FRAUD ON THE COURT

Killing Justice

2009-03-29T20:25:00.008-04:00

Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans from Too Much Law
A new book (2009) from Norton by Philip K. Howard

Highlights Provided to the American Academy of Economic and Financial Experts (AAEFE) by Tom Climo[1]

Philip Howard is the founder of an organization "Common Good," a non-profit, non-partisan legal reform coalition dedicated to restoring common sense to America. By conducting polls, hosting forums, and engaging with leaders in health care, education, law, business, and public policy from across the country, Common Good is developing practical solutions to restore reliability to our legal system and minimize the impact of legal fear in American life.

Mr. Howard is also author of “The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America (Random House, 1995) and “The Collapse of the Common Good: How America’s Lawsuit Culture Undermines Our Freedom (Ballantine, 2002). “Life without Lawyers: Liberating Americans from Too Much Law” is his third venture in similar waters.

Mr. Howard’s methodology is pretty straightforward. Find a couple of instances of a frightening disparity between what was needed to be done with what was done and how long it took, then attribute blame. Blame is placed center stage at the door of the legal profession.

I am unlikely to argue with the blame even if the methodology used in arriving at it is suspect. It is disturbing in the few instances when someone bothers to investigate some of the outrageous miscarriages of justice outlined by Mr. Howard that often Mr. Howard can be seen to be exaggerating or has not quite conveyed accurately the end result of the very case he wants us to wring our hands about. In a recent review of “Life Without Lawyers,” former New York Times journalist Anthony Lewis, who has also published a book on the First Amendment, describes the disparity between Mr. Howard’s fact and his fiction. For example, in Hartford, Connecticut in 2002, a boy with autism in the seventh grade began attacking other students and kicking his teachers. His parents rejected that he be moved to a different school. The school instituted legal proceedings required by federal law. “After almost two years of legal hearings,” Howard writes, “the hearing officer issued an order that the boy be removed from the school.” Makes good reading, but the fact of the matter, as the Hartford Courant reported, the hearings lasted two months, not two years, and the boy was apparently adjusting well in his new school.

If you like reading hyperbole and exaggerated accounts, this is the book for you. It even includes the infamous $54 million trouser case where in Washington D.C. a lawyer with a robe, Judge Roy Pearson, sued his dry cleaner for that amount for allegedly losing a pair of pants. I’m not sure it is the case, but Mr. Howard tells us that it dragged on for two years, cost the Korean immigrants who owned the store $100,000 in legal fees, and led them to close the store.” Unfortunately, as I can believe the middle premise – the legal cost to the dry cleaner – probably the first premise and conclusion are correct as well.

Indeed, it is precisely the high cost of legal fees in the particular area of Chapter 11 bankruptcy that has won my concern, and has invigorated me to become involved as Economic Specialist for the Legal Victim Assistance Project (LVAP), a Congressional District Programs, Inc. 501(c)(3) registered public charity. Preliminary research for LVAP is demonstrating that three-quarters of the capital assets in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding are being disbursed as legal fees instead of an allocation of workable assets between debtor and lenders.[2] This means the efficiency of productive assets is being severely compromised in bankruptcy proceedings owing to legal fees. This means the National Product, the Domestic Product, and Disposable Income in our country is reduced to twenty-five cents on the dollar for no better reason than to fatten the wallets of law firm partners. Without any “skin “ in the game, unlike the Creditors who are owed money, or unlike the Debtor who no doubt has operated the business for years, attorneys dive fresh into bankruptcy much like vultures taking the majority of the proceeds for themselves without regard to the fairness or efficiencies intended by the very system they are there to implement. LVAP calls this a “fraud on the Court,” and, as well, it is in violation of the fiduciary trust on the part of the legal profession.

Returning to Mr. Howard, his new book, and his organization founded in 2002, I will have a much better feel about him, his writings, and the benevolence of his organization when I see his support for practical applications to improve the legal arena rather than his whining about so-called perpetrated and possibly isolated instances of how legal maneuverings manage to move us a little afar from the field of common sense and equitable jurisprudence. I shall recommend that LVAP contact Common Sense.

