tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42581100193671201252024-03-13T05:38:25.549-07:00Baron's Lanson LitigationBaron's Stores was a 50-year old family owned business in South Florida. In 1998, the last family owners, Norman and Meryl Lanson, were swindled out of the business by lawyers, accountants, and an aggressive creditor through the bankruptcy process. As a result of the swindle, 200 loyal employees lost their jobs, and all of the more than 200 creditors, except one, were damaged. This site is dedicated to informing the public about what really happened to Baron's.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-20721308503562586312009-03-22T19:08:00.000-07:002009-03-23T18:30:51.382-07:00I, 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. <br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />Summary of Adverse Court Rulings:<br />Specifically: February 4, 2008 to Present<br /><br />1. Motion: <strong>9/2005 Plaintiffs</strong> Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint<br />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]<br /><br />2. Motion: <strong>2/4/08 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment</strong> as to all Claims Brought by Baron’s Stores, Inc or in the alternative, Motion to Strike Baron’s as a Party Plaintiff <br />Court’s Ruling: <strong>10/15/08 Granted</strong> - “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing<br /><br />3. Motion: <strong>5/28/08 Salkin, Defendant Motion for Protective Order </strong><br />Court’s Ruling: <strong>6/23/08 Granted </strong>- May 30, 2008, Status Conference<br /><br />4. Motion: <strong>5/29/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by Baron’s Stores, Inc. </strong> <br />Court’s Ruling: <strong>6/23/08 Denied </strong>– May 30, 2008, Status Conference<br /><br />5. Motion: <strong>6/2/08 Meryl Lanson, Plaintiff Motion to Disqualify and/or Recuse Judge Cohen </strong><br />Court’s Ruling: <strong>6/10/08 Order Denying Motion</strong> to Disqualify and/or Recuse Judge Cohen<br /><br />6. Motion: <strong>6/13/08 Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing on 6/10/08</strong> Order Denying Motion to Disqualify <br />Court’s Ruling: <strong>6/18/08 Order Denying Motion for Rehearing </strong>of Motion to Disqualify 6/23/08 Order on May 30, 2008 Status Conference<br /><br />7. Motion: 6/27/08 Norman Lanson & Baron’s Stores, Plaintiffs Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose Plaintiffs’ Additional Expert Witnesses <br />Court’s Ruling: 6/30/08 Agreed Order Extending Deadlines for Disclosure of Expert Witnesses<br /><br />8. Motion: <strong>6/27/08 Meryl Lanson, Plaintiff Motion for Change of Venue, Request for ADA Accommodations, etc. </strong><br />Court’s ruling: <strong>8/1/08 Order Denying Motion for Change of Venue</strong>, Request for ADA Accommodations, etc<br /> <br />9. Motion: <strong>6/30/008 Meryl Lanson, Plaintiff Verified New Motion for Recusal </strong><br />Court’s Ruling: <strong>7/7/08 Order Denying </strong>New Verified Motion for Recusal<br /><br />10. Motion: <strong>7/30/08 Plaintiffs Joint Renewed Motion to Stay </strong><br />Court’s Ruling: <strong>8/808 Order Denying </strong>Plaintiffs’ Joint Renewed Motion to Stay 8/13/08 Order of Referral to Mediation <br /><br />11. <strong>Motion:</strong> 8/20/08 Plaintiffs Verified Motion for Disqualification <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 8/28/08 Order Denying Motion for Disqualification<br /><br />12. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/2/08 Plaintiffs Plaintiff’s Renewed and Amended Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (with Complaint) <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 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 <br /><br />13. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/2/08 Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to Filing of Plaintiff’s Writ of Prohibition <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 9/3/08 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings pursuant to the filing of Plaintiff’s Writ of Prohibition in the Third DCA<br /><br />14. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/4/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion Demanding Evidentiary Hearing on Renewed Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Fraud on the Court <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing<br /><br />15. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/4/08 Defendants Joint Motion to Strike and/or Exclude Testimony of Karin Huffer, M.F., M.S.T<br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/15/08 Granted – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing<br /><br />16. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/8/08 Plaintiffs Renewed Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (all Claims) <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing Motion Court’s Ruling<br /><br />17. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/8/08 Plaintiffs Verified Supplement to Renewed Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing<br /><br />18. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/16/08 Plaintiffs Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Portion of Court’s 6/23/08 Order on Salkin’s Motion for Protective Order <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing<br /><br />19. <strong>Motion:</strong> 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 <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing<br /><br />20. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/29/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion Requesting a Stay of All Matters <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/15/08 Denied – “Ore-Tenus Ruling” at October 15, 2008, Hearing<br /><br />21. <strong>Motion:</strong> 10/15/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion Requesting Stay, Establishing Deadline for Disclosure of Expert Witness and Scheduling Status Conference <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 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.<br /><br />22. <strong>Motion:</strong> 10/15/08 Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate that Portion of the Court’s June 23, 2008 Order Granting Salkin’s MPO <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/28/08 Denied<br /><br />23. <strong>Motion:</strong> 10/15/08 Defendants Joint Motion to Strike and/or Exclude Testimony of Karin Huffer <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 10/28/08 Granted<br /><br />24. <strong>Motion:</strong> 11/18/08 Plaintiffs Joint Motion to Compel Court to Comply <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 11/18/08 Denied<br /><br />25. <strong>Motion:</strong> 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. <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 11/21/08 Granted - Final Summary Judgment and Memorandum Order <br /><br />26. <strong>Motion:</strong> 11/18/08 Defendants Emergency Motion to Enforce Subpoena Served Upon Mark Osherow <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 12/3/08 Granted<br /><br />27. <strong>Motion:</strong> 12/10/08 Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing – re Court Order (undated) Scheduling Order - Stay <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 12/10/08 Denied<br /><br />28. <strong>Motion:</strong> 12/10/08 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing - 11/21/08 Order Granting Kopplow’s and Cooper’s Motion for Summary Judgment <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling: </strong> 12/10/08 Denied<br /><br />29. <strong>Motion:</strong> 12/10/08 Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate all Dispositive Orders <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 12/10/08 Denied<br /><br />30. <strong>Motion:</strong> 9/8/08, 12/10/08, 12/23/08 Defendants:<br />Kopplow and Cooper Final Order – re Summary Judgment <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 1/6/09 Granted – Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants <br /><br />31. <strong>Motion:</strong> 1/23/09 Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing <br /><strong>Court’s Ruling:</strong> 1/23/09 DeniedNorthern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-16945894910588164722009-02-28T13:46:00.000-08:002009-02-28T13:58:27.691-08:00February 25, 2009<br /><br />Judge Herbert Stettin <br />5401 Hammock Dr <br />Coral Gables, Florida 33156<br /><br />Re: Lanson/Baron’s et al. v. Kopplow, Cooper, Salkin et al. <br />Case No. 21062 CA 15<br /><br />Dear Judge Stettin:<br /><br />This is a follow-up to my previous correspondence to you dated February 19, 2009.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Page 13 – Line 3 through Page 15 – Line 2<br /><br />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 - <br /><br />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. <br />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 – <br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: That was on a totally different –<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: That was on a totally different matter.<br /><br />The Court: Well, look, I’ve ruled, Okay?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Page 19 – Line 11 through Page 20 Line 5 <br /><br />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?<br /><br />The Court: Yes.<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: And both of the requests for an evidentiary hearing on these two motions are denied –<br /><br />The Court: Yes, they’re denied, just so we can get a record that you can appeal.<br /><br />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 –<br /><br />The Court: That’s denied.<br /><br />Page 22 – Line 9 through Page 24 Line 4<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Excuse me, Your Honor. <br /><br />The Court: Um-hum.<br /><br />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 –<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />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 – <br /><br />The Court: But that’s a different issue.<br /><br />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 – <br /><br />The Court: Well, let me say something to you.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Yes.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: He didn’t address the fraudulent documents –<br /><br />Page 24 – Line 24 through Page 26 – Line 12<br /><br />The Court: Okay, Miss Lanson, I’m going to ask you to appeal my ruling. I’ve spent hundreds of hours on this reading –<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: And we’ve spent ten years getting justice –<br /><br />The Court: Miss Lanson –<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The Court: Okay. I understand that’s the way you feel—<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Page 35 – Lines 2 through 7<br /><br />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 –<br /><br />Page 35 – Line 22 through Page 37 – Line 15<br /><br />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—<br /><br />The Court: Miss Lanson, I know that it is –<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 –<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Page 48 – Line 24 through Page 49 – Line 13<br /><br />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 –<br /><br />The Court: Excuse me.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Page 49 – Lines 16 through 21<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Why are you protecting these attorneys?<br /><br />The Court: I am not protecting these attorneys.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Yes, you are protecting these attorneys.<br /><br />Page 71 – Line 8 through Page 72 – Line 4<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: So that’s why we filed all the motions –<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: You’re allowing – I mean, I don’t understand how you’re allowing attorneys to support their motions by fraud. <br /><br />Page 81 Lines 18 through 19<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: But do you know what was really so unfair –<br /><br />Page 81 Line 24 through Page 82 – Line 7<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: There was a motion to strike the affirmative defenses back in February –<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Correct.<br /><br />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 –<br /><br /><br />Page 85 – Line 5 through Page 86 – Line 3<br /><br />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?<br /><br />The Court: The affirmative defenses for 87 and 88 were what?<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: They deal with the fraudulent documents.<br /><br />Ms. Ross: We’ve gone over—<br /><br />The Court: And I have spoken to the fraudulent document issue.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />The Court: I told you that I considered Judge Hyman – it was sent back to him by Judge Gerstein – wasn’t it Judge Gerstein?<br /><br />Page 86 – Lines 16 through 25<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: They’re two different things.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: They’re two different issues. You’re mixing up the two.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: And that’s what’s happening, and you’re buying it.<br /><br />Page 87 – Line 17 through Page 88 – Line 17<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: I want a hearing on those fraudulent documents that we are entitled to.<br /><br />The Court: I’m not giving you one.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: You’re not giving me a hearing on the 87 and 88 –<br /><br />The Court: No, because I’ve explained to you on numerous occasions why not, and I’m not going over it again.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br />Enclosure: As stated herein, only with Federal Express Delivery<br /><br />cc: (without enclosures but will be provided upon request) <br /><br />Judge Jeri Beth Cohen<br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Robert M. Klein, Esq. <br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />Reggie Sanger, Esq.<br />Elliot H. Scherker, Esq.<br />Kerri L. McNulty, Esq.<br />Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br />State Investigative and Regulatory Agencies<br />Federal Investigative and Regulatory Agencies <br />MediaNorthern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-46823891909613948832009-02-28T13:44:00.000-08:002009-02-28T13:57:40.345-08:00February 19, 2009<br /><br />Judge Herbert Stettin <br />5401 Hammock Dr <br />Coral Gables, Florida 33156<br /><br />Re: Lanson/Baron’s et al. v. Kopplow, Cooper, Salkin et al. <br />Case No. 21062 CA 15<br /><br />Dear Judge Stettin:<br /><br />The referenced case was before you, on a temporary basis, while Judge Mindy Glazer was on maternity leave, approximately between January and March, 2008. It remained with you when it was decided that Judge Glazer would not be returning to the Division and that the Division would be taken over by Judge Jeri Beth Cohen. During the period of time that you presided over the case you entered Orders. Amongst those Orders was an Order agreed to by all the parties entitled “Agreed Order Granting All Defendants Motion To Amend Their Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,” a copy of which is enclosed, as Exhibit A, for your ready review. The Order was drafted by attorney Lauri Waldman Ross, your former law clerk, as Exhibit B confirms. I, as a Pro Se litigant in these proceedings, was one of the parties who agreed to the terms of the Order. <br /><br />The Plaintiffs, Baron’s Stores, Inc., and Norman Lanson, represented by counsel, and me, in my Pro Se status, abided by the terms of the “Agreed Order.” The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike the Defendants Affirmative Defenses as a Sham Pleading in a timely manner. The hearing on that Motion was scheduled to be heard on April 24, 2008 and was ultimately continued, by mutual consent of all the parties, at the time when Judge Cohen took over the Division.<br /><br />Without going into all the details that surround this ten year old attorney malpractice case, you need to be aware that attorneys Lauri Waldman Ross, Charles W. Throckmorton, Robert M. Klein, Lewis Jack, Jr., and Reggie Sanger obtained the benefit of the bargain of the Agreed Order that bears your signature. Yet, the Plaintiffs were deprived of their benefit, by your signed Order, of their opportunity to be heard on the Sham Pleading. The attorneys then conspired by intentionally subverting your signed Agreed Order by failing to bring your signed Agreed Order to the attention of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen. By going behind your back, and concealing the Agreed Order from the Court, the Plaintiffs were deprived of, not only their benefit of the Order that was Agreed to and executed by your Honor, but were also deprived of their procedural due process rights as mandated under Florida Statutes 1.150.<br /><br />The Plaintiffs have a trail of e-mail communications, Motions, letters and Orders imploring the attorneys, and subsequently Judge Cohen, to abide by your Court Order. Lauri Waldman Ross sat silent while Judge Jeri Beth Cohen was entering Orders in favor of the defendants, in breach of Court Orders, yours most crucially included, in violation of due process rights and ultimately obstructing justice (See Exhibit C – a letter dated October 27, 2008 requesting Lauri Waldman Ross to correct the record which she refused to do, and to this day, has never done).<br /><br />These attorneys have a history, in these proceedings, of lack of candor towards the tribunal in order to gain unfair advantages on behalf of their “Attorney Defendant Clients.” This has been the way these attorneys and their clients have operated during the entire ten years of this litigation. I would never make such allegations if I did not have the facts and the law, and the evidence, to support my allegations. What I don’t have, and what the Plaintiffs, in this litigation have never had, is the “connections and protection” that the attorney Defendants and their counsel enjoy. I have the utmost confidence, Judge Stettin, that when you entered that Order you did so in good faith, and that your role, as a respected Senior Judge, was to insure that all parties would be afforded their due process rights pertaining to the Agreed Order that you signed. That is not what happened regarding your signed Order and that is certainly not what happened in the Lanson/Baron’s litigation. What happened was that these attorneys, in concert with Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, ignored your Order and managed to gut our entire case and have it dismissed inapposite to the law, to the facts and in violation of our due process rights. Judge Jeri Beth Cohen denied us discovery and a required evidentiary hearing. Judge Cohen and these attorneys have conspired to obstruct justice in the Lanson/Baron’s litigation, and thus far, have been successful in their conspired acts. All the Plaintiffs have ever sought was and remains an evidentiary hearing, which is required, so that the Defendants’ would have to answer to just how these fraudulent documents were obtained, used and ultimately filed in the court record to support Summary Judgment.<br /><br />Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit from an independent fraud examiner, Michael G. Kessler, whom I retained, and who determined that the documents that the Defendants have relied upon have been altered, modified, tampered and thereby falsified. The Defendants have never re-butted nor refuted Mr. Kessler’s critical Affidavit. (See Attached Exhibit D – the sworn Declaration of Michael G. Kessler, which the Plaintiffs have made part of the Court record).<br /><br /><br />I felt it of utmost importance that you should be aware of the conduct of these attorneys, specifically Lauri Waldman Ross, who was responsible for drafting, forwarding and obtaining your signature on an Agreed Order, and then sitting silent in the proceedings while witnessing the subversion of your Order by Judge Jeri Beth Cohen. Lauri Waldman Ross has used her position as a JQC special counsel, and as a member of the JNC, to corrupt these legal proceedings in order to be victorious. Lauri Waldman Ross wields her power to protect unethical and illegal conduct on the part of attorneys and Judges and does so to the detriment of the unassuming public. <br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br />Enclosures: As stated herein<br /><br /><br /><br />cc: <br />Judge Jeri Beth Cohen<br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Robert M. Klein, Esq.<br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />Reggie Sanger, Esq.<br />Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br />State Investigative and Regulatory Agencies<br />Federal Investigative and Regulatory Agencies <br />MediaNorthern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-13666025622024805932009-02-28T13:40:00.000-08:002009-02-28T13:43:30.680-08:00IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR<br />THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA<br /><br />CASE NO. 08-CV-22009-JORDAN<br /><br />MAGISTRATE JUDGE O’SULLIVAN<br /><br />MERYL M. LANSON, individually,<br /><br />Plaintiff<br /><br />v.<br /><br />HONORABLE JERI BETH COHEN,<br />Individually, and as Judge For The 11th <br />Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade<br />County, Florida <br /><br /> Defendant<br />_______________________________________/<br /><br />PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD INDISPENSABLE PARTY DEFENDANTS AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME <br /><br />Pursuant to Rule 15 and Rule 19 of F.R.C.P., Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, hereby files this Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Indispensable Party Defendants and an Extension of Time and states as follows:<br />On December 8, 2008, the Court granted the Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, an extension of time until February 15, 2009 to file her Amended Complaint. The following subsequent facts occurred, giving rise to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Add Indispensable Parties. <br />1. A hearing was held on December 24, 2008 in front of the Defendant, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen (Case No. 99-21062 CA 15). Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, was not in attendance at that hearing. On or about the first week in January, 2009, Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, received a copy of the transcript of the December 24, 2008 hearing. <br />2. Upon reading the transcript and conducting research and investigation, Plaintiff believes it is critical that an extension of time be granted in order to add the ADA Access Coordinator and the County as indispensable parties to this cause of action. Plaintiff was not aware that the ADA Access Coordinator and now the County have potential liability in this action and should be added as party Defendants under Rule 19 F.R.C.P. <br />3. The adding of indispensable parties and the extension of time is critical because of what transpired at the initial specially set hearing on Plaintiff’s ADA Accommodations held on July 16, 2008, and then what transpired at the December 24, 2008 hearing with regard to Plaintiff’s ADA Accommodations; both hearings before the Defendant, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen are in conflict. <br />4. For ease of reference of the aforementioned, the following excerpts from the hearings are germane to Plaintiff’s instant Motion.<br />July 16, 2008 Hearing - P. 7 – Line 19 through 23: (Attached as Exhibit 1)<br />The Court: So let’s look at the accommodations. Okay. I have the list here. Let’s look at them and see how we can accommodate her. All right. <br />P. 8 – Line 16 through P. 9 – Line 9:<br />The Court: Can I ask a personal question? And if that may be out of order so you tell me. I understand that that - - And I, you know, deal with medications everyday. I run a drug court. Most of the people in my drug court are duly diagnosed. So we on a regular basis work with psychiatrists. And most of the people in our drug court suffer from <br />P. T. S. D. that -- They are primarily women, obviously for different reasons. I am not comparing Ms. Lanson to the women in any drug court. I am saying the syndrome. And a lot of them have anxiety and/or depression. And medication - - They are medicated and it does work very well. Now I am not telling her she has to get medicated.<br />Ms. Huffer: Well, she is now.<br />Page 26, Line 1 through Page 27, Line 7:<br />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 - -<br />The Court: But I am the Judge of what the evidence is, you see.<br />Ms. Huffer: Right.<br />The Court: You see. You want her - - You want to allow her to control this process.<br />Ms. Huffer: No. No. No. Access to evidence. In other words, full discovery, full everything. <br />The Court: We will get her that.<br />Ms. Huffer: That is important.<br />The Court: We will get her that. But I can’t say:<br />“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.” <br />Ms. Huffer: But she is never to be invalidated due to P. T. S. D.<br />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 - -<br />December 24, 2008 Hearing – Page 5, Line 4 – 19: (Attached as Exhibit 2)<br />The Court: I understand that she feels that she’s done what she needs to do as far as her ADA request, but I’ve now run this through my lawyers and my ADA Office. I’ve been in extensive conversations with them about how to handle this. The reason being is initially I felt that if - - well, initially, I really didn’t approach it the way I should have, because it was the first time I’d ever had a request and I just - - you know, I wasn’t as diligent as I should have been about running it by my lawyers. But I felt that what she was asking for I could accommodate. <br />Page 6, Line 3 – 21:<br />The Court: That’s why I went to the lawyers for the Court and also to the ADA Office, and they told me very clearly that I should have come to them initially. That while Ms. Lanson feels that she’s adequately protected herself from an ADA perspective, my lawyers in the office here told me they don’t want judges making these determinations. This is not something judges are equipped to do. We’re not trained to know if somebody has a disability, how severe it is, what kind of accommodations they should be given, and they like it to run through the ADA Office, especially in a situation like this where it’s escalating and where she sued me for a violation of her ADA rights. <br /><br /><br /><br />Page 7, Line 5 – 9<br />The Court: I am not equipped to make ADA determinations. That’s not something that I’m equipped to do. And that’s why there is an administrative structure to handle that.<br />5. The ADA Access Coordinator was previously put on notice of Plaintiff’s Request for ADA Accommodations. Attached, as Exhibit 3, is a copy of a letter from Plaintiff’s Consultant, Karin Huffer, M.S., M.F.T. to Judge Jeri Beth Cohen dated June 24, 2008. Attached, as Exhibit 4, is a copy of a cover letter to the Access Coordinator, dated June 27, 2008 from attorney, Mary Alice Gwynn, enclosing Plaintiff’s formal request for ADA accommodations as well as Exhibit 5, the ADA Report prepared by Karin Huffer, M.S., M.F.T. It was subsequent to receiving the aforementioned correspondence that Judge Cohen contacted all the parties for a specially set hearing regarding Plaintiff’s, Meryl M. Lanson, ADA Accommodations.<br /><br />6. The granting and fulfilling of Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, Accommodations is an administrative/ministerial function. Therefore, the Office of the ADA Coordinator and related parties, need to be named as well as Judge Cohen, as outlined above by Judge Cohen, that she was never equipped to deal with the ADA Accommodations, initially, and should have immediately consulted with her attorneys, and the ADA Office, upon receiving the ADA Accommodations on June 13, 2008 prior to the ADA Accommodations hearing specially set by Judge Cohen.