron’s Stores, Inc.
Court’s Ruling: 6/23/08 Denied – May 30, 2008, Status Conference

5. Motion: 6/2/08 Meryl Lanson, Plaintiff Motion to Disqualify and/or Recuse Judge Cohen
Court’s Ruling: 6/10/08 Order Denying Motion to Disqualify and/or Recuse Judge Cohen

6. Motion: 6/13/08 Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing on 6/10/08 Order Denying Motion to Disqualify
Court’s Ruling: 6/18/08 Order Denying Motion for Rehearing of Motion to Disqualify 6/23/08 Order on May 30, 2008 Status Conference

7. Motion: 6/27/08 Norman Lanson & Baron’s Stores, Plaintiffs Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose Plaintiffs’ Additional Expert Witnesses
Court’s Ruling: 6/30/08 Agreed Order Extending Deadlines for Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

8. Motion: 6/27/08 Meryl Lanson, Plaintiff Motion for Change of Venue, Request for ADA Accommodations, etc.
Court’s ruling: 8/1/08 Order Denying Motion for Change of Venue, Request for ADA Accommodations, etc

9. Motion: 6/30/008 Meryl Lanson, Plaintiff Verified New Motion for Recusal
Court’s Ruling: 7/7/08 Order Denying New Verified Motion for Recusal

10. Motion: 7/30/08 Plaintiffs Joint Renewed Motion to Stay
Court’s Ruling: 8/808 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Joint Renewed Motion to Stay 8/13/08 Order of Referral to Mediation

11. Motion: 8/20/08 Plaintiffs Verified Motion for Disqualification
Court’s Ruling: 8/28/08 Order Denying Motion for Disqualification

12. Motion: 9/2/08 Plaintiffs Plaintiff’s Renewed and Amended Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (with Complaint)
Court’s Ruling: 9/3/08 Order Deferring Ruling on Defendant’s Joint Motion to Deny Plaintiffs’ Outstanding Motion for Leave to Amend and Deferring Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend

13. Motion: 9/2/08 Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to Filing of Plaintiff’s Writ of Prohibition
Court’s Ruling: 9/3/08 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings pursuant to the filing of Plaintiff’s Writ of Prohibition in the Third DCA

14. Motion: 9/4/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion Demanding Evidentiary Hearing on Renewed Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Fraud on the Court
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing

15. Motion: 9/4/08 Defendants Joint Motion to Strike and/or Exclude Testimony of Karin Huffer, M.F., M.S.T
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Granted – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing

16. Motion: 9/8/08 Plaintiffs Renewed Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (all Claims)
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing Motion Court’s Ruling

17. Motion: 9/8/08 Plaintiffs Verified Supplement to Renewed Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing

18. Motion: 9/16/08 Plaintiffs Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Portion of Court’s 6/23/08 Order on Salkin’s Motion for Protective Order
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing

19. Motion: 9/23/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion to Strike Case From Trial Docket Pursuant to Rule 1.440 & Motion Requesting the Court to Reserve Ruling on the Defendants’ Pending Motion for Summary Judgment
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing

20. Motion: 9/29/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion Requesting a Stay of All Matters
Court’s Ruling: 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing

21. Motion: 10/15/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion Requesting Stay, Establishing Deadline for Disclosure of Expert Witness and Scheduling Status Conference
Court’s Ruling: 10/28/08 Denied – as to Plaintiff’s requesting Stay of any ruling on Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment as to Baron’s Stores, Inc.

22. Motion: 10/15/08 Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate that Portion of the Court’s June 23, 2008 Order Granting Salkin’s MPO
Court’s Ruling: 10/28/08 Denied

23. Motion: 10/15/08 Defendants Joint Motion to Strike and/or Exclude Testimony of Karin Huffer
Court’s Ruling: 10/28/08 Granted

24. Motion: 11/18/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion to Compel Court to Comply
Court’s Ruling: 11/18/08 Denied

25. Motion: 9/2/08, 9/8/08, 10/15/08, 11/14/08,& 11/17/08 Defendants: Kopplow and Cooper Defendants’ Kopplow and Cooper Motions for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by Baron’s Stores, Inc.
Court’s Ruling: 11/21/08 Granted - Final Summary Judgment and Memorandum Order

26. Motion: 11/18/08 Defendants Emergency Motion to Enforce Subpoena Served Upon Mark Osherow
Court’s Ruling: 12/3/08 Granted

27. Motion: 12/10/08 Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing – re Court Order (undated) Scheduling Order - Stay
Court’s Ruling: 12/10/08 Denied

28. Motion: 12/10/08 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing - 11/21/08 Order Granting Kopplow’s and Cooper’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Court’s Ruling: 12/10/08 Denied

29. Motion: 12/10/08 Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate all Dispositive Orders
Court’s Ruling: 12/10/08 Denied

30. Motion: 9/8/08, 12/10/08, 12/23/08 Defendants:
Kopplow and Cooper Final Order – re Summary Judgment
Court’s Ruling: 1/6/09 Granted – Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants

31. Motion: 1/23/09 Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing
Court’s Ruling: 1/23/09 Denied

2 comments:

Rebecca Hoffman said...

Dear Mrs. Lanson,

I just found your blog today, and have read enough to have a fair understanding of what happened to you and your family.

I am so sorry.

I have a somewhat similar situation and cases we are currently litigating pro se. I also blog about it @ http://heresagem.blogspot.com/ I want to do everything I can to expose stories like these, and bring together the people who live through them. I was wondering if you might have any input, or if this is a cause you are still involved in? I see you have not posted anything in some time, and it appears your cases may have come to an end. How are you doing now? I hope you and your family have had some time to heal. I would love to chat with you if you are up to it.

Best Wishes,

Rebecca

citizen Jane said...

The laws show FRAUD is against the law, and in cases of conspiracy, fraud, and collusion done to harm disabled citizens, the attorneys have never been extended the right to use fraud on the court documents with intent to harm disabled citizens, who depends on the court to not harm them. The court officers are obliged to follow the rights of disabled persons under the ADA laws. See our Constitutions 14th Amend Also see Federal and State Victims Rights Laws.
In this case the evidence shows the Fraud caused voidable orders to be signed by the judge. Therefore, it should be possible for the officials to adduce the essential facts as to causation without any more delay. The disabled victim was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend her case when the officers colluded to skip the court minutes and close the case by writing non appeal able orders and then instructing the clerk not to file documents for the Defendant / creditor in the cases. the ruling was based upon fraud on the court and the decision of the trial court should be reversed and remanded according to the court minutes. But the statewide grand jury ignores insolvent citizens (even when it was the court officers that made them insolvent….. where is the fairness in that?
The appeals court never gave a determination of the outstanding issues in the appeal pending before the court.
Just left things hanging. Was that unconstitutional?
is there anyplace to go now?
have we lost out court system?