________________________________________
[1] Expert witness for economic damage and loss practicing in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Economic Specialist, Legal Victim Assistance Project (LVAP).
[2] Meryl Lanson, Program Director at LVAP, and Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq., a practicing attorney in Delray Beach, Florida, have put together data suggesting this “takings” by law firms is in excess of 75%.

2009-02-09T21:45:00.007-05:00

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
______________________

CASE NO.: 08-11286-J
DISTRICT COURT CASE NO.: 07-cv-60770-ALTONAGA/TURNOFF
______________________

BARON’S STORES, INC., NORMAN LANSON,
AND MERYL LANSON,

Appellants,

vs.

RONALD C. KOPPLOW, ESQ., KOPPLOW & FLYNN, P.A.,
MARC COOPER, ESQ., COOPER & WOLFE, P.A.,
SONYA SALKIN, ESQ., AND MALNIK & SALKIN, P.A.

Appellees.
______________________________________________

APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
OF JANUARY 15, 2009 ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

IV. STATEMENT OF COUNSEL AS TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUE(S) ASSERTED TO MERIT EN BANC CONSIDERATION

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)
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);
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).

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:
By: _______________________________________
Arthur Morburger, Counsel for Baron’s Stores, Inc.

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.
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.

COURSE OF PROCEEDING
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.
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:
“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.”

The Bankruptcy Court, on Page 14 of this same Order, stated

“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.”

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:
“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.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
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.
III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
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.
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:
“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)

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).

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.

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.
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.”)
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)).
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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).
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.”
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.”
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.”
The Panel’s decision involves question of exceptional public importance which warrants consideration by the full Court.

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:
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
Baron’s payroll, per year, for two hundred employees was $4,000,000.00
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
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
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.
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.
The total estimated loss of social capital because of Baron’s demise, over the past ten years, is $18,300,000.00.
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.

CONCLUSION
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.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

2009-02-09T21:37:00.002-05:00

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 08-11286
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-60770-CV-CMA
BKCY No. 97-25645-BKC-PG
In Re: BARON'S STORES, INC., Debtor.
_________________________________________
BARON'S STORES, INC.,
NORMAN LANSON,
MERYL LANSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MARK COOPER,
COOPER & WOLF,
RONALD C. KOPPLOW,
KOPPLOW & FLYNN,
SONYA SALKIN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 15, 2009)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

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.

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.

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).

“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.

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.

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.
AFFIRMED.

2009-01-27T17:33:00.006-05:00

SONYA L. SALKIN, ESQ.,
A UNITED STATES CHAPTER 7 PANEL TRUSTEE
ADMITTED PARTICIPATING IN AND SUBMITTING
THE DOCUMENTS WHICH CONFIRMED THE
1997 BANKRUPTCY OF BARON’S STORES, INC.
A FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXPERT DECLARED
THE BANKRUPTCY DOCUMENTS TO BE TAMPERED
WITH, ALTERED AND FALSIFIED

January 27, 2009

The Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Baron's Stores, Inc. was confirmed using tampered, altered and falsified documents.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

REPRESENTATIVE BROOKS
NEWS RELEASE

NOVEMBER 6, 1991
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

‘BROOKS REQUESTS G.A.O. PROBE OF
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S
U.S. BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE SYSTEM’

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.

“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.”

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.

“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.”

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.”

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.

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

Like Baron’s Mens Stores, Stein and Day existed for decades providing jobs and creatively serving public and private needs of a thriving community.

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.

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.

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.

The United States cannot sustain business as usual. Each person who reads this must take action for self protection and posterity.

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.

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.

- Baron’s was an S-Corporation producing taxable income to its
owners and therefore Income Tax Payable of $100,000.00 per
year.

- Loss of 10 years Income Tax equals $1,000,000.00.

- Baron’s employed 200 workers with a payroll of $4,000,000.00 per year.

- The lost FICA tax employers share over the past 10 years at 7%
(rounded) $280,000.00 x 10 years equals $2,800,000.00.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- THE TOTAL ESTIMATED LOSS OF SOCIAL CAPTIAL IS $18,300,000.00 OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS!