<br /><br />MEMORANDUM OF LAW<br /><br />Bel-Bel Int’l Corp. v. Cmty. Bank of Homestead, 162 F.3d 1101, (11th Cir. 1998), which held that under Rule 19(a) of F.R.C.P., a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. <br />Based on the Court’s own admission at the hearing held on December 24, 2008, that the Court was “not equipped to make ADA determinations. That’s not something that I’m equipped to do,” the Court assigned responsibility to the ADA Access Coordinator for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida. As stated above, the Access Coordinator was also apprized by three separate parties of the Plaintiff’s Request for ADA Accommodations as early as June 13, 2008, more than one month prior to Judge Cohen specially set hearing on the Plaintiff’s Request for ADA Accommodations. <br /><br />The ADA Access Coordinator was not present at the hearing nor did Judge Cohen make reference to the ADA Access Coordinator at the hearing on July 16, 2008. The first time that Plaintiff became aware of the Access Coordinator’s involvement, and now a potential party, was after reading the transcript of the hearing held on December 24, 2008 before Defendant, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen. The Access Coordinator, and the County, are now indispensable parties who must be included to have a complete adjudication of all issues and the elimination of the possibility of re-litigation. The purpose of joinder under F.R.C.P, 19(a) is to afford the parties “complete adjudication” of the issues and “elimination” of the possibility of “relitigation.” Tick v. Cohen, 787 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir. 1986) (quoting Schutten v Shell Oil Co., 421 F.2d 869(5th Cir. 1970). In addition, the Plaintiff may be unable to obtain complete relief without the absent parties present, F.R.C.P. 19(a)(1), and the Plaintiff may be prevented from adding this party at a later date pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. Mann v. The City of Albany, Ga., 883 F.2d, 999 (11th Cir. 1989). <br />The joinder of necessary and indispensable parties is mandatory. City of Marietta v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 196 F.3d, 1300 (11th Cir. 1989). In addition, the Plaintiff is requesting to also add, as an additional party, John Doe, in the event new parties become indispensable parties after discovery has commenced. <br /><br />The Defendant will not be prejudiced by the Court granting the Plaintiff’s request as the Defendant has not filed an Answer nor has discovery commenced and thus, the granting of additional parties is appropriate at this early stage of the litigation. <br />Plaintiff has contacted opposing counsel regarding the issues raised in this Motion. Counsel for Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, David Glantz, stated that “with respect to Judge Cohen, counsel opposes any further extensions of time to amend the Complaint against Judge Cohen. Attorney Glantz has no position concerning any additional parties.” <br /><br />WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant her Motion for Leave to include indispensable parties under F.R.C.P. 19. Plaintiff further requests, that in the event this motion to add indispensable parties is denied, Plaintiff requests a thirty day extension to file her Amended Complaint.<br /><br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br />By: ___________________<br /> Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br />CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br /> I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail, on this 17th day of February, 2009, to counsel on the service list.<br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br /><br />By: ______________________<br /> Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />SERVICE LIST<br />David J. Glantz<br />Assistant Attorney General<br />Office of Attorney General<br />Civil Litigation Division<br />110 S.E. 6th Street - 10th Floor<br />Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-70312825845679848662009-02-09T18:51:00.000-08:002009-02-09T18:52:04.117-08:00UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT<br />______________________<br /><br />CASE NO.: 08-11286-J<br />DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 07-cv-60770-ALTONAGA/TURNOFF<br />______________________<br /><br />BARON’S STORES, INC., NORMAN LANSON, <br />AND MERYL LANSON,<br /><br />Appellants,<br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ., KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., <br />MARC COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A.,<br />SONYA SALKIN, ESQ., AND MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A.<br /><br />Appellees.<br />______________________________________________<br /><br />APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC <br />OF JANUARY 15, 2009 ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE<br /><br /><br />IV. STATEMENT OF COUNSEL AS TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUE(S) ASSERTED TO MERIT EN BANC CONSIDERATION<br /><br />I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that the Panel decision is contrary to the following decision(s) of this Court (Eleventh Circuit) and contrary to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of this court’s decisions and the integrity of the judicial process. In re Prince, 40 F.3d, 356(11th Cir. 1994)<br />In re Jennings, 199 Fed.Appx. 845, 2006 WL 2826947 (C.A. 11th Cir.) ; In re Walker, 515 F.3d, 1204 (C.A. 11th Cir. 2008);<br />Travelers Indemnity Company v. Gore 761 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1985) Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Company, 322 U.S. 238, (1944).<br />Appellants, Baron’s Stores, Inc., Norman Lanson, Pro Se and Meryl Lanson, Pro Se, respectfully assert that an En Banc Rehearing of the Court’s January 15, 2009 Order is warranted. In addition, the underlying bankruptcy proceeding and the ultimate decision of the Panel involves a question of exceptional pubic importance, and likewise warrants consideration by the full court:<br />By: _______________________________________<br />Arthur Morburger, Counsel for Baron’s Stores, Inc.<br /><br />This Court’s decision fails to address the Appellees (all attorneys and therefore Officers of the Court) perjured affidavits, signed by all the Appellees/Attorneys who swore, under oath, in their boilerplate Affidavits, that they had no connections or adverse interest to any of the parties when, in fact, they had more than sixty (60) undisclosed connections and/or conflicts of interest to parties involved in the bankruptcy proceeding. Ignoring the attorneys perjured Affidavits sends a “clear message” that it is okay for attorneys, who are officers of the court, to lie to the court, under oath, and it is okay for these officers of the court to ignore the mandatory disclosure requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 2014. The result of attorneys/officers of the court ignoring the mandatory bankruptcy rules and “lying under oath” caused a fifty-two year old company’s demise, caused more than two hundred people to lose their jobs, benefits, and security, caused the devastating financial loss to the sole shareholders, caused the creditors of the estate extreme damage as they were paid between 4 and 8 cents on the dollar, while the attorneys/officer of the court were rewarded with millions of dollars in ill gotten fees. The dishonest attorneys who lied to the court, under oath, benefited by being monetarily rewarded for their criminal acts of perjury, and for their breach of fiduciary duties to their clients and to the court; This very rule, enacted by Congress, was specifically designed to protect the public from such a “travesty of justice” in that which occurred here in the In re Baron’s proceedings. <br />The Panel’s decision also conflicts with the authoritative decisions of every other United States Court of Appeals that has addressed the issue of mandatory disclosure, under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2014. <br /><br />COURSE OF PROCEEDING<br />On March 11, 2005, Meryl M. Lanson filed an Emergency Motion to Reopen Baron’s bankruptcy, Case No. 97-25645-PGH-BKC, for “fraud on the court” pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2014. In their initial retention Affidavits to be appointed counsel in the bankruptcy proceedings, attorneys, Marc Cooper, Ronald C. Kopplow and Sonya Salkin, swore under oath, that they did not have any connections and/or conflicts of interest to the estate. Later, Appellants discovered over sixty undisclosed connections and/or conflicts of interest of the three attorneys. On April 7, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court granted Appellants Emergency Motion to Reopen for the purpose of adjudicating the merits of Appellants claim that the Attorneys, not only perpetrated a fraud upon the Court, but violated the mandatory bankruptcy rule 2014. <br />On November 30, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order Denying the Appellees/Attorney’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Within that Order, on Page 11, the Court stated:<br />“The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the disclosure obligation mandated by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules “implicates a public policy interest justifying relief…under Rule 60(b)(6). Id. at 188 (quoting In re Southmark Corp., 181 B.R. 291, 295 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1995)). The Bankruptcy Court observed that it was alleged that the professionals failed to disclose conflicts of interest that would have barred their retention. Id. at 188. The Bankruptcy Court found that if this were true, it would constitute “fraud on the court” warranting relief even though more than a year had passed since the professionals were retained and their fees approved. Id. As a result, the Bankruptcy Court found it appropriate to consider the sanctions motions. Id. In this case, Debtor has alleged that the Attorneys failed to make appropriate disclosures under Bankruptcy Rule 2014. If these allegations are true this inadequate disclosure by the Attorneys may constitute “fraud on the Court,” which must be addressed.”<br /><br />The Bankruptcy Court, on Page 14 of this same Order, stated <br /><br />“Additionally, all professionals whose employment must be approved by the Court are required to make disclosure under Bankruptcy Rule 2014. Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a) requires that the application to employ must be accompanied by verified statement of the person to be employed that discloses the connections between that person and the universe of parties in the case. Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a). The professional cannot pick and choose which connections to disclose. Id. at 511 (citing In re Hot Tin Roof, Inc., 205 B.R. 1000, 1003 (B.A.P., 1st Cir. 1997)). It is the responsibility of the professional to disclose all relevant connections.” <br /><br />The Bankruptcy Court ultimately ruled that the attorneys did not perpetrate a fraud upon the Court stating that the attorneys did not possess subjective intent citing Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000). On January 7, 2008, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling. On January 15, 2009, this Court issued its Affirmance Order stating:<br />“our law requires the demonstration of a plan or scheme…designed to improperly influence the court, which indicates that scienter is required” without citation to any of the Eleventh Circuit cases on which the Court relied upon. <br /><br />II. STATEMENT OF FACTS <br />Appellees/Attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, represented Appellants’ Baron’s Stores, Inc. and its sole shareholders, Norman Lanson, individually, and Meryl Lanson, individually, in an accounting malpractice lawsuit. Appellees/Attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, filed the lawsuit only in the name of the corporation, Baron’s, and failed to file the lawsuit, within the statute of limitations, on behalf of their individual clients, Appellants, Norman Lanson and Meryl Lanson. When Appellees/Attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, realized that they committed malpractice by failing to file suit on behalf of their individual clients within the statute of limitations, they recommended that their clients, Norman Lanson and Meryl Lanson, consult with Sonya Salkin, a bankruptcy attorney and a Region 21 Panel Trustee, to pursue bankruptcy on behalf of Baron’s. In order to simultaneously continue to hide their malpractice, and at the same time maintain control of the bankruptcy, Kopplow and Cooper failed to disclose their more than sixty connections and/or conflicts of interest in violation of mandatory Bankruptcy Rule 2014. In addition, and of most critical importance, Appellees/Attorneys lied, under oath, thereby committing perjury, when they signed an Affidavit filed directly with the Court claiming no connections whatsoever to any party involved in the bankruptcy proceedings. Salkin was consulted with and ultimately retained by the Appellants, the Lansons, to protect their most valuable asset, Baron’s Stores, Inc., and to maximize the recovery on behalf of themselves and their wholly owned corporation. Salkin also violated the mandatory disclosure rules when she, too, swore under oath that she did not have any connections to anyone in the bankruptcy proceedings. These are blatant misrepresentations that are reflected in the record. In reliance on Appellees/Attorneys sworn affidavits that they had no connections and/or conflicts of interest, the Bankruptcy Court appointed them as attorneys in the bankruptcy proceeding. In Appellants Initial Brief, on Page 23, Appellants requested equitable remedies under the manifest injustice that occurred in the bankruptcy proceedings. Appellants also requested the Eleventh Circuit to fashion an equitable remedy to rectify the injustice that occurred due to the non-disclosure in violation of the mandatory requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 2014.<br />III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES<br />This Panel’s decision fails to address the Appellees/Attorneys blatant violation of Bankruptcy Rule 2014, the mandatory disclosure requirements, and by this Court’s failure to address this violation, conflicts with three (3) prior decisions of this Circuit.<br />In re Prince, 40 F.3d, 356 (11th Cir. 1994) the Court dealt with the exact same issue, the mandatory disclosure requirements for professionals under Rule 2014, and found as follows: <br />“Whether Sirote firm inadvertently or intentionally neglected to inform the court of its conflicts is of no import. If the actions of the Sirote firm in this case had been performed by a sole practitioner, disbarment proceedings would undoubtedly have ensued. Law firms, no matter their size, must ensure that their representations do not result in irreconcilable, intolerable conflicts that can only result in harm to their clients, as in this case. In this instance, Sirote was in the unfortunate position of having to serve too many masters. Where a claimant, who represented members of the investing public, was serving more than one master or was subject to conflicting interests, he should be denied compensation It is no answer to say that fraud or unfairness were [sic] not shown to have resulted.” Woods v. City Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., 312 U.S. at 268, 61 S.Ct. at 497 (1941). The conflicts Sirote firm operated under pushed the limits of discretion to the extreme. Because Sirote firm could not have adequately and impartially served its client under the circumstances of this case, the bankruptcy court’s award of fees was improper. (Emphasis added)<br /><br />While a bankruptcy judge’s discretion in deciding compensation cases under section 328 enjoys great bounds, it is not unlimited. A finding that Sirote firm qualifies for fees in this case would render the impartiality requirements of the Bankruptcy Code meaningless. While a complete denial of fees may be extreme in some instances, this case requires nothing less. “This sanction serves to deter future wrongdoing by those punished and also to warn others who might consider similar defalcations.” Gray, 30 F.3d at 1323. Accordingly, we find that the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s award of fees constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Neville v. Eufaula Bank & Trust Co. (In re U.S. Golf Corp.), 639 F.2d 1197, 1201 (5th Cir.1981).<br /><br />For the foregoing reasons, we find that the law firm of Sirote & Permutt, PC. is not entitled to compensation for its work in representing Prince in his bankruptcy proceedings because the firm operated under intolerable conflicts of interest which unduly prejudiced the Debtor in violation of the Bankruptcy Code. <br /><br />This Court’s opinion is also in conflict with its previous opinion in In re Jennings, 199 Fed.Appx. 845, 2006 WL 2826947 (C.A. 11th Cir.) The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the underlying order denying fees for failure to disclose under Bankruptcy Rule 2014 and affirmed disgorgement of all pre-petition fees, citing the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis in In re Prince cited above. <br />The Eleventh Circuit agreed that the bankruptcy court was not required to peruse the entire record to discern any connections or conflicts. The relevant disclosures must appear in the application and accompanying Affidavit filed pursuant to Rule 2014. The Eleventh Circuit also agreed with the district court, that undisclosed connections and conflicts “prejudiced the bankruptcy estate and deprived each of an unbiased independent assessments of the available and outstanding claims,” citing In re Prince, 40 F.3d at 361 (finding a conflict of interest where counsel “was in the unfortunate position of having to serve too many masters.”)<br />Having made these determinations, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the bankruptcy court was well within its discretion to conclude that the professionals initial and continuing violation of the disclosure rules, coupled with its non-disinterestedness, warrants its disqualification and denial of all compensation including disgorgement of any pre-petition retainer. The Eleventh Circuit blanketly denied compensation based on the non disclosure and was not moved by the attorneys’ argument that fraud or unfairness were [sic] not shown to have resulted.”(quoting Woods v. City Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., 312 US. 262, 268 (1941)). <br />The Panel’s decision, not only conflicts with this Court’s previous opinion in the In re: James Walker 515 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2008) proceeding, but also emphatically affirmed a “fraud on the court” stating that “lying under oath is lying under oath.” In the In re James Walker, this Court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s sanction and removal for “fraud on the court” of a creditor-elected trustee, who was not an attorney, and whose failure to disclose was that of which was one remote connection from ten years prior to the bankruptcy proceedings. The creditor-elected trustee argued that she was not required to submit a verified statement regarding her connections. This Court made a very firm assertion when it declared “the idea that false testimony when offered to the court voluntarily is immune to the consequences of lying under oath is absurd. Lying under oath is lying under oath.” This Court’s Opinion in Walker never mentioned the requirement of scienter and never included it in its analysis affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding of “fraud on the court” which, too, did not include any analysis or finding of subjective intent or scienter. In fact, after a thorough research and review of all cases, including a request to West Law’s research attorneys, it was discovered that, to date, the only opinion found, where the Eleventh Circuit affirmed and found fraud on the court, was in the In re James Walker bankruptcy proceeding. <br />“Fraud on the court” requires the involvement of an attorney. This requirement is confirmed in the Eleventh Circuit case Travelers Indemnity v. Gore (cite supra) in which the Eleventh Circuit refused to find “fraud on the court” for Gore’s perjury because there was no allegation of an attorneys involvement. In addition, the Eleventh Circuit in Travelers adopted the following definition of “fraud on the court” from other circuits. “Fraud on the court” should, we believe, embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudicating cases… There is no mention of scienter in this court’s previous definition of “fraud on the court” adopted from other circuits where scienter is never mentioned. The majority of circuits require an attorneys involvement because attorneys are highly educated in the law and know when a deception to the court is occurring. That explains why scienter is not required for “fraud on the court” because attorneys, as officers of the court, know better. <br />In S.E.C. v. ESM Group, 835 F.2d 270 (11th Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit relying on Travelers refused to find fraud on the court because the attorney involved was not a direct participant in the plan to defraud. In S.E.C., scienter is never mentioned. <br />However, this Court retreated from its earlier position where it required the direct participation of an attorney, and for the first time, found “fraud on the court” in the Walker proceeding by affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding of “fraud on the court” of a non-lawyer. This court, in Walker, affirmed the “fraud on the court” of a non-lawyer who failed to disclose one remote connection in her voluntary Affidavit. In direct contrast, this Court never addressed the three attorneys mandatory (not voluntary) requirements under the Bankruptcy Rules in its Order, and affirmed the same bankruptcy court’s selective enforcement of the mandatory rules legislated by Congress, when it applies to attorneys; attorneys who failed to disclose more than sixty (60) connections and/or conflicts of interest, the majority of which were not remote but in fact, present and ongoing from prior to and during the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court did not cite one case to support its retreat from Walker. The only legal authority this Court cited, which was previously relied upon by the same bankruptcy court, to support its about face from Walker, is Davenport. Davenport is not applicable and is distinguishable because it was a tax court case with no mandatory disclosure requirements attached to it. Furthermore, this Court has used Davenport for the premise of an unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability to properly adjudicate the matters before it. The perjured Affidavits were filed for one reason - to influence the court to authorize their employment. The plan or scheme to influence the Court to authorize their employment was confirmed after the attorneys were put on notice to amend their Disclosure Affidavits, informing the court of their connections and/or conflicts of interest, and they failed to do so. What could be more unconscionable than having three attorneys, officers of the court, with combined legal experience of eighty five years, knowingly lie to the court in order to authorize employment to secure their ill-gotten fees. To reiterate, the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmance of the same bankruptcy court’s finding of “fraud on the court,” “lying under oath is lying under oath.” The distinction in Walker v. Baron’s, is that in Walker, it was one creditor elected non attorney trustee who failed to disclose one remote connection, and in Baron’s, it was three attorneys, one being a United States Panel Trustee, who collectively failed to disclose more than sixty (60) present and ongoing connections and/or conflicts of interest.<br />The Panel’s decision is also in conflict with other circuits court of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court case in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Company, 322 U.S. 238, (1944).<br />In the Seventh Circuit, U.S. v. Gellene, 182 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 1999), the Court found, that although Gellene made some disclosure, he did not fully disclose his connections and withheld the information over a two year period which not only was in violation of Rule 2014 but resulted in a conviction of bankruptcy fraud, served a jail sentence, was fined and was disbarred. The bankruptcy court also told Mr. Gellene: “New York is different from Milwaukee…Professional things like conflicts [of interest] are taken very, very seriously. And for better or worse you’re stuck in Wisconsin.” <br />In the Second Circuit, Kupferman v. Consolidated Research and Manufacturing Corp., 459 F.2d 1072(2nd Cir. C.I.R. 1972) stated: “an attorney’s loyalty to the court, as an officer thereof, demands integrity and honest dealing with the Court. And when he departs from that standard in the conduct of a case he perpetrates a “fraud upon the court.”<br />In the U.S. Supreme Court, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Company, 322 U.S. 238, (1944) an attorney may commit fraud on the court, not only through misrepresentation, but also through omission. Also in Hazel Atlas “it is a wrong….which ….cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society… involv[ing] two victims: the individual litigant …and the court itself, whose integrity is compromised by the fraudulent behavior of its officers.) “The very temple of justice is defiled.”<br />The Panel’s decision involves question of exceptional public<br />importance which warrants consideration by the full Court.<br /><br />The economic estimation of the loss of social capital damages to American society arising from the failed and unwarranted reorganization of Baron’s, a fifty-two year old family business, is as follows:<br />Baron’s was an S-corporation producing taxable income to its owners and income tax payable of $100,000.00 per year – loss of ten years income tax equals $1,000,000.00<br />Baron’s payroll, per year, for two hundred employees was $4,000,000.00<br />The share of Baron’s contribution towards FICA, rounded at about 7% per year is $280,000.00 which over ten years equals $2,800,000.00<br />Baron’s employees share of FICA, mitigated by re-employment of some workers, as many were unable to find re-employment, and thus received unemployment compensation, coupled with lost income tax and lost employee share of FICA is estimated over ten years to have cost the Federal Government $2,300,000.00<br />Baron’s paid sales tax to the State of Florida over the ten years with annual sales approximating $20,000,000.00 at 6% equals $12,000,000.00.<br />Baron’s, the corporate entity, and through its owners, supported non-profit organizations estimated at $20,000.00 per year over ten years equals $200,000.00.<br />The total estimated loss of social capital because of Baron’s demise, over the past ten years, is $18,300,000.00.<br />Considering the economic crisis we are in, and the bankruptcies that are being filed on a daily basis, and will continue to be, this case is an example of what happens when attorneys lie to the court, under oath, and put their self interests ahead of those they are duty bound to protect. In the Baron’s bankruptcy, the professionals received more than $2 million in ill gotten fees, out of a pot of approximately $3 million, the creditors received pennies on the dollar, two hundred people were put out of work, and the sole owners lost everything they and their family worked fifty two years to build.<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br />For all the foregoing reasons, stated above, this Honorable Court should GRANT Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc and vacate its January 15, 2009 Order of Affirmance. In the alternative, this Honorable Court should consider the instant Petition as a Motion for Panel Rehearing and enter an Order vacating its January 15, 2009 Order consistent with the arguments made hereinabove. This Honorable Court should grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper herein.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-18090950707926715902009-02-09T18:43:00.000-08:002009-02-09T18:45:37.112-08:00Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals OpinionIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS<br />FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT<br />________________________<br />No. 08-11286<br />Non-Argument Calendar<br />________________________<br />D. C. Docket No. 07-60770-CV-CMA<br />BKCY No. 97-25645-BKC-PG<br />In Re: BARON'S STORES, INC., Debtor.<br />_________________________________________<br />BARON'S STORES, INC.,<br />NORMAN LANSON,<br />MERYL LANSON,<br />Plaintiffs-Appellants,<br />versus<br />MARK COOPER,<br />COOPER & WOLF,<br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW,<br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN,<br />SONYA SALKIN, et al.,<br />Defendants-Appellees.<br />________________________<br />Appeal from the United States District Court<br />for the Southern District of Florida<br />_________________________<br />(January 15, 2009)<br />Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.