THIS IS ‘ONE’ FAILED REORGANIZATION CAUSED BY “FRAUD ON THE COURT” UNDER THE WATCH OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE IN REGION 21

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

Submitted by: Meryl M. Lanson

Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, Sonya Salkin Referred to the U.S. Trustee for Fraud

2008-11-05T21:33:00.003-05:00

October 10, 2008

PRIORITY MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. Donald F. Walton
United States Trustee
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Room 362
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Re: Chapter 7 Panel Trustee Sonya Lorraine Salkin

Dear Mr. Walton:

Sonya Salkin was the Debtor’s Counsel in the Baron’s bankruptcy, Case No. 97-25645-PGH-BKC.

An attorney retained by the trustee, or debtor in possession, who assists with the collection of the assets of the estate, must abide by the highest professional standards. “Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive is the standard of behavior. An attorney’s duty goes beyond not merely putting false evidence before the court; the duty is greater – the lawyer has a duty to not make misrepresentations to the court.

In February, 2008 it came to the attention of Baron’s and its creditors that the Plan upon which Baron’s was confirmed upon was accomplished using falsified documents. (Exhibit 1) This fact was further substantiated in May, 2008 by Michael G. Kessler, a forensic document expert when he declared, under oath, that the Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation and the Amended Disclosure Statement in the Baron’s bankruptcy was falsified. (Exhibit 2)

Sonya Salkin, having knowledge of the fraudulent documents and the sworn declaration of a forensic document expert has failed to take remedial action both in the state court proceeding where she is a defendant in a legal malpractice action and in the bankruptcy
court where she remains a United States Chapter 7 Region 21 Panel Trustee. Ms. Salkin has not refuted the sworn declaration of Michael G. Kessler. Furthermore, Ms. Salkin is using what she knows to be falsified documents to support a Summary Judgment Motion in the legal malpractice action where she and her firm are defendants.

Ms. Salkin is in violation of Florida Bar Rule 4.3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal – False evidence.

Ms. Salkin is also in violation of State Criminal Statute §831.02 – Uttering Forged Documents.

By Ms. Salkin having full knowledge that the documents confirming the bankruptcy of Baron’s have been declared falsified, Ms. Salkin has been participating in committing a felony under §831.02.

Ms. Salkin is also in violation of Federal Criminal Statute 18 U.S.C. §4 – Misprision.

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony…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 misprision of felony and can be punished with up to three years of prison.

Ms. Salkin is the attorney who signed off on the fraudulent documents in the bankruptcy of Baron’s. Ms. Salkin has taken affirmative steps to conceal the fraudulent documents from the Court, the Debtor and the Creditors.

Considering the magnitude of the wrongdoing of Ms. Salkin, not only as an attorney who should be held to the highest fiduciary standards, but also the fact that Ms. Salkin was, during the bankruptcy proceedings of Baron’s, and remains a United States Region 21 Chapter 7 Panel Trustee, Ms. Salkin must be immediately suspended from her duties until a full investigation as to her participation, perpetration, execution and submission of fraudulent documents in the bankruptcy proceedings of Baron’s has been completed

I trust that this matter will be a priority in the U.S. Trustee’s office.

Very truly yours,

Meryl M. Lanson
Telephone: 561-488-2740
Facsimile: 561-488-2861
E-mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net

Enclosures: Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 (as stated herein)

cc: - United States Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey
- Special Agent Jeff Danik – Federal Bureau of Investigation
West Palm Beach, Florida (without Exhibits as already in possession of)
- Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esq., - The Florida Bar (without Exhibits as already in possession of)

Supplement Master Letter to Agencies

2008-10-27T19:54:00.001-04:00

October 23, 2008

PRIORITY MAIL WITH PROOF
OF DELIVERY – TO ALL PARTIES
ON THIS COVER PAGE SERVICE LIST

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attention: Special Agent Jeff Danik
505 South Flagler Drive
Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Katherine Fernandez-Rundle
Miami-Dade State Attorney
E.R. Graham Building
1350 N.W. 12th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33136-2211

Bill McCollum
Office of Attorney General
State of Florida
The Capitol – PL-01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink
Florida Department of Financial Services
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

The Office of Inspector General
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
2331 Phillips Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308

The Office of Inspector General
Attention: Kenneth A. Chambers
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1905

Brooke S. Kennerly
Executive Director
Judicial Qualifications Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6226

John F. Harkness
Executive Director
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Michael L. Schneider
General Counsel
Judicial Qualifications Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6226

Theodore P. Littlewood, Jr., Esq.
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

Detective Luis Robainas
Miami Dade Police Department
Public Corruption Investigations Bureau
8899 N.W. 18th Terrace
Doral, Florida 33172

Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
Miami Dade County Courthouse
73 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130

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.