<br />PER CURIAM:<br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson and Norman Lanson ( the “Lansons”), proceeding pro se,and Baron’s Stores, Inc. (“Baron’s”), appeal the district court’s order, affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that attorneys Marc Cooper, Ronald Kopplow, and Sonya Salkin (collectively “the attorneys”), who worked on behalf of Baron’s during its bankruptcy proceedings, did not perpetrate a fraud on the bankruptcy court.<br /><br />We examine independently the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court, employing the same standards of review as the district court. In re Issac Leaseco, Inc., 389 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2004). We review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and all questions of law de novo.<br /><br />In re Int’l Admin. Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d 689, 698 (11th Cir. 2005). For a factual finding to be clearly erroneous, we, “after reviewing all of the evidence, must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1137 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).<br /><br />“Fraud on the court must involve an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision . . . .” Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) (alleged fraud on tax court). “It has been found only in those instances where the fraud vitiates the court’s ability to reach an impartial disposition of the case before it.” Id. Upon review of the record, and upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, we discern no reversible error. To the extent that the movants challenge the legal finding, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that, to demonstrate the perpetration of fraud on the court, Baron’s and the Lansons must have demonstrated an intentional scheme to perpetrate a fraud. Our law requires the demonstration of a “plan or scheme . . . designed” to improperly influence the court, which indicates that scienter is required. Moreover, to the extent that the movants contend that recklessness satisfies this requirement, they did not raise the argument before the bankruptcy court, and they do not develop it on appeal. Accordingly, we do not consider this argument. See Narey, 32 F.3d at 1526-27; Horsley, 304 F.3d at 1131 n.1.<br /><br />The bankruptcy court’s factual finding, that the attorneys did not intend at any point to mislead or defraud the court, is supported by the evidence, and the movants have not demonstrated that this finding and accompanying credibility determinations were clearly erroneous. Looking at all of the evidence, one is not left with a definite and firm conviction that the bankruptcy court committed a mistake in finding no deliberate scheme designed to improperly influence the court.<br /><br />Because the Lansons and Baron’s have not demonstrated that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that the attorneys were credible and not involved in a plan or scheme designed to improperly influence the court in its decision, we affirm the district court’s decision affirming the bankruptcy court.<br />AFFIRMED.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-74447763715402002472009-01-27T14:30:00.000-08:002009-01-27T18:08:17.905-08:00<strong>SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., <br />A UNITED STATES CHAPTER 7 PANEL TRUSTEE <br />ADMITTED PARTICIPATING IN AND SUBMITTING <br />THE DOCUMENTS WHICH CONFIRMED THE <br />1997 BANKRUPTCY OF BARON’S STORES, INC. <br />A FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXPERT DECLARED <br />THE BANKRUPTCY DOCUMENTS TO BE TAMPERED <br />WITH, ALTERED AND FALSIFIED</strong><br /><br /><br />January 27, 2009<br /><br />The Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Baron's Stores, Inc. was confirmed using tampered, altered and falsified documents. <br /><br />Sonya L. Salkin, Baron's bankruptcy counsel, and a Region 21 Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, admitted that she was responsible for the preparation and submission of the amended Plan of Liquidation and the amended Disclosure Statement confirming the 1997 bankruptcy of Baron's. The documents were tampered with and altered and submitted for confirmation in direct contravention of the instructions of the United States Trustee, David Butler, and Assistant United States Trustee, Ramona Elliott. <br /> <br />Meryl M. Lanson, Officer of Baron's, retained a forensic document expert, Michael G. Kessler of Kessler and Associates. Mr. Kessler, declared under the penalty of perjury, on May 2, 2008, that “someone tampered with these documents, modified them, and/or altered them resulting in these documents not representing what they are presented to be. These documents have been falsified.”<br /> <br />Sonya Salkin has never hired an independent expert to refute Mr. Kessler's sworn declaration. Sonya Salkin refuses to be deposed pertaining to the falsified documents. Sonya Salkin has admitted to The Florida Bar that she never ascertained whether the documents that confirmed the bankruptcy of Baron’s were falsified. Sonya Salkin has filed for protection from the courts regarding any discovery pertaining to the documents. Baron's, Norman Lanson, and Meryl Lanson have been denied their due process rights to depose Sonya Salkin on the falsified documents. Judge Jeri Beth Cohen has protected Salkin by denying discovery on the falsified documents. Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, with malice and intent, has obstructed justice causing further damage to Baron’s, its creditors, and the Lansons. Such denial is a violation of the constitution of these United States of America. <br /> <br />The Courts and The Florida Bar continue to protect Sonya Salkin from any discovery and protect her from being deposed regarding the falsified documents that confirmed the bankruptcy of Baron's.<br /> <br />The falsification of the documents that confirmed Baron's bankruptcy has caused multi millions of dollars worth of damages to Baron's and its creditors, and was the reason that two hundred people lost their jobs. All the assets of Baron's were distributed amongst the lawyers, and their undisclosed insider connections, who conspired to destroy Baron's, its principles, its employees and its creditors for their own selfish greed. This is a common practice in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.<br /><br />REPRESENTATIVE BROOKS<br />NEWS RELEASE<br /><br />NOVEMBER 6, 1991<br />WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515<br /><br />‘BROOKS REQUESTS G.A.O. PROBE OF <br />JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S <br />U.S. BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE SYSTEM’<br /><br />Mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and political cronyism are hindering the effectiveness of the Justice department’s U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee Program, witnesses told a House Judiciary Committee panel today. In response to this testimony and numerous complaints he has received, Congressman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) announced that he is requesting the General Accounting Office to conduct a thorough investigation of the program. <br /><br />“A smoothly functioning bankruptcy system is vital to the well-being of the American economy,” said Brooks, Chairman of both the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law and the full Judiciary Committee, “and Congress created the U.S. Trustee Program to be a cornerstone of that system. Unfortunately, the examples of abuse that have come to our attention provide a clear signal that the U.S. Trustee Program is simply not getting the job.”<br /><br />The U.S. Trustee Program, housed in the department of Justice, performs a wide range of administrative functions in bankruptcy cases, including monitoring cases, holding creditors meetings and reviewing fee requests. For example, in Chapter 7 liquidation cases, the U.S. Trustees establish the supervisory panels of private trustees who act as fiduciaries for individual debtors’ estates. U.S. Trustees are also intended to serve as the watchdogs of the bankruptcy system to ensure fairness and ferret out fraud and abuse.<br /><br />“Since 1987,” continued Brooks, “17 former trustees and five of their employees have been convicted of embezzling funds in excess of $6.1 million from bankruptcy estates – and I am afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg. Given the increasing numbers of bankruptcy filings at a time of deep and lingering recession, we cannot afford to take chances with the Trustee Program.” <br /><br />Lawrence A. Beck, a bankruptcy attorney from San Antonio, Texas, criticized the U.S. Trustee System from the debtor’s viewpoint. He encountered disorganization and resistance from the local U.S. Trustee when he sought help in investigating gross irregularities in the private trustee’s handling of the debtor’s estate. “Most individual debtors who enter bankruptcy with significant assets,” said Beck, “eventually conclude that they have become trapped in a crooked, dishonest system which is run for the benefit of the panel trustees and his hand-picked attorney, and which is supervised by incompetent bureaucrats.” <br /><br />George Francis Bason, Jr., a former bankruptcy Judge, told the Subcommittee that despite a promising start in 1978, the U.S. Trustee Program has suffered “significant deterioration” in recent years. According to Bason, political favoritism and conflicts of interest are among the chief causes of this decline. <br /><br />“Cronyism has come to have too large a role in appointments in the U.S. Trustee system,” said Bason. “Competent people at the local level are leaving in disgust…and too many of the remaining personnel in both the national and the local offices are simply not qualified by background and experience to do their jobs efficiently and well.”<br /><br />With respect to conflicts of interest, Bason told the subcommittee that as a judge he presided over two cases with national and international significance in which he “found that intense pressure was exerted by the national office upon the local office of the U.S. Trustee to abandon the U.S. Trustee’s proper independent role as a neutral, impartial administrator and instead to act as a servant and advocate for the narrow self-interest of one party to the litigation.” <br /><br />Larry E. Kelly, Chief Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas, echoed Bason’s charges of political favoritism in the Trustee program. Kelly also testified that the “major defect” in the Trustee Program is “a lack of devotion and purpose in its very existence from the uppermost levels of the Justice Department. I have, with recent exceptions, seen no indication that the program has any pride or discernible purpose in its leadership.” <br /><br />Brooks concluded: “I, for one, am not going to stand by while those caught up in the crippling economic crisis facing this country are subjected to further abuse by those entrusted with the fair administration of the bankruptcy system. I am determined to see that the U.S. Trustee Program gets back on track.” <br /><br />Sol Stein, 1999/04, wrote Bankruptcy: A Feast for Lawyers that reveals how the Chapter 11 experience aids the bankruptcy bar and rarely the debtor company and its creditors. Many of us fondly remember Stein and Day Publishers, part of the 70% of bankruptcies that are filed to heal but wind up killed by the Trustees of U.S. Bankruptcy system. <br /><br />Like Baron’s Mens Stores, Stein and Day existed for decades providing jobs and creatively serving public and private needs of a thriving community.<br /><br />Elia Kazan, winner of five Pulitzer prizes and two Academy Awards, in his autobiography said, "My publisher, Sol Stein, was my producer, my editor; Sol Stein was my director. Stein had books on bestseller lists for nineteen consecutive years until he had to file for Reorganization under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.<br /><br />Basic Trust is a social staple that underpins all commerce. Failure of trust in a capitalistic society causes hoarding, greed, and moral failure motivated by fear of scarcity. Ever since good faith, fair dealing, and good will were removed as the backdrop for contracts and regulation, the United States has sunk into a moral and ethical chasm that is now evidenced by potentially the greatest economic crisis of the century. It was brought on by failure of those in power to serve responsibly. CEO’s forgot who sustained the business that afforded them fat bonuses - Trustees are not trusted.<br /><br />Baron’s Mens Stores never forgot the community, their employees, and to this day, for the past fifteen years, have been fighting for their creditors to be fairly treated by having reopened Baron’s bankruptcy, exposing the fraud, including but not limited to the fact that Baron’s bankruptcy was confirmed using falsified documents. The unnecessary bankruptcy of Baron’s confirmed by fraud perpetrated by attorneys cost Florida a business that had sustained for fifty two years. <br /><br />The United States cannot sustain business as usual. Each person who reads this must take action for self protection and posterity. <br /><br />As a direct result of the U.S. Trustee’s failure in the case of Baron’s, a fifty two year old multi-generational family owned company, was lost. We live in an “economic world.” The unnecessary loss of Baron’s through fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system cannot be viewed in terms of the loss to the owners of Baron’s alone – that is the tip of the iceberg. The real losses caused by FRAUD and ABUSE go further in a cascade of damages emanating from but this one case. <br /><br />Let’s look at an Economic Estimation of the Loss of Social Capital Damages to American Society arising from the failed reorganization of Baron’s.<br /><br /><br />- Baron’s was an S-Corporation producing taxable income to its <br /> owners and therefore Income Tax Payable of $100,000.00 per <br /> year.<br /> <br />- Loss of 10 years Income Tax equals $1,000,000.00.<br /> <br />- Baron’s employed 200 workers with a payroll of $4,000,000.00 per year.<br /> <br />- The lost FICA tax employers share over the past 10 years at 7% <br /> (rounded) $280,000.00 x 10 years equals $2,800,000.00.<br /> <br />- Baron’s employees’ share of FICA would be mitigated by re-employment of workers; however, many workers were unable to find re-employment. Between unemployment compensation paid, and lost income tax, and lost employee share of FICA, it is estimated that the COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT over 10 years equals $2,300,000.00.<br /> <br />- Baron’s paid Sales Tax to the State of Florida. Baron’s sales per year were $20,000,000.00 at 6% over 10 years equals $12,000,000.00.<br /> <br />- Baron’s also supported non-profit organizations through the Corporate entity, or the Owners, estimated at $20,000.00 per year over 10 years equals $200,000.00.<br /> <br />- THE TOTAL ESTIMATED LOSS OF SOCIAL CAPTIAL IS $18,300,000.00 OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS! <br /> <br /> THIS IS ‘ONE’ FAILED REORGANIZATION CAUSED BY “FRAUD ON THE COURT” UNDER THE WATCH OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE IN REGION 21<br /> <br /> <br /> In my opinion, through the research that I have done, I believe, this is a criminal racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, §1623, §1341 and §1346.<br /> <br />Just prior to posting I received the “New York Lawyer – Legal Times” article by David Ingram – “Rove Subpoenaed to Testify About U.S. Attorney Firings.” <br /><br />At the end of the article, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers, Jr., who issued the Subpoena, said in a statement “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, its time for him to talk.” <br /><br />Sonya Salkin, Esq., Baron’s counsel, and a United States Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, must answer for her admitted participation in the documents that confirmed Baron’s bankruptcy. After years of stonewalling by Ms. Salkin, her attorneys, and co-conspirators, it is time for her to talk as well. Sonya Salkin must be deposed and our due process rights must be invoked NOW.<br /><br />Submitted by: Meryl M. LansonNorthern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-71807667788085600272008-11-05T18:31:00.000-08:002008-11-05T18:32:24.995-08:00Letter to Chief Judge Joseph P. FarinaNovember 3, 2008<br /><br /><br /><br />Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina <br />HAND-DELIVERED<br />Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida<br />Miami Dade County Courthouse<br />73 West Flagler Street<br />Miami, Florida 33130<br /><br />Re: Judge Jeri Beth Cohen<br /> Case No. 99-21062 CA 15<br /> Baron’s/Lanson, et al. v. Kopplow, Cooper, Salkin, et al.<br /><br />Dear Chief Judge Farina:<br /><br />This is a follow-up to my October 23, 2008 letter to you regarding Judge Jeri Beth Cohen. I would like to backtrack to explain what prompted me to notify you of the transgressions of Judge Cohen in the first place. On October 14, 2008, I met with Sergeant Alois Stier, Detective Luis Robainas, and Detective Janine Robinson at the offices of the Miami-Dade Public Corruption Investigations Bureau. The reason for my meeting was to file a criminal complaint against the defendant attorneys, their counsels, and Judge Jeri Beth Cohen in the referenced action. During our meeting, the Sergeant and the Detectives asked if I had been in touch with Chief Judge Farina and/or is he aware of what is transpiring in Judge Cohen’s courtroom pertaining to this case. I answered in the negative, at which point, they suggested I contact you, so I did. Enclosed in my previous letter to you was a letter that I sent to various Federal and State Agencies; as a matter of fact you, Chief Judge Farina, were noticed as a recipient on the front page Service List of that letter. <br /><br />As the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court in and for Miami Dade County, you are charged with overseeing judicial conduct within the Eleventh Circuit. This includes correcting any judicial misconduct in violation of the Judicial Canons or any other State or Federal laws. <br /><br />I need you to be aware that at the present time, I have a Civil lawsuit pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida against Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, in her official capacity as well as her individual capacity under the Americans with Disabilities Act – Case No. 08-22009-civ-JORDAN. I also have a Judicial Qualifications Complaint, File Number 08411, pending against Judge Jeri Beth Cohen with the Judicial Qualifications Commission in Tallahassee, Florida. I also have met with and provided the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Miami Dade Public Corruption Investigations Bureau with documents relating to my allegations of criminal conduct on the part of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen. Judge Cohen is aware of all the steps that I have taken and will continue to take to bring her misconduct and illegal activity to the proper authorities.<br /><br />I have asked Judge Cohen, three times, through Motions, to recuse herself from the case. She refuses to do so.<br /><br />Chief Judge Farina, you have the entire docket of this more than nine year old case at your fingertips. I have all the transcripts of the hearings held before Judge Cohen in addition to videotapes of the last three proceedings, after I was allegedly granted accommodations at the July 14, 2008 hearing. I will provide you with the videotapes for you to see for yourself how Judge Cohen has presided over this case, which by the way, has only been since April, 2008. It will be crystal clear for you, after reviewing the attached Motion to Compel, and the videotape of the October 15, 2008 hearing (which will be provided upon your request) that Judge Cohen did not provide the accommodations requested but instead is using her “Black Robe” and her power to continue her bias/assault to further emotionally damage me, and to financially destroy all the Plaintiffs in this travesty of (in)justice lawsuit to protect unscrupulous lawyers. <br /><br />I am requesting you to immediately take action and to take all necessary steps to protect my due process rights, and my Constitutional right to a fair and unbiased tribunal, and to immediately stop Judge Cohen’s conduct that is obstructing justice in order to protect attorneys, who happen to be the defendants in this lawsuit and their counsels. <br /><br />I will be filing this letter with the Clerk of the Court to be made part of the public record.<br /><br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br />Enclosure: Motion to Compel, with attached Exhibits<br /><br /><br /><br />Copies provided to those on the attached Service List, in addition to All Counsel of Record.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />COPIES FURNISHED TO:<br /><br />Special Agent Jeff Danik, FBI<br />Bill McCollum, Office of Attorney General<br />The Office of Inspector General, FDLE<br />Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director, JQC<br />Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel, JQC<br />Katherine Fernandez-Rundle, Miami-Dade State Attorney<br />Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink<br />The Office of Inspector General, Kenneth A. Chambers<br />John F. Harkness, Executive Director, The Florida Bar<br />Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esq. The Florida Bar<br />Detective Luis Robainas, Miami Dade Public Corruption Investigations Bureau<br /><br />MediaNorthern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-83626054144242066972008-11-05T18:24:00.002-08:002008-11-05T18:28:12.096-08:00Motion to Compel Court to ComplyIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY<br /><br />GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION<br /><br />CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15<br /><br />NORMAN LANSON, <br />MERYL LANSON, and <br />BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida <br />Corporation, <br /><br />Plaintiffs, <br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ.,<br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, MARC <br />COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A., <br />a Florida Professional Association,<br />SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and <br />MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, <br /><br /> Defendants.<br />_______________________________________/<br /><br />PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL COURT <br />TO COMPLY PREVIOUS COURT ORDERS<br /><br /> COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, Meryl Lanson, Pro Se, and Norman Lanson, through his undersigned counsel, and files their Motion to Compel the Court to Comply with Previous Court Orders, and further states as follows:<br />1. On September 13, 2005, the late Judge Manuel Crespo entered an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims of Emotional Distress, and Deferring Ruling on Claims for Reputation Damage. (Exhibit #1)<br />2. In its Order, the Court stated that it was deferring ruling on reputation damages until the Plaintiffs had filed their Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to include allegations for reputation damages. <br />3. The Plaintiffs have requested a hearing on their Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, but have been deprived of that hearing, as ordered by Judge Crespo. Furthermore, this Court, at the very first hearing held on April 24, 2008 said that the Second Amended Complaint was a mess and it would have to be cleaned up.<br />4. Plaintiffs cleaned up the “mess” and filed a Third Amended Complaint. This Court refuses to have a hearing on the Third Amended Complaint and has deprived the Plaintiffs their right to Amend pursuant to Judge Crespo’s Order and this Court’s instructions.<br />5. In addition, the Plaintiffs are requesting the Court to comply with Senior Judge Herbert Stettin’s February 14, 2008 signed Agreed Order reserving Plaintiffs’ right to challenge all of the Defendants’ Amended Affirmative Defenses at an evidentiary hearing. (Exhibit #2)<br />6. Pursuant to that Agreed Order, Plaintiff had twenty days to challenge the Amended Affirmative Defenses. On March 4, 2008, Plaintiffs challenged § 87 and § 88 of the Defendants Amended Affirmative Defenses by filing a Motion to Strike as a Sham Pleading pursuant to FRCP 1.150.<br />FRCP 1.150 states:<br />Rule 1.150 (a) contemplates a full evidentiary hearing where the parties have the opportunity to offer evidence on the issue of whether the pleading attacked alleges a cause of action or defense that is false in fact. The rule provides that “the court shall hear the motion, taking evidence of the respective parties.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.150(a).<br />7. On March 4, 2008, Plaintiffs filed “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay and/or for a Continuance of the Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Claims Brought by “Baron’s Stores, Inc.,” or, in the alternative, Motion to Strike “Baron’s Stores, Inc.” as a Party Plaintiff.<br /><br /> On Page 3, No. 6 states:<br /><br />“The Defendants scheduled a hearing before this Court on the MSJ for March 18, 2008. This hearing should be stayed for four reasons:<br /><br />A. On Page 5 of that Motion, No. 11: <br /><br />“Second, because Kopplow and Cooper, in § 87 and § 88 of their Amended Affirmative Defenses, have inserted a new issue into this case, nearly eight and one-half years after it was filed, Plaintiffs are entitled to take discovery regarding the circumstances surrounding the filing of the alleged Amended Plan of Liquidation upon which the Defendants rely. By e-mail dated February 28, 2008, counsel for Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they were going to depose Defendant Sonya Salkin, Esq. who represented Baron’s in the bankruptcy proceeding, and Cathy Herschcopf, Esq., who was an attorney for the Creditor’s Committee in the bankruptcy case, and asked for dates when they would be available for same. To date, March 4, 2008, only counsel for Kopplow has responded, and has only provided dates on which he would be available for the deposition of Salkin. Further, these are only the first two witness Plaintiffs will need to depose regarding this issue.<br /><br />8. It is well-settled that summary judgment is inappropriate when discovery is ongoing, and the “facts were not so crystallized that nothing remained but questions of law.” St. Fort v. Florida Department of Transportation, 688 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Put differently, summary judgment should not be granted until the facts are “sufficiently developed to enable the trial court to be reasonably certain that no genuine issue of material fact existed.” Sanchez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 807 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2002). Accordingly, the Defendants’ MSJ should be stayed pending the completion of discovery on this issue…<br /><br />9. Third, as set forth above, Plaintiffs are not required to serve their responses to Kopplow’s and Cooper’s Amended Affirmative Defenses until March 5, 2008. At that time, Plaintiffs will be serving, inter alia, a Motion to Strike § 87 and § 88 of Kopplow’s and Cooper’s Amended Affirmative Defenses as a Sham Pleading. This Court will need to resolve that issue prior to hearing Defendants’ MSJ.<br /><br />10. Fourth, as a related corollary to the third reason, until this Court resolves Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike § 87 and § 88 of Kopplow’s and Cooper’s Amended Affirmative Defenses as a Sham Pleading, Plaintiffs are not required to serve their reply to those Affirmative Defenses. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140 (a) (2); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100(a). Until the Plaintiffs serve their reply to those Affirmative Defenses, the pleadings are not closed and summary judgment should not be granted. Lakes of the Meadow v. Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P., 714So. 2d 1120,. 1122 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1998) (The movant’s burden is an especially heavy one where, as here, the pleadings are not closed.”)<br /><br />11. As noted in the Transcript on the hearing held on October 15, 2008 – Page 87 Line: 17 through Page 88 Line 17:<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: I want a hearing on those fraudulent documents that we are entitled to.<br /><br /> The Court: I’m not giving you one.