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.

F.S.A. § 831.02 - Uttering Forged Instruments

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.

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.

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).

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:

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.

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.

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:

1) refuses to allow discovery to see which attorneys were involved in the preparation, perpetration, execution and submission of the fraudulent documents.

2) refuses to conduct an evidentiary hearing as required by law under FRCP 1.150 which states:

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).

3) continues to violate Judicial Canon 3.D.2)a:

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.

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).

3. Plaintiffs shall have twenty(20) days from the date of this Order
to serve their response to the Amended Affirmative Defenses.

4. Plaintiffs reserve all rights to challenge the Amended Affirmative
Defenses, including, but not limited to, motions to strike, motions
for summary judgment and the like. The Plaintiffs have complied
with both requirements of the signed Agreed Order, and still Judge
Jeri Beth Cohen refuses to abide by Senior Judge Stettin’s Order.

5) has denied Plaintiffs their due process rights pursuant to an Agreed Order signed by Senior Judge Herbert Stettin.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Meryl M. Lanson
Telephone: 561-488-2740
Facsimile: 561-488-2861
E-Mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net

Enclosures:
1) Copy of Senior Judge Herbert Stettin’s signed Agreed Order dated February 14, 2008.
2) Copy of Notice of Filing dated October 22, 2008 with attachments.
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.

cc: Governor Charlie Crist with attachments

Master Letter to Agencies

2008-10-19T21:37:00.017-04:00

September 17, 2008

PRIORITY MAIL WITH PROOF
OF DELIVERY – TO ALL PARTIES
ON THIS COVER PAGE SERVICE LIST

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attention: Special Agent Jeff Danik
505 South Flagler Drive
Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Katherine Fernandez-Rundle
Miami-Dade State Attorney
E.R. Graham Building
1350 N.W. 12th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33136-2211

Bill McCollum
Office of Attorney General
State of Florida
The Capitol – PL-01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink
Florida Department of Financial Services
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

The Office of Inspector General
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
2331 Phillips Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32308

The Office of Inspector General
Attention: Kenneth A. Chambers
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1905

Brooke S. Kennerly
Executive Director
Judicial Qualifications Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6226

John F. Harkness
Executive Director
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

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.

State Criminal Statute: 831.04 f.s. – Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing states in part:

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.

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:

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.

Attached to, and in support of, the Summary Judgment Motion, are two documents titled Amended Plan of Liquidation and Amended Disclosure Statement.

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:

“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.”

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.

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.

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:

Canon 3.D.2)a:

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.

Lawyer Regulation: Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Rules of Professional Conduct 4-3.3(a)(4) :

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.

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.

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.”

“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.”

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.

These alleged acts of the defendants, and their counsels, are criminal in nature, and if proven to be true would require their immediate disbarment.

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.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Meryl M. Lanson
Telephone: 561-488-2740
Facsimile: 561-488-2861
E-Mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net

Attachment: Michael G. Kessler’s Declaration as stated herein.

cc: Governor Charlie Crist with attachment.

CIRCUIT COURT CORRUPTION RALLY

2008-10-11T13:41:00.000-04:00

Date: October 27-28th
Time: 10:00 a.m. on both days
Location: State Capitol Building
301 Monroe Street.Tallahassee, FL 32399

CALLING ALL FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS with Cases Involving Juvenile/Family Court: CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT & JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CASES; THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO ACT AND STAND UP FOR YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS AND STAMP OUT CORRUPTION!

New Interviews by Ex-DCF workers will be presented on YouTube. Lots of information available to help you. What it takes is education.

Bring banners, signs, photos, or organizational material, pass out your flyers, contact with others who help support.
RECEIVE REAL SUPPORT BY REAL PEOPLE WHO CARE.

Come out, rain or shine. We encourage, Lawyers, Ex-DCF/CPS workers, and whistleblowers, to come out and help bring awareness to the public that there are two sides to every story.

Contact Robert at Mrbig81174@hotmail.com or call 727-215-5793 or contact@modelfamily.org or vera@polkcountycorruption.com

This has to be a state effort. We must stand together and stand strong for change.

COMING TO A COUNTY NEAR YOU!
Donations accepted for future rallies in your area!

TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT

2008-08-14T19:41:00.002-04:00

Crist's court appointments can end 'lawsuit lottery'

Carlos Muhletaler • My View • August 14, 2008

As the media fixate on Sen. John McCain's short list of potential running mates, the eye of America is focused on Gov. Charlie Crist. But as Crist's attention is increasingly lured toward the presidential campaign, he must not fail to recognize his responsibility to the people of Florida.

Florida is on the precipice of a major reorganization of its Supreme Court. Over the next 18 months, Gov. Crist will appoint four new Supreme Court justices. As such, the future of the Florida judiciary is in his hands — and with it, he holds the opportunity to finally restore our state's poor legal reputation.

Florida's Supreme Court is in dire need of good justices who will fairly apply and uphold the law. Unfortunately, Florida is currently considered a haven for lawsuit abuse. National organizations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Pacific Research Institute have ranked Florida the number one "judicial hellhole" in the country and named our state "worst" for legal fairness.

Frivolous lawsuits are clogging our courts, delaying justice for those with legitimate claims, and costing each one of us $820 every year in increased costs of products and services, according to research by the global professional services firm Towers Perrin. We need Supreme Court justices who will help set the tone for the entire state and set a high bar to ensure that our judiciary is a forum for justice — not greed.

Supreme Court justices have tremendous power over our lives. From our health care and community safety to our economy, schools and just plain fairness in our courts, our highest court makes decisions every day that affect the way we live our lives. Yet, this little-understood branch of government has too often been abused by those who seek to play the "lawsuit lottery" with our legal system.

It is my hope that Gov. Crist recognizes the power of this opportunity to improve our courts, and that he understands how important legal fairness is. Florida has been a "judicial hellhole" for too long, and the upcoming Supreme Court makeover provides a rare opportunity for meaningful change that will trickle down through the courts to improve fairness in Florida.

By taking advantage, we can encourage people to come to the Sunshine State to do business rather than file lawsuits.

This is a special time in Florida, and the people of Florida are looking to Gov. Crist to restore justice to the state Supreme Court.

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008808140306

Carlos Muhletaler
Executive Director
Florida Stop Lawsuit Abuse
www.floridastoplawsuitabuse.com
561-544-2508

Abuse of JQC Special Counsel, Lauri Waldman Ross

2008-07-18T20:35:00.002-04:00

July 11, 2008

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Re: Denial of Disability Accommodations and Abuse of JQC Special Counsel, Lauri Waldman Ross’ Position in Order to Obtain an Unfair Advantage in Litigation

Dear Governor Crist:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Meryl M. Lanson

cc: Brooke Kennerly, Executive Director - Judicial Qualifications Commission
Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.
Media

Enclosures: ADA Accommodations Report
Daily Business ReviewArticle Dated December 3, 2007 “Behind the JQC Curtain”

Karin Huffer.letter to Meryl Lanson July 2008

2008-07-18T02:00:00.000-04:00

KARIN HUFFER, M.S., M.F.T.
Email: legalabuse@gmail.com Tel. 702.528.9588 www.legalabusesyndrome.org
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #NV0082
3236 Mountain Spring Road. Las Vegas, NV 89146

July 18, 2008

Mrs. Meryl Lanson
Boca Raton, Florida 33498

Dear Meryl:

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.

Very truly yours,

Karin Huffer, M.S., M.F.T.

Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission - Lauri Waldman Ross

2008-06-21T23:49:00.002-04:00

June 17, 2008

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Re: Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission - Lauri Waldman Ross

Dear Governor Crist:

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.

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.

This letter will serve to voice my strenuous objection to her appointment given the graveman of her wrongdoing as outlined in my previous correspondence.