<br /><br /> Ms. Lanson: You’re not giving me a hearing on the 87 and 88 –<br /><br />The Court: No, because I’ve explained to you on numerous occasions why not, and I’m not going over it again.<br /><br /> Ms. Lanson: You follow Judge Hyman when you want to –<br /><br /> The Court: Please give me – please give me a date.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: I want an order that you’re not giving us an evidentiary hearing on the --<br /><br />The Court: Miss Lanson, you are in no position to dictate to me; I don’t care what you’re suffering from. I will not have you dictate to me what you want and when you want it and how you want it. If you want an order on that, you drat one; I will edit it and sign it. The same thing that I do for these attorneys; they have to draft their orders, I will edit it and sign it. So you go ahead and draft it; I will edit it and sign it. But don’t you dictate to me.<br /><br />12. This Court has previously been put on notice of Judge Stettin’s Order. However, this Court has refused to abide by Judge Stettin’s February 14, 2008 Order. The Plaintiffs were deprived the benefit of their bargain, pursuant to the Agreed Order entered on February 14, 2008. <br />13. To this date, Judge Cohen refuses to abide by Judge Crespo and Judge Stettin’s previous Orders to the detriment and prejudice of the Plaintiffs. <br />WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request a hearing to compel the Court to comply with the following prior Orders: <br />a) Judge Crespo’s September 13, 2005 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims of Emotional Distress, and Deferring Ruling on Claims for Reputation Damage until the Plaintiffs had filed their Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to include allegations for reputation damages. <br /><br />b) Judge Stettin’s February 14, 2008 Agreed Order.<br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br />By: ____________________<br /> Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br /><br /><br /><br />By: _____________________<br /> Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br /><br /> I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and exact copies of the foregoing were forwarded by electronic mail, facsimile and/or U.S. Mail on November 5, 2008, to all parties on the attached Service List. <br /><br /> <br />Mary Alice Gwynn, P.A.<br />805 George Bush Boulevard<br />Delray Beach, FL 33483<br />Telephone: 561-330-0633<br />Facsimile: 561-330-8778<br />E-mail: mgwynnlaw@aol.com<br /><br />By: _______________________<br /> Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br /> Florida Bar No.: 879584<br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br />18652 Ocean Mist Drive<br />Boca Raton, FL 33498<br />Telephone: 561-488-2740<br />Facsimile: 561-488-2861<br />E-mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net<br /><br /><br />By: ____________________<br /> Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /> <br /><br /><br />SERVICE LIST<br /><br /> <br />Robert M. Klein, Esq.<br />Stephens, Lynn, Klein<br />Two Datran Center, PH II <br />9130 South Dadeland Blvd.<br />Miami, FL 33156<br /><br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Ross & Girten, P.A.<br />Two Datran Center – Suite 1612<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />P.O. Box 330519<br />Miami, FL 33233<br /><br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.<br />2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor<br />Coral Gables, FL 33134<br /><br />Reggie D. Sanger, Esq.<br />208 S.E. 9th Street<br />Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-59857624028178944162008-10-27T17:01:00.001-07:002008-10-27T17:01:54.622-07:00Supplement Master Letter to AgenciesOctober 23, 2008<br /><br />PRIORITY MAIL WITH PROOF <br />OF DELIVERY – TO ALL PARTIES<br />ON THIS COVER PAGE SERVICE LIST<br /><br /><br /><br />Federal Bureau of Investigation <br />Attention: Special Agent Jeff Danik <br />505 South Flagler Drive <br />Suite 500 <br />West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 <br /><br />Katherine Fernandez-Rundle <br />Miami-Dade State Attorney<br />E.R. Graham Building<br />1350 N.W. 12th Avenue<br />Miami, Florida 33136-2211<br /><br /><br />Bill McCollum <br />Office of Attorney General <br />State of Florida <br />The Capitol – PL-01 <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050<br /><br />Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink<br />Florida Department of Financial Services<br />200 East Gaines Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300<br /><br /><br />The Office of Inspector General<br />Florida Department of Law Enforcement <br />2331 Phillips Road <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32308 <br /><br />The Office of Inspector General<br />Attention: Kenneth A. Chambers <br />Supreme Court Building <br />500 South Duval Street <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1905<br /><br />Brooke S. Kennerly <br />Executive Director <br />Judicial Qualifications Commission <br />1110 Thomasville Road <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6226 <br /><br />John F. Harkness<br />Executive Director<br />The Florida Bar <br />651 East Jefferson Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300<br /><br />Michael L. Schneider <br />General Counsel <br />Judicial Qualifications Commission <br />1110 Thomasville Road <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6226<br /><br /><br />Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esq. <br />The Florida Bar<br />651 East Jefferson Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300<br /><br />Detective Luis Robainas <br />Miami Dade Police Department <br />Public Corruption Investigations Bureau <br />8899 N.W. 18th Terrace <br />Doral, Florida 33172<br /><br />Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina<br />Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida<br />Miami Dade County Courthouse<br />73 West Flagler Street<br />Miami, Florida 33130<br /><br /><br />This is to supplement my previous letter to you, dated September 17, 2008, whereby Notice was given that violations of 831.04 f.s., constituting a felony of the third degree, may have been committed by attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow, Marc Cooper, Sonya L. Salkin, and their counsels, Charles W. Throckmorton, Lauri Waldman Ross, Robert M. Klein, Lewis N. Jack, Jr., and Reggie Sanger.<br /><br />It has been brought to my attention that another State Criminal Statute may have been committed by attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow, Marc Cooper, Sonya L. Salkin, and their counsels, Charles W. Throckmorton, Lauri Waldman Ross, Robert M. Klein, Lewis N. Jack, Jr. and Reggie Sanger with the acquiescence of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen.<br /><br />F.S.A. § 831.02 - Uttering Forged Instruments <br /><br />Whoever utters and publishes as true a false, forged or altered record, deed, instrument or other writing mentioned in F.S. § 831.01 knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited, with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082, s. 775.083, or 775.084.<br /><br />Since May 30, 2008, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen has known that attorneys, Kopplow, Cooper, Salkin, and their counsel, Throckmorton, Waldman-Ross, Klein, Jack, and Sanger have been using a document, deemed to be fraudulent by an expert witness, to support a Summary Judgment Motion, for the benefit of their clients, the attorney defendants, and to the detriment of the Plaintiffs in a legal malpractice lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Case No.99-21062 CA 15. <br /><br />The defendants have never refuted the expert witness’ declaration that the documents, which they are relying upon to injure the Plaintiffs, are fraudulent. Nor have the defendants retained their own expert witness to refute that the documents that they have been relying upon are fraudulent. Nor have the defendants and their counsel withdrawn the fraudulent documents in violation of Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3(a)(4). <br /><br />Since May 30, 2008, the Plaintiffs have been seeking, through numerous written and ore tenus Motions, to strike the Defendants Pleadings for “fraud on the court” for knowingly using fraudulent documents to support their clients’ position. This activity is in violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 4-3.3(a)(4) which:<br /><br /><br /><br />Prohibits a lawyer from offering false evidence and requires the lawyer<br />to take reasonable remedial measures when false evidence has been<br />offered. This is subordinated to the criminal statute violation.<br /><br />The Plaintiffs have filed verified Motions to Strike Defendants Affirmative Defenses, which goes to the heart of the fraudulent documents, as a Sham, pursuant to FRCP 1.150. <br /><br />Judge Jeri Beth Cohen (a member of the Florida Bar) has wilfully engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and thereby has subverted the truth finding process that the adversary system is designed to implement by the following violations:<br /><br />1) refuses to allow discovery to see which attorneys were involved in the preparation, perpetration, execution and submission of the fraudulent documents.<br /><br />2) refuses to conduct an evidentiary hearing as required by law under FRCP 1.150 which states:<br /><br />Rule 1.150(a) contemplates a full evidentiary hearing where the parties<br />have the opportunity to offer evidence on the issue of whether the pleading<br />attacked alleges a cause of action or defense that is false in fact. The rule<br />provides that “the court shall hear the motion, taking evidence of the<br />respective parties.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.150(a).<br /><br />3) continues to violate Judicial Canon 3.D.2)a: <br /><br />A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial<br />likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules <br />Regulating the Florida Bar shall take appropriate action. This does not<br />speak to the violation of criminal statutes. <br /><br />4) has violated and breached an Agreed Order signed on February 14, 2008, by Senior Judge Herb Stettin, which states in part:(A copy of the Senior Judge Stettin’s signed Agreed Order is enclosed herein). <br /><br /><br /><br />3. Plaintiffs shall have twenty(20) days from the date of this Order<br />to serve their response to the Amended Affirmative Defenses.<br /><br />4. Plaintiffs reserve all rights to challenge the Amended Affirmative<br />Defenses, including, but not limited to, motions to strike, motions<br />for summary judgment and the like. The Plaintiffs have complied <br />with both requirements of the signed Agreed Order, and still Judge <br />Jeri Beth Cohen refuses to abide by Senior Judge Stettin’s Order.<br /><br />5) has denied Plaintiffs their due process rights pursuant to an Agreed Order signed by Senior Judge Herbert Stettin.<br /><br />6) has condoned the Defendants and their Attorneys breach of that Agreed Order. The Defendants (attorneys) and their counsel engaged in a knowing breach of that signed Agreed Order whereby the Defendants received the benefit of the Agreed Order and then the Defendants engaged in a scheme to deprive the Plaintiffs of the benefit that they were to receive by that signed Agreed Order......the right to attack the Affirmative Defenses by striking them as a sham under FRCP 1.150 which would require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.<br /><br />At the hearing held on October 15, 2008, I requested that Judge Cohen adhere to her judicial responsibilities pursuant to Judicial Canons. She sat stoned faced and said “you file a Complaint,” again, in violation of her judicial duties.<br /><br />Furthermore, the violations of the Rules and the law that the attorneys have engaged in, with the cooperation and coverup of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, needs to be investigated by all the appropriate agencies, especially because such conduct has risen to the level of, what I believe to be, criminal activity. Judge Cohen continues to obstruct justice. <br /><br /><br />In the spirit of full disclosure, I want the record to reflect that I have a JQC Complaint pending against Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, No. 08411, in addition to these allegations of involvement in criminal activity. I also have a Civil lawsuit, under the ADA, pending against Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, in her official capacity, and in her individual capacity, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-CV-22009-JORDAN. I have also alerted the JQC, its fifteen member panel, and Governor Crist to the undue influence that Special Counsel to the JQC, Lauri Waldman Ross, has on the judiciary. Such influence is displayed regularly as Judge Cohen yields to Lauri Waldman Ross during proceedings. Lauri Waldman Ross has used her undue influence previously before the late Judge Manuel Crespo who presided over this case in 2005, for a total of two hearings, and then recused himself before expiring.. At a hearing held on October 15, 2008, Lauri Waldman Ross, Defense counsel for Marc Cooper, and a Special Counsel to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, continued violating Rule 4-3.3 - Candor Toward the Tribunal: False evidence and a duty to disclose. In addition, Ms. Ross violated Rule 4-3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel. As a member of The Florida Bar, and as a representative of the JQC, Ms. Ross should exude the highest standard of ethics, as she, by her position, is called upon to weigh transgressions of the judiciary. How can Ms. Ross perform her responsibilities if she, herself, does not abide by the Rules of Professional and Ethical Conduct regulating The Florida Bar members? At that hearing, Ms. Ross verbally and demonstrably accused Plaintiff’s counsel, Mary Alice Gwynn, of making misrepresentations to the Court when it was Ms. Gwynn who alerted the Court about the parties’ prior agreement with regard to challenging the Defendants Affirmative Defenses. Ms. Gwynn referenced e-mails between the parties documenting such an agreement. Ms. Ross immediately started pointing her finger at Ms. Gwynn and said: “I want anything in writing from this lady because I am sick of coming in here and having misrepresentations from her.” <br /><br />Ms. Ross sat silent and failed to disclose that, in fact, the parties did have an agreement that was reduced to an Agreed Order signed by Senior Judge Herbert Stettin on February 14, 2008 which was actually drafted by Lauri Waldman Ross, and forwarded directly from Ms. Ross to Judge Stettin.<br /><br />I, Meryl M. Lanson, on October 16, 2008, via e-mail, requested that Ms. Ross report her misrepresentations to Judge Cohen. Ms. Ross refused to do so which further violates the ethical rules governing The Florida Bar members. A Notice of Filing of the exchange of e-mail communications between Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, Plaintiff, Norman Lanson’s counsel, Mary Alice Gwynn, and the Defendants counsels, Waldman Ross, Throckmorton, Klein, Jack and Sanger was sent to the Court for filing on October 22, 2008. (A copy of the Notice of Filing with attachment is enclosed herein). Furthermore, a Motion (A copy of the Motion is enclosed herein)was sent, via Federal Express, to the Court for filing on October 22, 2008 which outlines what transpired at the October 15, 2008 hearing and the violations of Ms. Ross, with the acquiescence of Judge Cohen, and the silence of attorneys, Throckmorton and Jack, who were also party to the Agreed Order signed by Senior Judge Stettin. Robert Klein, Esq. and Reggie Sanger, Esq. were not present at that hearing but are party to the Agreed Order and was party to the e-mail communications, and all communications filed with the Court. A copy of all filings have been sent to all Counsel of Record. The Defendants and their Counsel continue to engage in obstruction of justice and do so in knowing violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. <br /><br /><br />I have asked Judge Cohen, on three occasions, to disqualify herself. She refuses to do so. Her rulings in this case appears to be that she is using her position, to not only retaliate against me for the actions I have taken against her, but also to sabotage the civil litigation for the benefit of the attorneys and to the detriment of the Plaintiffs, Meryl Lanson, Norman Lanson and Baron’s Stores, Inc., and its beneficiaries, the Creditors. <br /><br />As mentioned in my previous Notice dated September 17, 2008, the Courts have turned a blind eye to the submission of fraudulent documents in violation of the Rules and the Law for, what I believe to be, the protection of certain well connected professionals. <br /><br />This matter involves both state and federal agencies as the alleged criminal violations involve the transmittals of the fraudulent documents through electronic mail, Federal Express and the United States Postal Service.<br /><br />I have made serious allegations against these attorneys and Judge Jeri Beth Cohen. I stand by each one of my allegations as I have the documents, the transcripts, the tapes - the evidence to support my position. Finally, every agency in receipt of this letter has a duty to protect the public from unethical conduct, negligence, fraud and/or corruption. When such unethical conduct, negligence, fraud and/or corruption involves officers of the court, specifically attorneys and judges, the tolerance level should be at zero and the priority to investigate should be at the top of your agenda. I trust that your investigations will be properly handled without regard to whom the individuals are.<br /><br /><br /><br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson<br />Telephone: 561-488-2740<br />Facsimile: 561-488-2861<br />E-Mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net<br /><br />Enclosures: <br />1) Copy of Senior Judge Herbert Stettin’s signed Agreed Order dated February 14, 2008.<br />2) Copy of Notice of Filing dated October 22, 2008 with attachments.<br />3) Copy of Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, Supplement to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Objection to Any of the Defendants Proposed Orders and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to Senior Judge Herbert Stettin’s February 14, 2008 Order.<br /><br />cc: Governor Charlie Crist with attachmentsNorthern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-14716748507390156892008-10-19T19:04:00.001-07:002008-10-20T18:20:01.346-07:00Master Letter to AgenciesSeptember 17, 2008 <br /> <br />PRIORITY MAIL WITH PROOF <br />OF DELIVERY – TO ALL PARTIES<br /><strong>ON THIS COVER PAGE SERVICE LIST</strong><br /><br />Federal Bureau of Investigation <br />Attention: Special Agent Jeff Danik <br />505 South Flagler Drive <br />Suite 500 <br />West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 <br /><br />Katherine Fernandez-Rundle <br />Miami-Dade State Attorney<br />E.R. Graham Building<br />1350 N.W. 12th Avenue<br />Miami, Florida 33136-2211<br /><br /><br />Bill McCollum <br />Office of Attorney General <br />State of Florida <br />The Capitol – PL-01 <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050<br /><br />Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink<br />Florida Department of Financial Services<br />200 East Gaines Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300<br /><br /><br />The Office of Inspector General<br />Florida Department of Law Enforcement <br />2331 Phillips Road <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32308 <br /><br />The Office of Inspector General<br />Attention: Kenneth A. Chambers <br />Supreme Court Building <br />500 South Duval Street <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1905<br /><br />Brooke S. Kennerly <br />Executive Director <br />Judicial Qualifications Commission <br />1110 Thomasville Road <br />Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6226 <br /><br />John F. Harkness<br />Executive Director<br />The Florida Bar <br />651 East Jefferson Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300<br /><br />Notice is hereby given that violation of 831.04 f.s., constituting a felony of the third degree, may have been committed by attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow, Marc Cooper, Sonya L. Salkin, and now their counsels, Charles W. Throckmorton, Lauri Waldman Ross, Robert M. Klein, Lewis N. Jack, Jr., and Reggie Sanger. <br /><br />State Criminal Statute: 831.04 f.s. – Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing states in part: <br /><br /><br />Any person making any erasure, alteration, interlineations or interpolation in any writing or instrument mentioned in s. 92.28, <br />and made admissible in evidence, with the fraudulent intent to change the same in any substantial manner after the same has once been made, shall be guilty of the crime of forgery, which, for the purpose of this section, constitutes a felony of the third degree.<br /><br />On February 4, 2008, Defendant attorneys, Ronald Kopplow, Marc Cooper, Sonya Salkin and their respective firms filed a Summary Judgment to eliminate Baron’s Stores, Inc. from the legal malpractice lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Miami-Dade County:<br /><br />Case No. 99-21062 CA 15 – Norman Lanson, Meryl Lanson and Baron’s Stores, Inc. v. Ronald C. Kopplow, Esq., Kopplow & Flynn, P.A., Marc Cooper, Esq., Cooper & Wolfe, P.A., and Sonya L. Salkin, Malnik & Salkin, P.A. <br /><br />Attached to, and in support of, the Summary Judgment Motion, are two documents titled Amended Plan of Liquidation and Amended Disclosure Statement. <br /><br />On May 2, 2008, Michael G. Kessler of Kessler International, an independent forensic document expert, under the penalty of perjury, made the following conclusory statement regarding the Amended Plan of Liquidation and the Amended Disclosure Statement to wit:<br /><br />“I can conclude that someone tampered with these documents, modified them and/or altered them resulting in these documents not representing what they are presented to be. These documents have been falsified.”<br /><br />A copy of Mr. Kessler’s Declaration, attached hereto, has been filed in the State Court, and has been provided to Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, the Defendants, and their counsels, as evidence, on numerous occasions attached to various motions.<br /><br />The defendant attorneys, Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin and their counsels, Throckmorton, Waldman Ross, Klein, Jack and Sanger, refuse to withdraw the fraudulent documents. The defendant attorneys, Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, and their counsels, Throckmorton, Waldman Ross, Klein, Jack and Sanger have not refuted Mr. Kessler’s findings.<br /><br />Circuit Court Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, being fully apprised of Mr. Kessler’s findings, by and through the attachment of the evidence to various motions, refuses to allow discovery, refuses to hold an evidentiary hearing, refuses to stay proceedings and refuses to follow Judicial Canons, specifically:<br /><br />Canon 3.D.2)a: <br /><br />A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar shall take appropriate action. This does not speak to the violation of criminal statutes. <br /> <br />Lawyer Regulation: Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Rules of Professional Conduct 4-3.3(a)(4) :<br /><br />Prohibits a lawyer from offering false evidence and requires the lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures when false evidence has been offered. This is subordinated to the criminal statute violation.<br /><br />Furthermore, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr., has also been provided with a copy of Mr. Kessler’s Declaration that the documents which confirmed the bankruptcy of Baron’s were fraudulent. Judge Hyman, having knowledge that fraudulent documents were used to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that the only parties that could be responsible for the preparation, execution, and filing of such documents were/are attorneys, have denied the Plaintiffs discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The defendants, Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, and their counsels, Throckmorton, Waldman Ross, Klein, Jack and Sanger were also provided with Mr. Kessler’s Declaration in the context of the federal bankruptcy proceedings. The Court and its officers have refused to take remedial action.<br /><br />18 U.S.C. § 4: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, is guilty of the federal crime of misprision of felony.” <br /><br />“The offense of concealing a felony committed by another, but without such previous concert with or subsequent assistance to the felon as would make the party concealing an accessory before or after the fact.”<br /><br />Both the Bankruptcy Court and the State Court have knowledge that fraudulent documents are being used, by the defendant attorneys and their counsels, in the Baron’s/Lanson’s civil litigation, to gain an unfair advantage. Both Courts have condoned the use of fraudulent documents. The fact is that the Courts have denied the Plaintiffs the required evidentiary hearings thereby subverting the truth finding process that the adversary system is designed to implement. Both Courts have turned a blind eye to these fraudulent documents to protect certain connected attorneys. <br /><br /> <br />These alleged acts of the defendants, and their counsels, are criminal in nature, and if proven to be true would require their immediate disbarment. <br /><br />In the Florida Bar v. Steven Evan Wolis, .the referee ultimately recommended that Wolis be disbarred, finding that “obstruction of justice, with a predicate act of perjury and the filing of fraudulent reports, is a serious felony” and that “[w]hile [Wolis] appears to be truly remorseful and genuine in his rehabilitation effort, the mitigation in this case is not sufficient to warrant a penalty less than [the presumed sanction of] disbarment.” While the referee acknowledged that his recommendation of disbarment “was not an easy one to render given [Wolis’] age [of 39] and apparent remorse,” the referee ultimately concluded that [Wolis’s ] offense for which he was convicted goes to the very essence of the legal profession. The truth cannot be sacrificed for convenience or personal gain. It cannot be abrogated because of a client’s needs. Simply stated, society must be able to rely upon an attorney’s representations. The Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar, The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and the interest of the general public mandate that attorneys tell the truth and act in an honorable fashion. <br /><br />The undersigned complainant has grave concerns that “obstruction of justice” is occurring for the benefit of the Florida Bar, by and through the judiciary’s assistance in limiting claims exposure to the Florida Bar’s created and sponsored malpractice insurance company, Florida Lawyers Mutual. All of the parties, including Judge Hyman and Judge Cohen, are members of the Florida Bar. Attorneys Kopplow and Cooper are insured for legal malpractice by Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. <br /><br /><br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson<br />Telephone: 561-488-2740<br />Facsimile: 561-488-2861<br />E-Mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net<br /><br />Attachment: Michael G. Kessler’s Declaration as stated herein.<br /><br />cc: Governor Charlie Crist with attachment.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-87401461891265234312008-09-22T16:56:00.000-07:002008-09-22T17:07:54.967-07:00Motion to Vacate the Court's June 23, 2008 Protective OrderIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY<br /><br />GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION<br /><br />NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15<br />MERYL LANSON, and <br />BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida <br />Corporation, <br /><br />Plaintiffs, <br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ.,<br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, MARC <br />COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A., <br />a Florida Professional Association,<br />SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and <br />MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, <br /><br />Defendants.