Respectfully submitted,

Meryl M. Lanson

Enclosures: As stated herein.

cc:
Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.
Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director JQC
Florida House of Representatives - Judiciary Committee

Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission - Lauri Waldman Ross

2008-06-13T19:13:00.000-04:00

June 5, 2008

Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Re: Complaint against Special Counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission -
Lauri Waldman Ross

Dear Governor Crist:

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.

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.

This submission of, and continued reliance on, a falsified document, is a violation of the following Florida Bar Rule:

Florida Bar Rule 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal states:

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.

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.

Rule 4-3.4(b) prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness to testify falsely.

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.

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.

Canon 3D(2) states:
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.

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.

As Governor of the State of Florida, your power is described in Article IV, Section 7 of the State Constitution:

Article V, Section 12, of the State Constitution creates the JQC and specifies:
Members who are not judges may be removed through the Governor’s power to suspend public officials in certain instances.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Meryl M. Lanson

Enclosures:
Motion for Summary Judgment
First Amended Plan of Liquidation
First Amended Disclosure Statement
Expert Witness Report by Michael G. Kessler

cc: Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq. (w/o enclosures as already in Ms. Ross’ possession)
Brooke S. Kennerly, Executive Director JQC (with enclosures)

Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se, Initial Brief - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

2008-06-09T22:03:00.006-04:00

VIII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. STATEMENT OF BACKGROUND FACTS

This appeal arises from the Bankruptcy proceeding of Baron’s Stores, Inc. (“Baron’s Stores”). For over fifty (50) years, Baron’s Stores was a retailer of men’s clothing. Since 1988, Appellant, Norman Lanson, owned 99% of Baron’s Stores shares. In 1988, Appellant, Meryl Lanson, Norman Lanson’s wife, became owner of the remaining 1% of Baron’s Stores shares. In addition to being Baron’s Stores’ sole shareholders, the Lansons were creditors, guarantors, and employees of Baron’s Stores. [A-1, pg. 2] During the Bankruptcy Proceeding, Appellant alleged that a fraud upon the court was perpetrated by three attorneys and their law firms. The attorneys are Ronald C. Kopplow, Esq. and Kopplow & Flynn, P.A. (collectively “Kopplow”), Marc Cooper, Esq. and Cooper & Wolfe, P.A. (collectively “Cooper”), and Sonya Salkin, Esq. and Malnik & Salkin, P.A. (collectively “Salkin”) (the attorneys and their law firms are referred to collectively as the “Attorneys”).

The company, Baron’s Stores, Inc. (“Baron’s”), filed an accounting malpractice lawsuit in state court against its accounting firm for failing to detect embezzlement from Baron’s by Baron’s chief financial officer. Appellee, Kopplow and Cooper represented Baron’s and its principals, Norman Lanson (“Norman”) and Meryl Lanson (“Meryl”) (collectively the “Lansons”), in that litigation. While that litigation was pending, Salkin filed a Chapter 11 Petition on behalf of Baron’s before the Bankruptcy Court. In order to be appointed general bankruptcy counsel for Baron’s, Salkin was required to file a motion and affidavit with the Bankruptcy Court. Likewise, in order to be permitted to continue the state court accounting malpractice action, Appellees, Kopplow and Cooper were also required to submit affidavits with the Bankruptcy Court. For ease of reference, these motions and affidavits will be referred to collectively as the “Retention Motions and Affidavits.”

Pursuant to Federal Bankruptcy Rule 2014, when attorneys seek appointment by the Bankruptcy Court, they must satisfy very stringent disclosure requirements and disclose the universe of connections and/or conflicts-of-interest, potential or actual, that they have relative to the debtor estate, its creditors, and the attorneys and accountants of those individuals and entities.

The Attorneys failed to disclose a litany of connections and conflicts-of-interest in their Retention Motions and Affidavits. Despite the numerous written demands by Baron’s and its principals to disclose their connections and conflicts-of-interest, the Attorneys still refused to do so. The Appellant was successful in re-opening the Bankruptcy case based on the Attorneys’ fraud on the Court in failing to disclose their numerous conflicts and connections. The Bankruptcy Court ultimately found that the Appellees did not commit a fraud on the Court in error, which was affirmed by the District Court, as further set out below.

B. Course of Proceedings and Disposition of Lower Court

In December 1993, it was discovered that David Peterson (“Peterson”), Baron’s Stores’ Chief Financial Officer, had embezzled more that $3,000,000 from Baron’s Stores over a period of years. As a result of this discovery, the Lansons commenced litigation against the accounting firm of Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co., P.A. (“MBA”), alleging the firm had committed accounting malpractice when it failed to detect Peterson’s embezzlement as it was occurring. [A-1, pg. 2]

In addition to being Baron’s Stores’ auditor, MBA also provided accounting and financial advisory services to the Lansons in their individual capacities. On January 12, 1994, Baron’s Stores and Norman Lanson, individually, signed an “Authority to Represent” and “Statement of Client’s Rights,” pursuant to which Appellees, Kopplow; Kopplow & Flynn, PA.; Cooper; Cooper & Wolfe, P.A. (collectively “Kopplow and Cooper”), were retained. [A-1, R. 493]. Kopplow and Cooper were employed to represent Baron’s Stores and the Lansons in the claim for damages against Peterson and MBA.

In November 1995, Kopplow and Cooper filed a lawsuit against MBA on behalf of Baron’s Stores. Despite the fact that Appellants, Meryl Lanson, and her husband, Norman Lanson, also had individual claims against MBA, Baron’s Stores was the only named plaintiff. In June 1997, the Lansons sought advice from Kopplow regarding the Lansons’ ability to continue operating Baron’s Stores. Kopplow recommended the Lansons speak with Appellee, Sonya Salkin, an attorney specializing in Bankruptcy law. (A-1, pg 3)

On July 18, 1997, Baron’s Stores executed a Retainer Agreement with Salkin. Upon Salkin’s advice, on September 9, 1997, Baron’s Stores filed a petition for Chapter 11protection. Thereafter, on October 23, 1997, Salkin filed a Motion to Authorize Employment of Kopplow and Cooper as Special Counsel to continue the pre-existing MBA action.

Salkin attached Affidavits of both Kopplow and Cooper in support of the Motion. [R-44; R-532, Exh. 7 and 9]. In these retention Motions and Affidavits, the Attorneys, in violation of the mandatory Bankruptcy Rule 2014 (a) and 11 U.S.C. 327(e), failed to disclose to the Bankruptcy court Kopplow’s and Cooper’s connections and conflicts of interest arising from the fact that, in addition, to representing Baron’s in the MBA action, they continued to represent the Lansons individually in the MBA action.
On September 10, 1997, Salkin filed her own Motion to authorize her employment before the Bankruptcy court as counsel for Baron’s, as debtor in possession. [R-4;R-532-Exh.4]. On that same date Salkin filed her Affidavit in support of the Motion.
Ultimately, the Bankruptcy court, in reliance upon, the Affidavits of Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, claiming under the penalty of perjury, that they had no connections and conflicts of interest, authorized their employment pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2014. [R #52, 53 & 94]

On January 12, 1998, a Creditors’ Meeting was held at Alan Stuart’s office. [R- 493, 30]. The Lansons and the Attorneys were present. At the Creditors’ Meeting, Kopplow presented a document from MBA’s files, entitled “Items to Be Removed from Baron’s Workpapers.” [R- 493,-10-31]. Kopplow referred to this document as the proverbial “smoking gun”, and exclaimed that he was going to get $10 million from MBA. [R-540-536; R-532-Exh. 19, 10]. Although Kopplow did not concede at trial that he used the term “smoking gun”, he did concede that he told the Creditors’ Committee, at that meeting, that he thought the MBA Action had a settlement value of up to $10 million. [R-539-129,133].

The fact that Kopplow thought the MBA Action had a value of $10 million is significant because he shortly thereafter forced Baron’s to settle the MBA Action for only $2.4 million (i.e. at a 76% discount) in a misguided effort to hide his malpractice in allowing the statute of limitations to expire on the Lansons’ individual claims in the MBA Action. [R-541-587,588; R-532-Exh. 19, 13-14].
Ultimately, Baron’s Stores, at the urging of their counsel, Salkin, reluctantly approved the $2.4 million settlement of the MBA action.
After the settlement of the MBA action, in April, 1998, some seven months later, Salkin finally informed the Lansons they should seek other individual counsel to handle the issues regarding their individual claims and interests, as she had become conflicted.