<br />_______________________________________/<br /><br />PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE THAT PORTION OF THE COURT’S <br />JUNE 23, 2008 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, SONYA SALKIN’S, <br />MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER <br /><br /> COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, Baron’s Stores, Inc., Norman Lanson, by and through their undersigned counsel, and Meryl Lanson, Pro Se, files this Motion to Vacate that Portion of the Court’s June 23, 2008 Order Granting Defendant, Sonya Salkin’s, Motion for Protective Order and further states as follows:<br /> Previously, during the May 30, 2008 status conference, the Court granted the Defendant’s, Salkin, Motion for Protective Order which prohibited Salkin’s deposition on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike for Fraud on the Court. Attached to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike was a Declaration from an independent forensic document expert, Michael G. Kessler. Under the penalty of perjury, Mr. Kessler made the following conclusory statement regarding the Amended Plan of Liquidation and the Amended Disclosure Statement which the Defendants have been using to support their Motion for Summary Judgment as to Baron’s claims.<br /> “I can conclude that someone tampered with these documents, modified them <br />and/or altered them resulting in these documents not representing what they <br />are presented to be. These documents have been falsified.” <br /><br />1. On September 8, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed their Verified Supplement to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Joint Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by “Baron’s Stores, Inc.”…filed February 4, 2008, for Fraud on the Court as a Sham Pleading under Rule 1.150 of F.R.C.P. <br />2. Previously this Court summarily denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike for Fraud on the Court without even reading the motion and without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. There is no plausible way to determine whether or not the Defendants’, in fact, did or did not commit fraud on the court without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing and testimony taken by the parties. <br />3. This court has both ethical duties as a licensed Florida Attorney and Judicial duties pursuant to Judicial Canons to explore this serious breach of ethics and possible criminal conduct of the Defendants, who are all licensed attorneys in the State of Florida, as well as their Counsels.<br />Canon 3.D.2)a: <br /><br />A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar shall take appropriate action. This does not speak to the violation of criminal statutes. <br /><br />Lawyer Regulation: Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Rules of Professional Conduct <br />4-3.3(a)(4) :<br /><br />Prohibits a lawyer from offering false evidence and requires the lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures when false evidence has been offered. This is subordinated to the criminal statute violation.<br /><br />Notice is hereby given that violation of 831.04 f.s., constituting a felony of the third degree has been committed by attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow, Marc Cooper, Sonya L. Salkin, and their counsel, Charles W. Throckmorton, Lauri Waldman Ross, Robert M. Klein, Lewis N. Jack, Jr., and Reggie Sanger. <br /><br />State Criminal Statute: 831.04 f.s. – Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing states in part: <br /><br />Any person making any erasure, alteration, interlineations or interpolation in any writing or instrument mentioned in s. 92.28, and made admissible in evidence, with the fraudulent intent to change the same in any substantial manner after the same has once been made, shall be guilty of the crime of forgery, which, for the purpose of this section, constitutes a felony of the third degree.<br /> <br />Furthermore, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr., has also been provided with a copy of Mr. Kessler’s Declaration that the documents which confirmed the bankruptcy of Baron’s were fraudulent. Judge Hyman, having knowledge that fraudulent documents were used to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that the only parties that could be responsible for the preparation, execution, and filing of such documents were/are attorneys, have denied the Plaintiffs discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The defendants, Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, and their counsel, Throckmorton, Waldman Ross, Klein, Jack and Sanger were also provided with Mr. Kessler’s Declaration in the context of the federal bankruptcy proceedings. The Court and its officers have refused to take remedial action.<br /><br />18 U.S.C. § 4: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority<br />under the United States, is guilty of the federal crime of misprision of felony.” <br /><br />“The offense of concealing a felony committed by another, but without such previous concert with or subsequent assistance to the felon as would make the party concealing an accessory before or after the fact.”<br /><br />Both the State Court and the Bankruptcy Court have knowledge that fraudulent documents are being used, by the defendant attorneys and their counsel in the Baron’s/Lanson civil litigation, to gain an unfair advantage. Both Courts have condoned the use of fraudulent documents. The fact is that the Courts have denied the Plaintiffs the required evidentiary hearings thereby subverting the truth finding process that the adversary system is designed to implement. Both Courts have turned a blind eye to these fraudulent documents to protect certain connected attorneys. <br /><br />4. To prohibit the Plaintiffs from discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the Court is aiding and abetting fraudulent conduct and becomes a party to the fraudulent activity. For this court to block the Plaintiffs’ right to discovery, including depositions, and an evidentiary hearing, when there is an Affidavit from an Independent Forensic Fraud Examiner, which is unrefuted in the record, equates to Obstruction of Justice, which must be explored by the State Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, especially since the Defendants’ trial notebook, at the hearing held on September 8, 2008, on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, contained the fraudulent documents, and were delivered to the parties by Federal Express Mail. The Defendants and their counsel have now used the mail delivery service as a means to transport fraudulent documents. <br />5. The Plaintiffs will not only be extremely prejudiced but will continue to be deprived of their rights for sanctions against the Defendants for their fraudulent conduct in submitting false documents to gain an unfair advantage in this present litigation. <br />WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Norman Lanson and Baron’s Stores, Inc., and Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, demands the Court to vacate its previous Order Granting Defendant Salkin’s Motion for Protective Order, and allow the Plaintiffs to pursue the deposition of Salkin, and the deposition of any other individual, including but not limited to the professionals, who may have played a part in the preparation, execution and filing of the fraudulent documents. In addition, the Plaintiffs demand discovery and an evidentiary hearing, as required under Rule 1.150 of F.R.C.P.<br /><br /><br />CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br /><br /> I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and exact copies of the foregoing were forwarded by electronic mail, facsimile and/or U.S. Mail on September 22, 2008, to all parties on the attached Service List. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />___________________________<br />Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br />Fla. Bar. No.: 879584<br />805 George Bush Boulevard<br />Delray Beach, Florida 33483<br />(561) 330-0633<br /><br /><br /><br />____________________________<br />John B. Thompson, Esq. <br />Fla. Bar No.: 231665<br />1172 South Dixie Highway, Suite 111<br />Coral Gables, FL 33146<br />(305) 666-4366<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />_____________________________<br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />SERVICE LIST<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Robert M. Klein, Esq.<br />Stephens Lynn Klein, et al.<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Penthouse II<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton<br />2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard<br />9th Floor<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33134<br /><br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />Joseph, Jack & Miranda, P.A.<br />Post Office Box 330519<br />Miami, Florida 33233<br /><br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Ross & Girten<br />Two Datran Center, Suite 1612<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Reggie Sanger, Esq.<br />208 S.E. 9th Street<br />Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-1503259183431810662008-09-22T05:51:00.000-07:002008-09-22T05:54:11.979-07:00Third DCA Writ OpinionIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA<br />THIRD DISTRICT<br />JULY TERM, A.D. 2008<br />SEPTEMBER 4, 2008<br /><br /><br />MERYL LANSON, NORMAN LANSON, ET AL. <br />CASE NO.: 3DO8-2233<br />Appellant(s)/Petitioners(s)<br /><br />vs. <br /><br />LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 99-21062<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ., ET AL., <br />Appellee(s)/Respondent(s)<br /><br /><br />Following review of the petition for writ of prohibition, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied on the merits. SUAREZ, CORTINAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., concur.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-23123785431294271262008-09-22T05:37:00.001-07:002008-09-22T17:08:13.728-07:00Petition for Writ of ProhibitionIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT¬¬<br />CASE NO. 3D08-2233<br />LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15<br /><br />NORMAN LANSON, <br />MERYL LANSON, and <br />BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida <br />Corporation, <br /><br />Petitioners, <br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ., <br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, MARK <br />COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A., <br />a Florida Professional Association,<br />SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and <br />MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, <br /><br />Respondents.<br />_______________________________/<br /><br /><br />PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong>BACKGROUND FACTS</strong><br />Meryl 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. <br /><br /><strong>JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT</strong><br />Petitioner 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.<br />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). <br /> <br /><strong>STATEMENT OF FACTS</strong><br />1. 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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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)<br />5. The following is from the Transcript of the May 30, 2008 hearing:<br />Page 11 - Line 15 through Page 12 - Line 7 and Page 54 - Line 17 through Page 55 - Line 4 : (A# 4)<br />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.<br /><br /><br />Mr. Klein: When was this filed?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: It was filed this morning.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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)<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: In essence, this motion is denied?<br /><br />The Court: It is denied without prejudice.<br /><br />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.<br />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)<br />8. On June 10, 2008, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen denied Plaintiff’s Motion. (A#6)<br />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)<br />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)<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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)<br />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.<br />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)<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />The Court: A change of venue?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: Yes.<br /><br />The Court: You mean to another city?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: I don’t know. I don’t know. Haven’t - -<br />I don’t know what you mean by a change of venue. Out of the state of Florida?<br /><br />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 - -<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />She did not report you to the J.Q.C. for violation of the judicial canons that you acknowledged that - - <br /><br />The Court Reporter: I am sorry. That you acknowledge - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: That you acknowledged - - You acknowledged that there was fraud on the Court. We filed a motion to strike.<br /><br />The Court: I don’t remember acknowledging - -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: They - -<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />And that I was bound by it and would not go behind the bankruptcy - - <br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: Excuse me. Your Honor did not read the entire motion because it was given to you the day of the hearing.<br /><br />The Court: I am telling you that I did.<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: No. You didn’t read it. Okay. She, she filed it on May 30 in the morning.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />The Court: Ms. Lanson, I understand - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: This is the reason - - <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />And you are telling me that you read that entire motion which was filed in your Court on May 30.<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn gave it to you. You denied it without prejudice and never looked at the motion.<br /><br />And you are telling me that you read the entire motion. And that is not the truth. Okay. And you were caught.<br /><br />You have – You are the ones that have exacerbated my situation to such a degree - - <br /><br />The Court: Well, I am sorry about that.<br /><br />And we have - - We are moving forward. I am sorry you feel that way. But you were not running the proceedings here. I am.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Judge, forgive me. She handed you the motion and you denied it within three seconds. You didn’t read it.<br /><br />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. <br />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:<br />Page 21- Line 9 through Page 31 - Line 17: (A#1, Exhibit A)<br /> <br />Ms. Huffer: The concern I have is, is, is the level of trust that is lost with Ms. Lanson. <br /><br />The Court: I understand. But I can’t do, can’t do anything about that. She was suing her lawyer.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: It isn’t unprecedented in this kind of litigation where people - -<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Well, perhaps. But not in my experience.<br />The Court: Okay. Well - - <br />Ms. Huffer: It’s unprecedented. <br />The Court: Okay.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: No. That is your conception. That’s your perception of this.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: There is a ten year longitudinal study of litigants - -<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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? <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I don’t understand what you are saying.<br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer. Oh. This is excellent.<br />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?<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Her syndrome has nothing to do with it.<br />The Court: No. But say it feeds her, into - - <br />Ms. Huffer: I say it depends.<br /> <br />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 - - <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: It’s a psychiatric injury. It’s a normal - - It’s a normal human being that has experienced abnormal circumstances.<br /><br />The Court: Okay. It’s a psychiatric injury.<br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: But I am the Judge of what the evidence is, you see.<br />Ms. Huffer: Right.<br />The Court: You see. You want her - - You want to allow her to control this process.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: No. No. No. Access to evidence. In other words, full discovery, full everything. <br /><br />The Court: We will get her that. <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: That is important.<br />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.” <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: But she is never to be invalidated due to P.T.S.D.<br />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 –<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Well, you have caused me great stress today already, Your Honor.<br /><br />The Court: I am sorry.<br />Ms. Lanson: Well, that - - That’s a big problem for me.<br />The Court: I am sorry I cause you, caused you stress.<br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: You caused me stress because you weren’t honest about that fraud, striking of the fraud.<br /> <br />The Court: You see. That is a misperception.<br />Ms. Lanson: That isn’t a misperception.<br />Mr. Thompson: It isn’t, Judge. Let me just say one thing and then I would like to leave if I may.<br /><br />The Court: Oh, please. Go ahead. Yeah.<br />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. <br /><br />The Court: Uh-huh.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Well, I am sorry for that Mr. Thompson.<br />Mr. Thompson: Judge, here you go, you go - - Here you go again - - <br />The Court: Anything else?<br />Mr. Thompson: You, you - - You have made comments not only in this case, but other cases that reflect a lack of judicial temperate - - <br /><br />The Court: Mr. Thompson, do you have anything else to say before you leave - - <br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Yeah. <br /><br />The Court: - - decide to go?<br /><br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: That’s fine.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: And you do it in other cases.<br />The Court: Mr. Thompson - - <br />Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Judge.<br />The Court: That is fine.<br />Mr. Thompson: Thank you. I am going to leave before you give me P.T.S.D.<br /><br /> <br />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 - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: I want to leave now. <br />The Court: - - a personal video camera or what? How can we do - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Your Honor, I can’t - - I can’t continue with you. I filed a lawsuit against you in federal court yesterday. <br /><br />The Court: Okay. That’s fine. You can do that.<br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: You caused this hearing.<br />Ms. Lanson: You can accept service from me or you can have a process server serve - -<br />The Court: You can serve me formally and I will give it to the attorney general. That’s fine. <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Okay.<br />The Court: Okay.<br />Ms. Lanson: There are two copies of what was filed yesterday. <br />The Court: You can do whatever you want, Ms. Lanson.<br />Ms. Lanson: Have the process server serve you - - <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />20. Continuing an exchange on Page 40- Line 1 through Page 43 -Line 16:<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Right.<br />The Court: You know, so I have - - <br />Ms. Huffer: Just so you are aware.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: And we have a playing field which I haven’t had for ten years.<br /><br />The Court: Well, I can’t go back. I wasn’t here then. You know, I am certain - -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Well, you have tried to or you have recused several other Judges in the past. And I am not the Judge - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: No. I haven’t recused several other Judges in the past.<br />The Court: Well, somebody has asked my - - <br />Ms. Lanson: That’s Crespo. He recused himself because he entered into ex-parte communications with one of the attorneys. <br /><br />The Court: That is right.<br />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. <br /><br />The Court: All right. Well - - <br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: I really want to leave. I - - I need to leave.<br />The Court: All right. Maybe you can help me go through the rest of these.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: You want me to?<br />Ms. Lanson: No. I don’t trust this Judge. <br />Ms. Huffer: All right.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay. <br />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. <br />Page 46 - Line 19 - Page 47 - Line 21:<br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: That’s - - <br />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.<br /><br />The Court: I will be very, very careful to make sure that all the rules apply equally to everybody.<br /><br />22. Again, after Plaintiff left, the following prejudicial statements and obvious bias was expressed by the court.<br />Page 50 - Line 5 through Page 51 - Line 20: (A#1, Exhibit A)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I am happy. And we are substituting for misinformation that you will see that the rules are clearly - - <br /><br />The Court: Correct.<br />Ms. Huffer: - - stated and followed and you will inform her - - <br />The Court: That’s fair.<br />Ms. Huffer: - - particularly? <br /><br />The Court: That’s fair. That’s fair. That’s fair.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Okay.<br /><br />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.<br />24. To further show the prejudice the Plaintiff has received the following exchange, on the record, speaks for itself.<br />Page 53 - Line 25 through Page 54 - Line 1:<br /> Mr. Klein(counsel for defendant Kopplow): Well, I don’t want to communicate directly with a pro se litigant.<br /><br />25. A clear example of this Court’s protection of the defense can be shown by the following exchange:<br />Page 54 - Lines 2 - 18:<br />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.<br /><br /><br />Page 57 - Lines 11 - 13:<br />The Court: Because they see that she is filing a federal lawsuit, you know, things like that. And its scares them. <br /><br />26. Page 57 - Line 24 through Page 58 - Line 20:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Ms. Huffer, if you can get her focused that way a lot of this will go away.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: That’s exactly what will happen. <br /><br />27. Page 60 - Line 15 through Page 61 - Line :<br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).<br />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.<br /><strong><br />PETITIONER RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING LEGAL<br /> AUTHORITY AS SUPPORT FOR HER PETITION</strong><br /><br />A. 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.<br /> 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. <br />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:<br />“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.” <br /><br /> 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.<br />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.<br />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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br />Finally, this Court recognizes that:<br />“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.”<br /><br />Pistorino v. Ferguson, 386 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1980)<br />CONCLUSION<br />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.<br />NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT<br />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. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br />MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se<br /><br />______________________________<br /><br /> <br />CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br />18652 Ocean Mist Drive<br />Boca Raton, Florida 33498<br />Telephone: 561-488-2740<br />Facsimile: 561-488-2861<br /><br /><br /> <br />By: _____________________<br /> Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br />CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE<br />I hereby certify that the foregoing comports with the font requirements of Fla. R. App. P. 9.210.<br /><br />_______________________________<br /> <br />MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se<br /> <br />SERVICE LIST<br /><br /><br />Robert M. Klein, Esq.<br />Stephens Lynn Klein<br />Two Datran Center<br />Penthouse II<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Two Datran Center<br />Suite 1612<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, P.A.<br />2525 Ponce de Leon<br />9th Floor<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33134<br /><br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />Josephs, Jack & Miranda<br />P.O. Box 330519<br />Miami, Florida 33233<br /><br />John B. Thompson, Esq.<br />1172 South Dixie Highway<br />Suite 111<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33145<br /><br />Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br />805 George Bush Boulevard<br />Delray Beach, Florida 33483<br /><br /><br /><br />IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT¬¬<br />CASE NO. ________________________<br />LOWER COURT CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15<br /><br />NORMAN LANSON, <br />MERYL LANSON, and <br />BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida <br />Corporation, <br /><br />Petitioners, <br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ., <br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, MARK <br />COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A., <br />a Florida Professional Association,<br />SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and <br />MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, <br /><br />Respondents.<br />_______________________________/<br /><br />____________________________________________________________________<br />APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION <br />____________________________________________________________________<br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br /><br />INDEX TO APPENDIX<br /><br />1. Plaintiff Meryl Lanson’s Motion For Disqualification of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen dated August 20, 2008<br />2. Order Denying Motion to Disqualify dated August 28, 2008<br />3. Motion to Strike for Fraud on the Court dated May 30, 2008<br />4. Transcript from May 30, 2008, Hearing<br />5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse dated June 2, 2008<br />6. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse dated June 10, 2008<br />7. New Verified Motion to Recuse dated June 30, 2008<br />8. Order Denying New Verified Motion to Recuse dated July 7, 2008<br />9. Plaintiff Meryl Lanson’s Report and Request for ADA Accommodation <br />10. Plaintiff’s Complaint against Judge Cohen for Violation of Americans with Americans with Disabilities Act, filed July 15, 2008Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-21889142593192627982008-09-22T05:27:00.000-07:002008-09-22T05:34:35.080-07:00Motion to Disqualify CohenIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY<br /><br />GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION<br /><br />NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15<br />MERYL LANSON, and <br />BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida <br />Corporation, <br /><br />Plaintiffs, <br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ.,<br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, MARK <br />COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A., <br />a Florida Professional Association,<br />SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and <br />MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, <br /><br />Defendants.<br />_______________________________________/<br /><br />PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION<br /><br />COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, files this Motion to Disqualify <br /><br />the Honorable Judge Jeri Beth Cohen Pursuant to Fla. Statute 38.10 and Fla. R. Jud. Adm. Rule 2.330, and as grounds for the Motion, Plaintiff alleges the following:<br /><br />1. 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.<br /> <br />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.<br />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. <br />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.<br />4. At the Status Conference, 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. <br />5. The following is from the Transcript of the May 30, 2008 hearing:<br />Page 11 - Line 15 through Page 12 - Line 7 and Page 54 - Line 17 through Page 55 -<br />Line 4 : (Exhibit “A”)<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />So that’s another reason why we need Ms. Salkin’s deposition.<br /><br />Mr. Klein: When was this filed?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: It was filed this morning.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: In essence, this motion is denied?<br /><br />The Court: It is denied without prejudice.<br /><br />6. After the May 30, 2008 status conference, Plaintiff, Meryl Lanson, on June 2, 2008, filed her Motion to Disqualify and/or Recuse The Honorable Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, along with a supporting Affidavit. <br />7. On June 10, 2008, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen denied Plaintiff’s Motion. <br />8. On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson filed a Verified New Motion to Disqualify which was denied on July 7, 2008.<br />9. 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.<br /><br /> <br />10. 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.<br /><br />11. After the May 30, 2008 status conference, Plaintiff’s disability deteriorated as a result of this Court’s unfair treatment of Plaintiff and obvious bias.<br /><br />12. Because of this 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.<br /><br />13. 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. <br /><br /> 14. Plaintiff holds this Court, professionally and individually, responsible for the exacerbation of her disability. This Court has violated Plaintiff’s requested and reasonable accommodations under the ADA. In fact, this Court, at the July 16, 2008 ADA hearing, granted the requested accommodations, and at that same hearing, this Court, itself, further violated the most crucial accommodation requested of by Plaintiff as stated in the ADA Report:<br /><br />Accommodations needed:<br /><br />5) Meryl Lanson needs all misinformation immediately corrected on the record. The feeling of helplessness and disorientation sustained when misinformation jeopardizes the trier of fact in the critical job of making a fair decision, greatly exacerbates PTSD. It is the ultimate trauma placing a person in jeopardy and keeping them helpless. Meryl Lanson must be able to rely on the facts to determine the court’s decisions. Meryl Lanson will provide substantiation of any misinformation to be corrected and will limit it to critically pertinent information that would prevent the trier of fact from a fair and true judgment. <br /><br /> <br />15. One of the accommodations that Plaintiff 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.<br />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 14 - Line 17:<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: A change of venue?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: Yes.<br /><br />The Court: You mean to another city?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: I don’t know. I don’t know. Haven’t - -<br /> <br />I don’t know what you mean by a change of venue. Out of the state of Florida?<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: I have already - -<br /><br />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 - -<br /><br />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. <br />She is sitting here and knows that fraud upon the Court was presented. You allowed the fraud on the Court to go unnoticed. <br /><br />You didn’t - -<br />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.<br /><br />She did not report you to the J.Q.C. for violation of the judicial canons that you acknowledged that - - <br /><br />The Court Reporter: I am sorry. That you acknowledge - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: That you acknowledged - - <br />You acknowledged that there was fraud on the Court. We filed a motion to strike.<br /><br />The Court: I don’t remember acknowledging - -<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: We filed a motion to strike that pleading for, pleading for fraud on the Court. <br />The motion was this thick, two inches thick. You didn’t even look at the <br />Motion. You did not - - denied it without looking at it.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: They - -<br /><br />The Court: Ms. Lanson, I really need to stop you.<br /><br /> <br />I understand that you may be suffering from P.T.S.D. But this is absolutely out of order.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And that I was bound by it and would not go behind the bankruptcy - - <br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: Excuse me.<br /><br />Your Honor did not read the entire motion because it was given to you the day of the hearing.<br /><br />The Court: I am telling you that I did.<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: No. You didn’t read it.<br /><br />Okay. She, she filed it on May 30 in the morning.<br /><br />The Court: Ms. Lanson, I understand - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: This is the reason - - <br /><br />The Court: Okay. Your motion to move out of the venue, the jurisdiction is denied.<br /><br />We need to go down the list. And we need to do, deal with accommodating you.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />And you are telling me that you read that entire motion which was filed in your Court on May 30.<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn gave it to you. You denied it without prejudice and never looked at the motion.<br /><br />And you are telling me that you read the entire motion. And that is not the truth. Okay. And you were caught.<br /><br />You have –<br /> <br />You are the ones that have exacerbated my situation to such a degree - - <br /><br />The Court: Well, I am sorry about that.<br /><br />And we have - - <br />We are moving forward. I am sorry you feel that way. But you were not running the proceedings here.<br /><br />I am.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Judge, forgive me.<br /><br />She handed you the motion and you denied it within three seconds. You didn’t read it.<br /><br />17. An analysis of the contents of the transcript of July 16, 2008, in terms of dialogue and<br />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. <br /> <br />18. 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:<br />Page 21- Line 9 through Page 31 - Line 17:<br />Ms. Huffer: The concern I have is, is, is the level of trust that is lost with Ms. Lanson. <br />The Court: I understand. But I can’t do, can’t do anything about that. She was suing her lawyer.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: But you can. You can.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: It isn’t unprecedented in this kind of litigation where people - -<br />Ms. Huffer: Well, perhaps. But not in my experience.<br />The Court: Okay. Well - - <br />Ms. Huffer: It’s unprecedented. <br />The Court. Okay.<br />Ms. Huffer: That, you know, she wouldn’t be given service, discovery, all that - - <br />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.<br /><br />The Court: No. That is your conception. That’s your perception of this.<br />Ms. Huffer: There is a ten year longitudinal study of litigants - -<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: That’s not the point. The point is when Ms. Lanson senses or feels that misinformation has been placed on the tab le 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.<br /><br />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? <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I don’t understand what you are saying.<br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer. Oh. This is excellent.<br />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?<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Her syndrome has nothing to do with it.<br />The Court: No.l But say it feeds her, into - - <br />Ms. Huffer: I say it depends.<br /> <br />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 - - <br />may misperceive, may be anxious - - <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: It’s a psychiatric injury. It’s a normal - - It’s a normal human being that has experienced abnormal circumstances.<br /><br />The Court: Okay. It’s a psychiatric injury.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: A Judge - - Hold on. Hold on. A Judge needs to be able to say:<br />“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.”<br /><br /> <br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: But I am the Judge of what the evidence is, you see.<br />Ms. Huffer: Right.<br />The Court: You see. You want her - - You want to allow her to control this process.<br />Ms. Huffer: No. No. No. Access to evidence. In other words, full discovery, full everything. <br /><br />The Court: We will get her that. <br />Ms. Huffer: That is important.<br />The Court: We will get her that. But I can’t say:<br />“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.” <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: But she is never to be invalidated due to P.T.S.D.<br />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 –<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Well, you have caused me great stress today already, Your Honor.<br />The Court: I am sorry.<br />Ms. Lanson: Well, that - - That’s a big problem for me.<br />The Court: I am sorry I cause you, caused you stress.<br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: You caused me stress because you weren’t honest about that fraud, striking of the fraud. <br /><br />The Court: You see. That is a misperception.<br />Ms. Lanson: That isn’t a misperception.<br />Mr. Thompson: It isn’t, Judge. Let me just say one thing and then I would like to leave if I may.<br /><br />The Court: Oh, please. Go ahead. Yeah.<br />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. <br /><br />The Court: Uh-huh.<br />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 <br /> imagine a rationale person, Judge, or otherwise coming to that conclusion.<br /><br />The Court: Well, I am sorry for that Mr. Thompson.<br />Mr. Thompson: Judge, here you go, you go - - Here you go again - - <br />The Court: Anything else?<br /> <br />Mr. Thompson: You, you - - You have made comments not only in this case, but other cases that reflect a lack of judicial temperate - - <br /><br />The Court: Mr. Thompson, do you have anything else to say before you leave - - <br />Mr. Thompson: Yeah. <br />The Court: - - decide to go?<br />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 <br />comments - - <br /><br />The Court: That’s fine.<br />Mr. Thompson: And you do it in other cases.<br />The Court: Mr. Thompson - - <br />Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Judge.<br />The Court: That is fine.<br />Mr. Thompson: Thank you. I am going to leave before you give me P.T.S.D.<br /> <br />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 - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: I want to leave now. <br />The Court: - - a personal video camera or what? How can we do - - <br />Ms. Lanson: Your Honor, I can’t - - I can’t continue with you. I filed a lawsuit against you in federal court yesterday. <br /><br />The Court: Okay. That’s fine. You can do that.<br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: You caused this hearing.<br />Ms. Lanson: You can accept service from me or you can have a process server serve - -<br />The Court: You can serve me formally and I will give it to the attorney general. That’s fine. <br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: Okay.<br />The Court: Okay.<br />Ms. Lanson: There are two copies of what was filed yesterday. <br />The Court: You can do whatever you want, Ms. Lanson.<br />Ms. Lanson: Have the process server serve you - - <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />19. Continuing an exchange on Page 40- Line 1 through Page 43 - Line 16:<br />Ms. Huffer: I mean that’s one of the problems with being pro se is it’s, you know - - <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Right.<br />The Court: You know, so I have - - <br />Ms. Huffer: Just so you are aware.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: And we have a playing field which I haven’t had for ten years.<br />The Court: Well, I can’t go back. I wasn’t here then. You know, I am certain - -<br />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 - - <br />And that is the classic example that you said you read something that was an absolute impossibility.<br /><br />The Court: Well, you have tried to or you have recused several other Judges in the past. And I am not the Judge - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: No. I haven’t recused several other Judges in the past.<br />The Court: Well, somebody has asked my - - <br />Ms. Lanson: That’s Crespo. He recused himself because he entered into ex-parte communications with one of the attorneys. <br /><br />The Court: That is right.<br />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 (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. <br /><br />The Court: All right. Well - - <br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: I really want to leave. I - - I need to leave.<br />The Court: All right. Maybe you can help me go through the rest of these.<br />Ms. Huffer: You want me to?<br />Ms. Lanson: No. I don’t trust this Judge. <br />Ms. Huffer: All right.<br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay. <br /> <br />20. 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. <br />Page 46 - Line 19 - Page 47 - Line 21:<br />Ms. Huffer: Here is the way we might work that out with the misinformation issue.<br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: That’s - - <br />Ms. Huffer: - - and everybody follows the same rules then I believe we shouldn’t have any problem. <br />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. <br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: I will be very, very careful to make sure that all the rules apply equally to everybody.<br /><br />21. Again, after Plaintiff left, the following prejudicial statements and obvious bias was expressed by the court.<br />Page 50 - Line 5 through Page 51 - Line 20:<br />The Court: I don’t hold grudges. I am not holding anythng against her. I understand the syndrome. <br />I understand that she has been through a lot. But I can’t allow her to hold the system hostage.<br />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.<br /> <br />And I am telling you that there is an element of manipulation here. I can be very sensitive to all of her needs. <br />I will be fair and unbiased. I will follow the law. I can promise her that. I am sorry she doesn’t trust me. <br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I am happy.<br />And we are substituting for misinformation that you will see that the rules are clearly - - <br /><br />The Court: Correct.<br />Ms. Huffer: - - stated and followed and you will inform her - - <br />The Court: That’s fair.<br />Ms. Huffer: - - particularly?<br />The Court: That’s fair. That’s fair. That’s fair.<br />Ms. Huffer: Okay.<br /> <br />22. 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.<br />23. To further show the prejudice the Plaintiff has received the following exchange, on the record, speaks for itself.<br />Page 53 - Line 25 through Page 54 - Line 1:<br />Mr. Klein(counsel for defendant Kopplow): Well, I don’t want to communicate directly with a pro se litigant.<br /><br />24. A clear example of this Court’s protection of the defense can be shown by the following exchange:<br />Page 54 - Lines 2 - 18:<br />The Court: Hold on. I heard what you were saying. <br />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. <br />You know, quite frankly, Ms. Huffer, I don’t need this aggravation. I don’t need federal lawsuits filed against me. <br /> <br />Now I am not afraid of it. I am - - <br />I am not intimidated by it. But it’s manipulative. It’s completely manipulative.<br />And that’s the modus operandi in this case.<br />You see. That’s the thing. And that’s why they don’t want to communicate with her verbally.<br /><br />Page 57 - Lines 11 - 13:<br />The Court: Because they see that she is filing a federal lawsuit, you know, things like that. And its scares them. <br /><br />25. Page 57 - Line 24 through Page 58 - Line 20:<br />Ms. Huffer: I said the picture being drawn here is of a person that is manipulating the situation, that is emotionally unstable. <br />It’s easy to discredit her under those kind of characterizations. I think if I understand Ms. Lanson well - -<br />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 nay of that I believe we can avoid all of that. <br /> <br />That will be my training with her.<br />The Court: Ms. Huffer, if you can get her focused that way a lot of this will go away.<br />Ms. Huffer: That’s exactly what will happen. <br /><br />26. Page 60 - Line 15 through Page 61 - Line :<br />Ms. Huffer: And I think that but for her lack of trust today - - <br />And I don’t know what you do when you have lack of confidence in your<br />position.<br /><br />The Court: I can’t recuse myself in every case where somebody says, you know:<br />“Maybe I don’t trust you. Maybe I don’t like you.”<br />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. <br /><br /> <br />27. Ms. Waldman-Ross, defense counsel for Marc Cooper, Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission, has violated her duties to the Court and to the JQC. Plaintiff has made that known as part of the public records and on the internet. Plaintiff has provided copies of all correspondence, in that regard, directly to Ms. Waldman-Ross. Plaintiff is not manipulative and has no hidden agenda. All Plaintiff wants is the truth to be known and the court to seek the truth before it rules.<br />On Page 79 - Lines 16 - 21, Ms. Waldman-Ross expressed the following about the Plaintiff.<br />Ms. Ross: Judge, I am listening.<br />She can say the - -<br />Ms. Lanson can say the most horrific, untrue, patently untrue - - this is part<br />of the problem - - patently untrue statements about everybody in this room.<br /><br />28. Plaintiff has never made an untrue statement about anyone in these proceedings. Plaintiff has always conducted herself and her life with the utmost integrity and prides herself in <br />her credibility. Those remarks by Ms. Ross are defaming and are lies. If Ms. Ross continues to maintain that posture and those beliefs about the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff will demand that Ms. Ross bring to the attention of the Plaintiff and the Court all of “the most horrific and patently untrue statements” that Ms. Ross has accused Plaintiff of making during these proceedings. <br />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)<br /><br /><br /> <br />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.<br />WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests this Court to immediately disqualify herself, and to stay all proceedings, until the issues raised in the Plaintiff’s Motion have been decided.<br /><br /> CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br /><br />I, MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se, Movant, HEREBY CERTIFY that this Motion and my statements are made in good faith and that a copy of this Motion has been served on the Honorable Jeri Beth Cohen, hand-delivered to Judge Cohen’s chambers, on August 20, 2008.<br /><br />I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and exact copies of the foregoing were forwarded by electronic mail, facsimile and/or U.S. Mail on August 20, 2008 to all parties on the attached Service List.<br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br />18652 Ocean Mist Drive<br />Boca Raton, Florida 33498<br />Telephone: 561-488-2740<br />Facsimile: 561-488-2861<br /><br /><br /> <br />By: _____________________<br /> Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> SERVICE LIST<br /><br /><br />Robert M. Klein, Esq.<br />Stephens Lynn Klein<br />Two Datran Center<br />Penthouse II<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Two Datran Center<br />Suite 1612<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, P.A.<br />2525 Ponce de Leon<br />9th Floor<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33134<br /><br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />Josephs, Jack & Miranda<br />P.O. Box 330519<br />Miami, Florida 33233<br /><br />John B. Thompson, Esq.<br />1172 South Dixie Highway<br />Suite 111<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33145<br /><br />Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br />805 George Bush Boulevard<br />Delray Beach, Florida 33483Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-6313132864057115942008-08-27T17:46:00.000-07:002008-08-27T18:07:14.204-07:00Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge Jeri Beth CohenIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY<br /><br />GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION<br /><br />NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15<br />MERYL LANSON, and <br />BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida <br />Corporation, <br /><br />Plaintiffs, <br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ.,<br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, MARK <br />COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A., <br />a Florida Professional Association,<br />SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and <br />MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, <br /><br />Defendants.<br />_______________________________________/<br /><br />PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION<br /><br />COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, files this Motion to Disqualify <br /><br />the Honorable Judge Jeri Beth Cohen Pursuant to Fla. Statute 38.10 and Fla. R. Jud. Adm. Rule 2.330, and as grounds for the Motion, Plaintiff alleges the following:<br />1. 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.<br /> <br />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.<br />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. <br />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.<br />4. At the Status Conference, 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. <br />5. The following is from the Transcript of the May 30, 2008 hearing:<br />Page 11 - Line 15 through Page 12 - Line 7 and Page 54 - Line 17 through Page 55 -<br />Line 4 : (Exhibit “A”)<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />So that’s another reason why we need Ms. Salkin’s deposition.<br /><br />Mr. Klein: When was this filed?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: It was filed this morning.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: In essence, this motion is denied?<br /><br />The Court: It is denied without prejudice.<br /><br />6. After the May 30, 2008 status conference, Plaintiff, Meryl Lanson, on June 2, 2008, filed her Motion to Disqualify and/or Recuse The Honorable Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, along with a supporting Affidavit. <br />7. On June 10, 2008, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen denied Plaintiff’s Motion. <br />8. On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson filed a Verified New Motion to Disqualify which was denied on July 7, 2008.<br />9. 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. <br />10. 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.<br />11. After the May 30, 2008 status conference, Plaintiff’s disability deteriorated as a result of this Court’s unfair treatment of Plaintiff and obvious bias.<br />12. Because of this 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.<br />13. 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. <br />14. Plaintiff holds this Court, professionally and individually, responsible for the exacerbation of her disability. This Court has violated Plaintiff’s requested and reasonable accommodations under the ADA. In fact, this Court, at the July 16, 2008 ADA hearing, granted the requested accommodations, and at that same hearing, this Court, itself, further violated the most crucial accommodation requested of by Plaintiff as stated in the ADA Report:<br /><br />Accommodations needed:<br /><br />5) Meryl Lanson needs all misinformation immediately corrected on the record. The feeling of helplessness and disorientation sustained when misinformation jeopardizes the trier of fact in the critical job of making a fair decision, greatly exacerbates PTSD. It is the ultimate trauma placing a person in jeopardy and keeping them helpless. Meryl Lanson must be able to rely on the facts to determine the court’s decisions. Meryl Lanson will provide substantiation of any misinformation to be corrected and will limit it to critically pertinent information that would prevent the trier of fact from a fair and true judgment. <br />15. One of the accommodations that Plaintiff 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.<br />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 14 - Line 17:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: A change of venue?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: Yes.<br /><br />The Court: You mean to another city?<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: I don’t know. I don’t know. Haven’t - -<br />I don’t know what you mean by a change of venue. Out of the state of Florida?<br /><br />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.<br />She did not report you to the J.Q.C. for violation of the judicial canons that you acknowledged that - - <br /><br />The Court Reporter: I am sorry. That you acknowledge - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: That you acknowledged - - <br />You acknowledged that there was fraud on the Court. We filed a motion to strike.<br /><br />The Court: I don’t remember acknowledging - -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: They - -<br /><br />The Court: Ms. Lanson, I really need to stop you.<br />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 - - <br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: Excuse me.<br />Your Honor did not read the entire motion because it was given to you the day of the hearing.<br /><br />The Court: I am telling you that I did.<br /><br />Ms. Gwynn: No. You didn’t read it.<br />Okay. She, she filed it on May 30 in the morning.<br /><br />The Court: Ms. Lanson, I understand - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: This is the reason - - <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You have –<br /> <br />You are the ones that have exacerbated my situation to such a degree - - <br /><br />The Court: Well, I am sorry about that.<br />And we have - - <br />We are moving forward. I am sorry you feel that way. But you were not running the proceedings here. I am.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Judge, forgive me.<br />She handed you the motion and you denied it within three seconds. You didn’t read it.<br /><br />17. 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. <br /> <br />18. 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:<br /><br />Page 21- Line 9 through Page 31 - Line 17:<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: The concern I have is, is, is the level of trust that is lost with Ms. Lanson. <br /><br />The Court: I understand. But I can’t do, can’t do anything about that. She was suing her lawyer.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: But you can. You can.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: It isn’t unprecedented in this kind of litigation where people - -<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Well, perhaps. But not in my experience.<br /><br />The Court: Okay. Well - - <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: It’s unprecedented. <br /><br />The Court. Okay.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: No. That is your conception. That’s your perception of this.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: There is a ten year longitudinal study of litigants - -<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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? <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I don’t understand what you are saying.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer. Oh. This is excellent.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Her syndrome has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />The Court: No. But say it feeds her, into - - <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I say it depends.<br /> <br />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 - - <br />may misperceive, may be anxious - - <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: It’s a psychiatric injury. It’s a normal - - It’s a normal human being that has experienced abnormal circumstances.<br /><br />The Court: Okay. It’s a psychiatric injury.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: A Judge - - Hold on. Hold on. A Judge needs to be able to say:<br />“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.”<br /><br /> <br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: But I am the Judge of what the evidence is, you see.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Right.<br /><br />The Court: You see. You want her - - You want to allow her to control this process.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: No. No. No. Access to evidence. In other words, full discovery, full everything. <br /><br />The Court: We will get her that. <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: That is important.<br /><br />The Court: We will get her that. But I can’t say:<br />“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.” <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: But she is never to be invalidated due to P.T.S.D.<br /><br />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 –<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Well, you have caused me great stress today already, Your Honor.<br /><br />The Court: I am sorry.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Well, that - - That’s a big problem for me.<br /><br />The Court: I am sorry I cause you, caused you stress.<br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: You caused me stress because you weren’t honest about that fraud, striking of the fraud. <br /><br />The Court: You see. That is a misperception.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: That isn’t a misperception.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: It isn’t, Judge. Let me just say one thing and then I would like to leave if I may.<br /><br />The Court: Oh, please. Go ahead. Yeah.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The Court: Uh-huh.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The Court: Well, I am sorry for that Mr. Thompson.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Judge, here you go, you go - - Here you go again - - <br /><br />The Court: Anything else?<br /> <br />Mr. Thompson: You, you - - You have made comments not only in this case, but other cases that reflect a lack of judicial temperate - - <br /><br />The Court: Mr. Thompson, do you have anything else to say before you leave - - <br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Yeah. <br /><br />The Court: - - decide to go?<br /><br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: That’s fine.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: And you do it in other cases.<br /><br />The Court: Mr. Thompson - - <br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Thank you, Judge.<br /><br />The Court: That is fine.<br /><br />Mr. Thompson: Thank you. I am going to leave before you give me P.T.S.D.<br /> <br />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 - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: I want to leave now. <br /><br />The Court: - - a personal video camera or what? How can we do - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Your Honor, I can’t - - I can’t continue with you. I filed a lawsuit against you in federal court yesterday. <br /><br />The Court: Okay. That’s fine. You can do that.<br /><br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: You caused this hearing.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: You can accept service from me or you can have a process server serve - -<br /><br />The Court: You can serve me formally and I will give it to the attorney general. That’s fine. <br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: Okay.<br /><br />The Court: Okay.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: There are two copies of what was filed yesterday. <br /><br />The Court: You can do whatever you want, Ms. Lanson.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: Have the process server serve you - - <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />19. Continuing an exchange on Page 40- Line 1 through Page 43 -Line 16:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Right.<br /><br />The Court: You know, so I have - - <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Just so you are aware.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: And we have a playing field which I haven’t had for ten years.<br /><br />The Court: Well, I can’t go back. I wasn’t here then. You know, I am certain - -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Well, you have tried to or you have recused several other Judges in the past. And I am not the Judge - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: No. I haven’t recused several other Judges in the past.<br /><br />The Court: Well, somebody has asked my - - <br /><br />Ms. Lanson: That’s Crespo. He recused himself because he entered into ex-parte communications with one of the attorneys. <br /><br />The Court: That is right.<br /><br />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 (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. <br /><br />The Court: All right. Well - - <br /> <br />Ms. Lanson: I really want to leave. I - - I need to leave.<br />The Court: All right. Maybe you can help me go through the rest of these.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: You want me to?<br /><br />Ms. Lanson: No. I don’t trust this Judge. <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: All right.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: Okay. <br /> <br />20. 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. <br />Page 46 - Line 19 - Page 47 - Line 21:<br /><br />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 - - <br /><br />The Court: That’s - - <br /><br />Ms. Huffer: - - and everybody follows the same rules then I believe we shouldn’t have any problem. <br />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. <br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />The Court: I will be very, very careful to make sure that all the rules apply equally to everybody.<br /><br />21. Again, after Plaintiff left, the following prejudicial statements and obvious bias was expressed by the court.<br />Page 50 - Line 5 through Page 51 - Line 20:<br /><br />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. <br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I am happy.<br />And we are substituting for misinformation that you will see that the rules are clearly - - <br /><br />The Court: Correct.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: - - stated and followed and you will inform her - - <br />The Court: That’s fair.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: - - particularly?<br /><br />The Court: That’s fair. That’s fair. That’s fair.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: Okay.<br /> <br />22. 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.<br />23. To further show the prejudice the Plaintiff has received the following exchange, on the record, speaks for itself.<br />Page 53 - Line 25 through Page 54 - Line 1:<br />Mr. Klein(counsel for defendant Kopplow): Well, I don’t want to communicate directly with a pro se litigant.<br />24. A clear example of this Court’s protection of the defense can be shown by the following exchange:<br />Page 54 - Lines 2 - 18:<br /><br />The Court: Hold on. I heard what you were saying. <br />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. <br />You know, quite frankly, Ms. Huffer, I don’t need this aggravation. I don’t need federal lawsuits filed against me. <br />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.<br /><br />Page 57 - Lines 11 - 13:<br /><br />The Court: Because they see that she is filing a federal lawsuit, you know, things like that. And its scares them. <br /><br />25. Page 57 - Line 24 through Page 58 - Line 20:<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: I said the picture being drawn here is of a person that is manipulating the situation, that is emotionally unstable. <br />It’s easy to discredit her under those kind of characterizations. I think if I understand Ms. Lanson well - -<br />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. <br />If we keep focused on the issue and not anything about the personality or what they said or what they did or nay of that I believe we can avoid all of that. That will be my training with her.<br /><br />The Court: Ms. Huffer, if you can get her focused that way a lot of this will go away.<br /><br />Ms. Huffer: That’s exactly what will happen. <br /><br />26. Page 60 - Line 15 through Page 61 - Line :<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The Court: I can’t recuse myself in every case where somebody says, you know:<br />“Maybe I don’t trust you. Maybe I don’t like you.”<br />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. <br /><br /> <br />27. Ms. Waldman-Ross, defense counsel for Marc Cooper, Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission, has violated her duties to the Court and to the JQC. Plaintiff has made that known as part of the public records and on the internet. Plaintiff has provided copies of all correspondence, in that regard, directly to Ms. Waldman-Ross. Plaintiff is not manipulative and has no hidden agenda. All Plaintiff wants is the truth to be known and the court to seek the truth before it rules.<br />On Page 79 - Lines 16 - 21, Ms. Waldman-Ross expressed the following about the Plaintiff.<br /><br />Ms. Ross: Judge, I am listening.<br />She can say the - - Ms. Lanson can say the most horrific, untrue, patently untrue - - this is part of the problem - - patently untrue statements about everybody in this room.<br /><br />28. Plaintiff has never made an untrue statement about anyone in these proceedings. Plaintiff has always conducted herself and her life with the utmost integrity and prides herself in <br />her credibility. Those remarks by Ms. Ross are defaming and are lies. If Ms. Ross continues to maintain that posture and those beliefs about the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff will demand that Ms. Ross bring to the attention of the Plaintiff and the Court all of “the most horrific and patently untrue statements” that Ms. Ross has accused Plaintiff of making during these proceedings. <br />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)<br /><br /><br /> <br />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.<br />WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests this Court to immediately disqualify herself, and to stay all proceedings, until the issues raised in the Plaintiff’s Motion have been decided.<br /><br />CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br /><br />I, MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se, Movant, HEREBY CERTIFY that this Motion and my statements are made in good faith and that a copy of this Motion has been served on the Honorable Jeri Beth Cohen, hand-delivered to Judge Cohen’s chambers, on August 20, 2008.<br /><br />I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and exact copies of the foregoing were forwarded by electronic mail, facsimile and/or U.S. Mail on August 20, 2008 to all parties on the attached Service List.<br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br />18652 Ocean Mist Drive<br />Boca Raton, Florida 33498<br />Telephone: 561-488-2740<br />Facsimile: 561-488-2861<br /><br /><br /> <br />By: _____________________<br /> Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> SERVICE LIST<br /><br /><br />Robert M. Klein, Esq.<br />Stephens Lynn Klein<br />Two Datran Center<br />Penthouse II<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Two Datran Center<br />Suite 1612<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, P.A.<br />2525 Ponce de Leon<br />9th Floor<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33134<br /><br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />Josephs, Jack & Miranda<br />P.O. Box 330519<br />Miami, Florida 33233<br /><br />John B. Thompson, Esq.<br />1172 South Dixie Highway<br />Suite 111<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33145<br /><br />Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br />805 George Bush Boulevard<br />Delray Beach, Florida 33483Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-76339162333275865962008-08-04T15:08:00.000-07:002008-08-04T15:09:56.445-07:00Karin Huffer.letter to Meryl Lanson July 2008KARIN HUFFER, M.S., M.F.T.<br />Email: legalabuse@gmail.com Tel. 702.528.9588 www.legalabusesyndrome.org<br />Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082<br />3236 Mountain Spring Road. Las Vegas, NV 89146<br /><br /><br />July 18, 2008<br /><br /><br /><br />Mrs. Meryl Lanson<br />Boca Raton, Florida 33498<br /><br />Dear Meryl:<br /><br />After witnessing what transpired at the July 16, 2008 state court hearing, and the physical and emotional impact that resulted therefrom, it is my professional recommendation that you refrain from any additional litigation that may further exacerbate your PTSD/LAS symptoms. Considering what you said at the hearing regarding the professional connections tied to the Florida Bar and its insurance carrier, it is my advice that, at this time, you withdraw your previously filed complaint against The Florida Bar, et al.<br /><br />Very truly yours,<br /><br />Karin Huffer, M.S., M.F.T.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-15981468289090080272008-07-18T17:42:00.000-07:002008-07-18T17:43:19.391-07:00Abuse of JQC Special Counsel, Lauri Waldman RossJuly 11, 2008<br /><br /><br />CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED<br /><br />Office of Governor Charlie Crist <br />State of Florida <br />The Capitol<br />400 South Monroe Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001<br /><br />Re: Denial of Disability Accommodations and Abuse of JQC Special Counsel, Lauri Waldman Ross’ Position in Order to Obtain an Unfair Advantage in Litigation<br /><br />Dear Governor Crist:<br /><br />I am a disabled citizen of Florida. My disability is classified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The cause is considered Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS). My disability stems from protracted litigation and has been verified by two licensed medical professionals as such. The Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) arises, when in the judicial process, unfair and manipulative tactics create an abusive and unfair power differential. In this case misinformation, lack of candor, and outright lying are used by opposition counsel along with sleight of hand behind the scenes. My life is held in terror and jeopardy while these abuses hold me helpless to have my case heard in a fair court in Florida. The attached Report has been provided to the ADA Site Coordinator at each court hearing our case.<br /><br />This is precisely what has been transpiring in the legal malpractice action that my 76-year old husband, my company, Baron's Stores, Inc., and I have against three Florida attorneys which has been in Miami Dade Circuit Court since 1999. I ask for reasonable accommodations which are granted on their face and then find that the Judge denies my basic due process rights rendering my Accommodations moot. This is an underhanded way of using my disability against me without it showing in the paperwork. I am in a war of attrition with powerful entities that connect behind the scenes and block my path to fair and unbiased decisions at every turn for more than ten years.<br /><br />As the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Florida, as a member of The Florida Bar, I am writing to you, for the third time, regarding a matter of great public importance that has a direct bearing on the citizens of this state whom you are duty bound to protect. I am one of those citizens who have notified you, now for the third time, regarding Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq., Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission.<br /><br /><br />Governor Crist, you must understand how difficult it is to sue an attorney in general. Nevertheless, it was easy for us to retain counsel to pursue the damages we suffered as a result of three attorneys negligence which caused the destruction of a fifty two year old family business, the unemployment of two hundred Florida citizens, and the financial and emotional devastation to my family. What has been difficult is having attorneys stay on board to see the case through to its just results. One need look no further than the role The Florida Bar and its connections, and the pressure that it could exert on attorneys, have played in this particular litigation. In this instant case, opposition counsel is Lauri Waldman Ross, who is defending attorney Marc Cooper, my adversary, who routinely commits fraud upon the court. This is also to put you on notice what powerful strategy The Florida Bar personnel use behind the scenes by involving Ms. Ross in this litigation considering that The Florida Bar's improperly created malpractice insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual, insures Mr. Cooper. The Bar’s created insurance company promises to protect insider lawyers who insure with them.<br /><br />I have expressed my position on this inherent conflict of interest between The Florida Bar and Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company for years. My website - www.victimsofthesystem.org, and my blogs, www.fraudonthecourt.blogspot.com and www.baronslansonlitigation.blogspot.com outline in detail the detrimental and prejudicial effects such a relationship has on the unsuspecting public. <br /><br />Ms. Ross maintains a very influential position with the JQC. An insider influential position, that according to the cover story in the Daily Business Review published on December 3, 2007, “Behind the JQC curtain,” the article opens “Its members consist of top lawyers, judges and businessmen from across the state. They operate in secret and even retain former FBI and U.S. Secret Service agents to help with investigations. In private visits behind closed doors, they warn errant judges that they are being watched, so they'd better conform to the code of judicial conduct or face the consequences. They are known as the JQC - three letters that are whispered throughout the halls of justice and, at least its members claim, strike fear in the hearts of judges everywhere.” In the same article it states - The fear of appearing before the JQC helps keep judges conforming to the code, said JQC members. “There are three letters a judge never wants to see or hear and that's the 'J-Q-C,' said Broward Circuit Judge Paul Backman, a JQC member. They don't want to be in front of the JQC, they don't want in any way to be known by the JQC, and if someone makes a mistake that needs to be addressed and corrected, they usually get the message very quickly.” <br /><br />What sets our case apart from the normal protocol is the presence of Lauri Waldman Ross and her position with the JQC. In our litigation the rules and the laws are ignored to favor the defendants, their counsel, having the full cooperation of a sitting judge up for re-election. The defendants and their counsel have knowingly brought fraudulent documents into our litigation. They have refused to remove them in violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Judge Cohen has full knowledge of the fraudulent documents and has taken no action to report the defendants and their counsel to the proper authorities in violation of Judicial Canons. Lauri Waldman Ross has not taken appropriate action by bringing this to the attention of the JQC because her client, and others, benefit by the fraud on the court. <br /><br />This is not the first time Ms. Ross has used her position to improperly influence a Judge in this litigation. In 2005, Ms. Ross secured a partial summary judgment from a terminally ill Judge, Manny Crespo, who was on the case for two days, inapposite to the facts and to the law. She secured this partial summary judgment full well knowing that the Judge, Norman Gerstein, who presided over this case for six years, stated at a hearing immediately prior to his transfer to another division that the damages Ms. Ross was able to secure summary judgment on from Judge Crespo were individual damages belonging to me and my husband. She knew what she was doing was a violation of the rules and the law, and she did it with the intent to continue to deprive my husband and me what is rightfully ours according to legal precedent.<br /><br />At a status conference held on May 30, 2008, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen degraded me, denied me discovery pursuant to the fraudulent documents and denied the Motion to Strike for Fraud on the Court without even glancing at the Motion. It was after that hearing, whereby my PTSD/LAS exacerbated to such a degree that I could not function, could not get out of bed and was consumed with such dire thoughts that I had to seek treatment by a psychiatrist who immediately placed me on daily medication. Furthermore, Judge Cohen deprived me of my full rights to continue to represent myself, Pro Se, in violation of F.S. 454.18.<br /><br />Attached, to this letter is a copy of my ADA Report. Both the Federal Court and the State Court, in addition to the defendants and their counsel, have been provided with this Report since as early as March, 2008. After being put on notice of Requested Accommodations, both the Court and Lauri Waldman Ross have ignored my requests and have actually exacerbated my symptoms as stated above. I am putting the State on notice, through your office, that I am requesting the attached ADA Accommodations be granted to me immediately. I am entitled to these accommodations in order for me to secure a “level playing field” which is built on my rights to due process being properly granted. In that regard I ask you to exercise your Executive Powers and see to it that a change of venue in this case is granted immediately, free of all appearances of conflicts of interest pertaining to The Florida Bar, its members, its officers, the JQC, and its created malpractice insurance company, Florida Lawyers Mutual. My health has been in danger for these past ten years due to preventable traumatic experiences perpetrated by the insider connections surrounding this legal malpractice case.<br /><br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson<br /><br />cc: Brooke Kennerly, Executive Director - Judicial Qualifications Commission<br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Media <br /><br />Enclosures: ADA Accommodations Report<br />Daily Business ReviewArticle Dated December 3, 2007 “Behind the JQC Curtain”Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-1933438214846555502008-06-21T20:54:00.001-07:002008-06-21T20:54:38.014-07:00Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission - Lauri Waldman RossJune 17, 2008<br /><br />CERTIFIED MAIL<br />RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED<br /><br />Office of Governor Charlie Crist <br />State of Florida <br />The Capitol<br />400 South Monroe Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001<br /><br />Re: Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission - Lauri Waldman Ross<br /><br />Dear Governor Crist:<br /><br />On June 9, 2008, I obtained confirmation that you received my letter dated June 5, 2008 regarding my Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission - Lauri Waldman Ross. I have enclosed another copy of that letter for your ready review.<br /><br />It has now come to my attention that Lauri Waldman Ross has been selected as a candidate for your consideration to the Judicial Nominating Commission. I have enclosed a copy of that information taken from The Florida Bar News dated June 15, 2008.<br /><br />This letter will serve to voice my strenuous objection to her appointment given the graveman of her wrongdoing as outlined in my previous correspondence.<br /><br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson<br /><br /><br />Enclosures: As stated herein.<br /><br />cc: <br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director JQC<br />Florida House of Representatives - Judiciary CommitteeNorthern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-75148774583739886902008-06-13T16:19:00.001-07:002008-06-13T16:21:14.045-07:00Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission -Lauri Waldman RossJune 5, 2008<br /><br /><br />Office of Governor Charlie Crist <br />State of Florida <br />The Capitol<br />400 South Monroe Street<br />Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001<br /><br />Re: Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission -<br />Lauri Waldman Ross<br /><br />Dear Governor Crist:<br /><br />This is a letter of complaint about Special Counsel to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, Lauri Waldman Ross. Ms. Ross represents attorney Marc Cooper in the defense of a legal malpractice lawsuit, Case No. 99-21062 CA 15, brought on behalf of myself, my husband, Norman Lanson, and our corporation, Baron’s Stores, Inc. The Honorable Jeri Beth Cohen is now presiding over the case.<br /><br />On February 4, 2008, Ms. Ross joined in a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of her client. The Motion for Summary Judgment is supported by two documents entitled First Amended Plan of Liquidation and First Amended Disclosure Statement. I hired a Forensic Document Expert who has sworn, under oath, that these documents are falsified documents. On May 15, 2008, I filed the Forensic Document Expert Report in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County. All interested parties received the Expert Report, including Ms. Ross. Ms. Ross has not obtained an opposite opinion from any other expert, nor has she attempted to refute the Plaintiffs’ Expert’s finding. Additionally, the defendants, Ms. Ross, and defendants co-counsels, have not withdrawn their Motion supported by these falsified documents.<br /><br />This submission of, and continued reliance on, a falsified document, is a violation of the following Florida Bar Rule:<br /><br />Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal states:<br /><br />False evidence: Upon ascertaining that material evidence is false, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered, or, if it has been offered that its false character should immediately be disclosed. If the persuasion is ineffective, the lawyer must take remedial measures. If necessary to rectify the situation, an advocate must disclose the existence of the client’s deception to the court. If perjured testimony or false evidence has been offered, the advocate’s proper course ordinarily is to remonstrate with the client confidentially. If that fails, the advocate should seek to withdraw if that will remedy the situation. If withdrawal will not remedy the situation or is impossible and the advocate determines that disclosure is the only measure that will avert fraud on the court the advocate should make disclosure to the court.<br /><br />Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) prohibits a lawyer from offering false evidence and requires the lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures when false material evidence has been offered.<br /><br />Rule 4-3.4(b) prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness to testify falsely.<br /><br />Ms. Ross is Special Counsel to the Judicial Qualifications Commission. She cannot sit on that Commission, in my opinion, and violate the above-noted rules.<br /><br />Ms. Ross has ensnarled Judge Jeri Beth Cohen by inducing Judge Cohen to have violated Judicial Canons in support of her client, Marc Cooper, and the other attorney defendants. Judge Cohen has been fully briefed by the Plaintiffs as to the falsified documents.<br /><br />Canon 3D(2) states:<br />A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action. <br /><br />Judge Cohen has actual knowledge of the submission of the documents and has actual knowledge of an Expert Report claiming the documents are falsified. Judge Cohen has violated the Judicial Canons. <br /><br />As Governor of the State of Florida, your power is described in Article IV, Section 7 of the State Constitution:<br /><br />Article V, Section 12, of the State Constitution creates the JQC and specifies:<br />Members who are not judges may be removed through the Governor’s power to suspend public officials in certain instances. <br /><br />As you know, you have the power to suspend a non-judge member of the JQC, in certain instances. This may be one of those instances, and I urge you to conclude that it is, and remove Ms. Ross immediately from the JQC because of her ethical misconduct which has now involved a sitting judge. <br /><br />Respectfully submitted,<br /><br /><br /><br />Meryl M. Lanson<br /><br />Enclosures: <br />Motion for Summary Judgment <br />First Amended Plan of Liquidation <br />First Amended Disclosure Statement<br />Expert Witness Report by Michael G. Kessler <br /><br />cc: Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq. (w/o enclosures as already in Ms. Ross’ possession)<br />Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director JQC (with enclosures)Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-7827327074318412732008-06-12T18:23:00.000-07:002008-06-12T18:35:37.583-07:00Motion to Strike Def's Mtn Summ JgmtIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY<br /><br />GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION<br /><br />NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 99-21062 CA 15<br />MERYL LANSON, and <br />BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida <br />Corporation, <br /><br />Plaintiffs, <br /><br />vs.<br /><br />RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ.,<br />KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, MARK <br />COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A., <br />a Florida Professional Association,<br />SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ., and <br />MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A., a Florida <br />Professional Association, <br /><br /> Defendants.<br />_______________________________________/<br /><br />PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY “BARON’S <br />STORES, INC.”… FILED FEBRUARY 8, 2008, FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT<br /><br /> COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, Baron’s Stores, Inc., Norman Lanson, by and through their undersigned counsel, and Meryl Lanson, Pro Se, files their Motion to Strike the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by “Baron’s Stores, Inc.”… filed on February 8, 2008, for Fraud on the Court, and further states: <br />1. Attached as Exhibit “1” is a copy of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by “Baron’s Stores, Inc.”… . <br /><br />2. Attached to the Defendants’ Motion as Exhibit “B”, is the First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation of Debtor and Committee, and as Exhibit “D”, is the First Amended Joint Disclosure Statement of Debtor and Committee. Both Exhibits “B and D” have been modified, altered, mutilated, and/or falsified, as they are not identical copies of the original documents signed by Norman Lanson, nor authorized by the Plaintiffs in the Bankruptcy Court. <br /><br />3. The first time the Plaintiffs became aware of the fraudulent documents was on February 4, 2008, when the Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. The only Plan of Liquidation and Disclosure Statement known to the Plaintiffs were the original Plan and Disclosure Statements dated July, 1998. (Exhibit “2 and 3”)<br /><br />4. The Defendants are attempting to use the fraudulent documents, Exhibits “1B” and “1D”, as legal support for their Motion for Summary Judgment. More specifically, at Page 7 of the Motion, the Defendants present the following argument: <br />C. The Liquidating Plan Did Not Provide for the Retention and Enforcement of the Instant Legal Malpractice Claims By New Baron’s<br /><br /> The Confirmed Liquidating Plan filed by Old Baron’s and the Committee did not provide for the retention or enforcement of the instant legal malpractice claims by New Baron’s (or by any other person or entity). <br /><br />1. The Liquidating Plan Does Not Even Disclose The Existence of the Claims<br /><br />Neither the Liquidating Plan, the accompanying Disclosure Statement , nor the confirmation Order even mentions the possible existence of these claims, let alone their “retention and enforcement.”<br /><br /> The Liquidating Plan does contain the following generic provision in Article IX: <br /><br /> Pursuant to Section 1123(b)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the post-Confirmation Debtor shall retain and may enforce any and all claims of the Debtor and/or the Debtor, as debtor-in-possession, including the Morrison Litigation Rights and other Bankruptcy Claims , except such claims as are waived, relinquished or released in accordance with the Plan.<br /><br />This general language -- which does not put creditors on notice of the nature, value, or even the existence of the subject legal malpractice claims, -- is insufficient, as a matter of law, to preserve the claims asserted in this action by New Baron’s. (Exhibit “1”)<br /><br />The Defendants’ are attempting to use a fraudulent document to gain an unfair advantage in this litigation, which warrants sanctions. <br /><br />5. The Plaintiffs strongly disagree with Defendants’ assertions that Plaintiff’s did not properly preserve their malpractice claim, as the only Joint Plan of Liquidation and Disclosure ever signed by the Plaintiff, Norman Lanson, included negotiated and stipulated language under Article 16 - Exculpation, and Section X of the Joint Disclosure Statement. (See Exhibits “2 and 3”) Article 16 was a negotiated stipulation agreed to by the parties that provided notice of future litigation such as this instant legal malpractice action. (See Exhibit 4 - Affidavit of Meryl Lanson, and Exhibit “5” - Affidavit of Norman Lanson)<br /><br />6. Clearly, the stipulated Exculpation Clause/Reservation of Rights Clause is specifically directed to claims against the attorneys. <br />“for any act or omission in connection with, or arising out of, the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, the Plan, including without limitation, the negotiation, formulation, preparation, confirmation, or consummation of the Plan, the Disclosure Statement, any sale of assets pursuant to the Plan, or any contract, instrument, release or other agreement, document, or election made, created or entered into in connection with the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, the Plan, any sale of assets pursuant to the Plan or the funds to be distributed under the plan, and/or the administration of the Debtor’s bankruptcy case.” (Exhibit “2 - 3”)<br /><br />7. On a closer look at the Defendants’ Exhibit “1B” and Exhibit “1D”, it is easy to tell, for even a lay person, that the document has been altered or modified as follows: <br /> <br />there are duplicative page numbers, such as two pages numbered 24 and 25; the first page 25 stops in the middle of a sentence and the remaining page is blank; and a variety of the dates at the footer of the documents are inconsistent, evidencing an altered document. (Exhibit #1-B and #1-D)<br /><br />8. The Plaintiffs have hired an Independent Expert Fraud Examiner, who submitted his Verified Statement, that in his professional opinion, the First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation of Debtor and Committee and the First Amended Joint Disclosure Statement of Debtor and Creditors Committee were both altered, modified, falsified and/or forged documents. (Exhibit “6A” - Expert’s opinion)<br /><br /><strong>Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion <br />for Summary Judgment as to all Claims Brought by “Baron’s Stores, Inc.”…</strong><br /><br />“Bankruptcy petition is a legal nullity if the signature on the petition is forged, even if the party forging the signature had a Power of Attorney,…” In re Washington, 297 B.R. 662 (S.D. Fla. 2003); In re Brown, 163 B.R. 596, 598 (N.D. Fla. 1993); In re Harrison, 158 B.R. 246, 248 (M.D. Fla. 1993). <br /> Likewise in Baron’s, Norman Lanson, the Officer of the Debtor, never signed the First Amended Plan of Liquidation and Disclosure Statement filed in the bankruptcy court. Therefore, it is a legal nullity as it lacked any legal authority to bind the Debtor. A false document cannot be relied on for any purpose whatsoever. No one can legitimize a falsified document by a signature. <br />The Plaintiffs do not know at whose hand(s) the documents were falsified but the Court can only surmise from the facts and the circumstances that the only parties that could have falsified the documents were the attorneys who had care, custody and control of the documents submitted to the court. Therefore, it is incumbent upon this Court to allow discovery and conduct an investigation to determine who the responsible party or parties were and fashion a remedy appropriate to the situation. The Defendants have “unclean” hands and should not be allowed to benefit from a forged, fraudulent document. “It should be noted that a litigant’s destruction or alteration of evidence harmful to that litigant may naturally give rise to an unfavorable inference against the litigant. As Judge Learned Hand observed: ‘When a party is once found to be fabricating or suppressing documents, the natural, indeed, the inevitable conclusion is that he has something to conceal, and is conscious of guilt.’ ” Warner Barnes & Co. v. Kokosai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, 102 F.2d 450, 453 (2nd Cir.) modified 103 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. 1939).; Trammel v. Bass, 672 So.2d 78 (1st DCA 1996) <br />“Federal [and State] Courts have the inherent power to dismiss an action for misconduct that abuses the judicial process and threatens the integrity of the process - including misconduct unrelated to the merits of the case.” Vargas v. Peltz, 901 F.Supp 1572 (S.D. Fla. 1995); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633, 82 S.Ct 1386, 1390, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).<br /> “Litigants must know that the courts are not open to persons who would seek justice by fraudulent means.” Vargas, supra. <br />“Dismissal is appropriate where:<br />a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense. ….<br />See Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118 (cause of action dismissed for “fraud on [sic] the court” where plaintiff attached a bogus agreement [sic] to the complaint). The undisputed evidence presented to the Court establishes that such a fraud has been perpetrated here by Plaintiff and her husband Gerardo Vargas justifying imposition of the sanction of dismissal with prejudice and related sanctions.” <br /><br /> Fraudulent means a fraud upon the court was perpetrated and accordingly, the action was dismissed with prejudice. <br />In McDowell v. Seaboard Farms of Athens, Inc., Not reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 684140 (M.D.Fla.), the Court held: <br />“A party commits “fraud upon the court” when clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that<br /><br />a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense. <br /><br />Vargas, 901 F.Supp at 1579 (citing Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118)<br /><br />When a party fabricates evidence purporting to substantiate its claims, Federal case law is well established that dismissal is appropriate. See Vargas 901 F.Supp. at 1581; Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118; Pope, 138 F.R.D. at 682-83 (involuntary dismissal of the case because plaintiff submitted a fabricated document); TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987) (default entered as a result of defendant’s elaborate scheme involving perjury designed to deceive the court); Sun World, 144 F.R.D. at 390 (default entered because plaintiff submitted false document and committed perjury in furtherance of the fraud on the court); Eppes v. Snowden, 656 F.Supp. 1267, 1279 (E.D. Ky. 1986) (as a result of defendant’s committing fraud on the court by submitting “backdated” letters, defendant’s answer and counterclaim were stricken.)”<br /><br />Striking Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as striking <br />Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses is a proper remedy.<br /><br />Defendants, as officers of the Court, knowingly submitted a forged or altered document to the Court, which warrants striking the Defendants’ pleadings. Trammel v. Bass, 672 So.2d 78 (1st DCA 1996). <br />In Trammel, the defendants attached a video tape as support for their motion for summary judgment, but excluded a critical portion of the video tape that directly contradicted the defendant’s position and deposition testimony. As a sanction, the Plaintiff, Bass, sought to have the defendant, Trammel’s answer stricken and a default judgment entered against him. <br />The defendant Trammel withdrew his motion for summary judgment and the cause proceeded on plaintiff’s hearing on sanctions. Eventually, the trial court struck defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses and entered a default. <br />On appeal, the appellate court found that a trial court has inherent authority to impose severe sanctions when fraud has been perpetrated on the court. (Id. Pg. 8) Tri-Star Investments, Inc. v. Miele, 407 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981); Harold v. Computer Components International, Inc., 252 so.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). <br />The appellate court in Trammel affirmed the trial court’s sanction in striking the defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses and entering a default judgment upon the following: <br />“The most severe in the spectrum of sanctions… must be available… in appropriate case, not merely to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a detriment. A drastic sanction that denies the availability of the court’s process is therefore appropriate to one who defiles the judicial system by committing a fraud upon the court.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115 (Fla. 1st Circ. 1989) (claim dismissed for fraud upon the court where plaintiff attached a bogus agreement [sic] to the complaint.)<br /><br /> What is beyond comprehension is that these three defendants, officers of the court, being represented by officers of the court, did not immediately withdraw their Motion for Summary Judgment upon notification from a Forensic Expert that the documents they rely upon to support their Summary Judgment are falsified. <br /><br />Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal states:<br /><br />False evidence: Upon ascertaining that material evidence is false, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered, or,if it has been offered that its false character should immediately be disclosed. If the persuasion is ineffective, the lawyer must take remedial measures. If necessary to rectify the situation, an advocate must disclose the existence of the client’s deception to the court. Such a disclosure can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process that the adversary system is designed to implement. If perjured testimony or false evidence has been offered, the advocate’s proper course ordinarily is to remonstrate with the client confidentially. If that fails, the advocate should seek to withdraw if that will remedy the situation. If withdrawal will not remedy the situation or is impossible and the advocate determines that disclosure is the only measure that will avert a fraud on the court the advocate <br />should make disclosure to the court. <br /> <br />Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits the lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent.<br /><br />Rule 4-3.4(b) prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness to testify falsely.<br /><br />Rule 4-8.4(a) prohibits the lawyer from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so.<br /><br />Rule 4-8.4(b) prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.<br /><br />Rule 4-8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.<br /><br />Rule 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.<br /><br />Rule 4-1.6(b) requires a lawyer to reveal information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a client from committing a crime.<br /><br />Rule 4-3.3(a)(2) requires a lawyer to reveal a material fact to the tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.<br /><br />Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) prohibits a lawyer from offering false evidence and requires the lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures when false material evidence has been offered.<br /><br />Rule 4-1.16 prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law and permits the lawyer to withdraw from representation if the client persists in a course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent or repugnant or imprudent. <br /><br /><br />This egregious conduct is all the more heinous because the perpetrators are “officers of the court.” Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So.2d 337 (Fla.App. Dist.3 09/05/2001). <br /><br />In Leo’s Gulf Liquors, the Court, stated in its ANALYSIS:<br /> <br />Plaintiff refers us to trial manuals that teach lawyers to instruct deponents to provide abbreviated responses and not to volunteer any information beyond what is specifically requested. We stand firm upon our precedent, which categorically rejects this type of gamesmanship during pretrial or trial proceedings when <br />such tactics ultimately serve to subvert the truth. Witnesses who <br />give sworn testimony by way of interrogatories, at depositions, pretrial hearings and trial, swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We expect and will settle for nothing less. Lawyers who advise their clients and/or witnesses to mince words, hold back on necessary clarifications, or otherwise obstruct the truth-finding process, do so at their own, and their clients' peril.<br /><br />Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads as follows: "A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action." Based on our review of this record, <br />we believe that there is substantial likelihood that Roy Lustig has violated those rules and therefore we refer him to The Florida Bar for a determination as to whether he should be professionally disciplined for his behavior in this case. We further refer this case to the State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial <br />Circuit of Florida for a determination of whether charges of perjury should be brought against both Arturo Munder and Roy Lustig. Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So.2d 337 (Fla.App. Dist.3 09/05/2001. <br /><br />These officers of the court continue engaging in a pattern of utter disrespect for the court, and in total disregard for their ethical responsibilities pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. <br />This Court should not only strike the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, it should also strike Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses and enter a default; and, to allow the Plaintiffs to pursue their trial on damages. <br /><br /> “Litigants must know that the courts are not open to persons who would seek justice by fraudulent means.” Vargas, supra. There is no one who should be more keenly aware of that than “officers of the court.”<br /><br />At the April 22, 2008 hearing, this Court was troubled by the fact that this case has been ongoing for nine years and that nine attorneys withdrew. This Court should first understand the difficulty of any Plaintiff obtaining and maintaining representation in a legal malpractice action, generally. When you add the factor that this case involves three high profiled, seasoned, connected attorneys, one being a Region 21 United States Panel 7 Trustee, as defendants, represented by high profiled, connected firms, one being a Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and one firm’s senior partner appointed on April 24, 2008 by Governor Charlie Crist to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission, this Court should completely understand and express sympathy for what the Plaintiffs have had to endure during these past nine years at the hands of those who pledge to uphold the law but instead protect the wrongdoing of their brethren.<br /><br />A clear manifest injustice will occur if the Defendants, who are officers of the Court, and now their counsel, are allowed to proceed with a continuation of their dishonest conduct in presenting fraudulent documents in order to further the fraud on the Court and to give Defendants an unfair advantage in this litigation. <br /><br />WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court for the following relief: <br />a. to hold an evidentiary hearing and specific discovery on this fraud on the Court; <br />b. to strike the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; <br />c. to strike the Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses; <br />d. to proceed to trial on damages only; <br />e. to grant attorneys’ fees and costs to the Plaintiffs; and<br />f. for other and further relief the Court deems appropriate. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br /><br /> I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and exact copies of the foregoing were forwarded by electronic mail, facsimile and/or U.S. Mail on June 12, 2008, to all parties on the attached Service List. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />___________________________<br />Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.<br />Fla. Bar. No.: 879584<br />805 George Bush Boulevard<br />Delray Beach, Florida 33483<br />(561) 330-0633<br /><br /><br /><br />____________________________<br /><br />John B. Thompson, Esq.<br />Fla. Bar No.: 231665<br />1172 South Dixie Highway, Suite 111<br />Coral Gables, FL 33146<br />(305) 666-4366<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />____________________________ <br />Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />SERVICE LIST<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Robert M. Klein, Esq.<br />Stephens Lynn Klein, et al.<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Penthouse II<br />Miami, Florida 33156<br /><br />Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.<br />Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton<br />2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard<br />9th Floor<br />Coral Gables, Florida 33134<br /><br />Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.<br />Joseph, Jack & Miranda, P.A.<br />Post Office Box 330519<br />Miami, Florida 33233<br /><br />Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.<br />Ross & Girten<br />Two Datran Center, Suite 1612<br />9130 South Dadeland Boulevard<br />Miami, Florida 33156Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-89916988025545384152008-06-09T02:55:00.000-07:002008-06-09T02:57:17.082-07:00Degrees of Separation and ConnectionMarc Cooper, Esq. is one of the defendants in the Baron’s/Lanson litigation. To understand the magnitude of why this case is ongoing for almost ten years, I invite the viewer to get a glimpse of the connections that Marc Cooper has to the legal community.<br /><br /><strong>Marc Cooper - Partner at Colson, Hicks, Miami Florida</strong><br /><br />- Partner Dean Colson, former law clerk to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and best man to the current Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts<br /><br />- Partner Roberto Martinez, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He is a member of the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission. General Counsel to Governor Jeb Bush during the gubernatorial transition. Member of Governor Jeb Bush’s Public Corruption Study Commission. Chairman of Attorney General-Elect Charlie Crist’s Transition Team. He was Special Counsel to Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist. <br /><br />- Partner Ervin Gonzalez, member of the Florida Bar Board of Governors <br /><br />- Partner Paul Huck, Jr., former General Counsel to Governor Charlie Christ, son of United States District Judge Paul Huck, husband of Third District Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Lagoa<br /><br />- Partner Mike Eidson, President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America<br /><br />- Partner Deborah Gander worked for the Honorable James Lawrence King, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She also clerked for the Honorable Peter T. Fay, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit<br /><br />- Partner Joseph Matthews was Special Counsel to United States Senator Bob Graham<br /><br />- Partner Curtis Miner, former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida<br /><br />- Partner Susan Johnson Tarbe former Assistant United States Attorney where she was Chief of the Economic Crimes Division. She was a law clerk to the Honorable William M. Hoeveler, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida<br /><br /> <br />- Lauri Waldman Ross - Counsel for Marc Cooper. She is also a Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission. <br /><br />- Chuck Throckmorton - Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton. Mr. Throckmorton’s partner, John Kozyak was appointed to the Judicial Nominating Committee in April, 2008 by Governor Charlie Crist.<br /><br />- Dean Colson, Colson Hicks, Lauri Waldman Ross, Lauri Waldman Ross, P.A., Theresa Girten (Ms. Ross’ law partner), Kozyak, Tropin, Throckmorton all gave donations to the re-election campaign of Judge Jeri Beth Cohen after she was assigned the Baron’s/Lanson litigation in February, 2008.<br /><br />- Last but not least, Mr. Cooper’s malpractice insurance carrier is Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, created and sponsored by The Florida Bar. An insurance company owned by its insured members. The Executive Director of The Florida Bar, John Harkness, who supposedly protects the citizens of the state of Florida from unethical attorneys sits on the Board of Directors of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company defending the insurance company from claims of malpractice of those same unethical attorneys. <br /><br />Mr. Cooper committed numerous and severe ethical violations of the Rules <br />Regulating The Florida Bar in the handling of the Baron’s/Lanson litigation. Yet, <br />Mr. Cooper has escaped prosecution for almost ten years because of The Florida Bar’s relationship to Mr. Cooper’s malpractice insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4258110019367120125.post-54614048496544502102008-06-07T18:57:00.000-07:002008-06-08T19:41:22.588-07:00BackgroundBaron's Stores was a 50-year old family owned business in South Florida. In 1998, the last family owners, Norman and Meryl Lanson, were swindled out of the business by lawyers, accountants, and an aggressive creditor through the bankruptcy process. As a result of the swindle, 200 loyal employees lost their jobs, and all of the more than 200 creditors, except one, were damaged. This site is dedicated to informing the public about what really happened to Baron's.<br /><br />In order to understand how the swindle was perpetrated by attorneys, accountants and one of Baron's creditors, this site will show the chronology of events, the conflicts of interest, the corruption in the proceedings, and the connections of the parties involved. Connections that reach all the way to the present Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.<br /><br />Through an almost impervious web of protection, built on connections, one person's determination to get to the truth has started to reverse the perfect crime,"the perfect swindle," and hope appears to be on the horizon. Hope in the form of true justice - justice untainted, uncolored and real - justice based on the "TRUTH!"<br /><br />Visitors to this site will appreciate the power of the Internet and the power of an indefatigable Pro Se litigant. Meryl Lanson has been at war with the legal swindlers, who call themselves officers of the court. A war that requires constant vigilance through research and a determination to have the truth be known. If you ask her, she will say "there is a power greater than us all. If one maintains the faith in the Almighty, the determination to get to the truth, and the ability to stay strong in the face of such unchecked power, then anything is possible, and everything is obtainable. I urge you to never give up the fight for what is right - for winners never quit and quitters never win." <br /><br />God Bless us all.Northern NJ Residenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11650309703796493743noreply@blogger.com1