As will be set forth in more detail below, Salkin failed to disclose to the Bankruptcy court the fact that, in addition to representing Baron’s, Salkin also represented the Lansons in their individual capacities. In particular, Salkin represented the Lansons, individually, in connection with their personal guarantees of post-petition financing for Baron’s.[R-539-274-275-276] Salkin also represented the Lansons, in their individual capacities, in connection with the Bankruptcy Plan and in negotiations with the creditors regarding that Plan.

Ultimately, the Bankruptcy court approved the $2.4 million settlement of the MBA action. Norman Lanson signed the MBA release solely in his corporate capacity, and the Lansons refused to sign the MBA releases in their individual capacity. [A-1, pg. 4 & 5]

On May 18, 1998, the Bankruptcy court entered an order (the “Settlement Order”) approving Baron’s Stores settlement with MBA. The Settlement Order awarded Kopplow and Cooper a total of $600,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and $146,327.04 in costs which represented in, great part, undisclosed pre-petition fees and costs. [A -1,pg.4 & 5]

Approximately two months after the Bankruptcy court awarded Appellees’ fees, Norman Lanson informed Kopplow and Cooper, by letter dated July 8, 1998, that he disputed their fees. In response to Norman Lanson’s letter, Kopplow and Cooper filed a Motion seeking a determination of their Entitlement to Fees previously approved by the Bankruptcy court. On August 27, 1998, the Lansons, individually, filed an Affidavit in Opposition to Kopplow’s and Cooper’s Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees in the Bankruptcy court, claiming Appellees’, Kopplow and Cooper had deceived the court by representing they had no interests adverse to the estate. [A-4][R-222]

On August 28, 1998, Salkin, in opposition to the Lansons Affidavit, wrote
the Lansons counsel, Mark Osherow, a letter stating: [A-5]

“the filing of this Affidavit was very foolish. No one was going to stand up and object to the treatment of the principals of the Plan. In fact, the Committee has revised the Plan to assist the Lansons. You have now provided the Court, sua sponte, the ability to deny confirmation and require revisions to the Disclosure Statement and Plan, which could take away those negotiated efforts.”

On August 31, 1998, the Bankruptcy court held a hearing on the fee entitlement motion during which the Bankruptcy court ruled that Kopplow and Cooper were entitled to their fees. [R-224]

On September 7, 1999, a year later, the Lansons and Baron’s Stores, Inc. filed a legal malpractice action against Kopplow and Cooper and later amended to include Sonya Salkin, as a defendant. Appellant(s) alleged in 2004, in the legal malpractice action, that Appellees perpetrated a fraud on the Bankruptcy court in connection with their retention as counsel for Baron’s Stores during the Chapter 11 proceeding. In 2005, the presiding Judge in the legal malpractice action, advised the Lansons that allegations of fraud on the Bankruptcy court should be resolved by the Bankruptcy court. [A-1pg.6].

Appellant filed Answers to Interrogatories on March 30, 2005 which listed the following over sixty combined connections and/or conflicts of interest of the

Attorneys.

As to Appellee Cooper:
- Represented Norman Lanson, individually, in the Morrison, Brown litigation
- Represented Meryl Lanson, individually, in the Morrison, Brown litigation
- Represented Baron’s Stores, Inc. in the Morrison, Brown litigation
- Norman Lanson was an insider
- Meryl M. Lanson was an insider
- Norman Lanson was a creditor
- Meryl M. Lanson was a creditor
- Trace Lanson was a creditor
- Norman Lanson was a Guarantor
- Meryl M. Lanson was a Guarantor
- Norman Lanson’s attorney in the Morrison, Brown litigation was also Ronald C. Kopplow, Marc Cooper’s co-counsel
- Meryl M. Lanson’s attorney in the Morrison, Brown litigation was also Ronald C. Kopplow, Marc Cooper’s co-counsel
- Baron’s Stores, Inc. attorney in the Morrison, Brown litigation was also Ronald C. Kopplow, Marc Cooper’s co-counsel
- Rachlin, Cohen and Holtz was a creditor
- Rachlin, Cohen and Holtz were the accounting experts in the underlying litigation against Morrison, Brown, Argiz
- Rachlin Cohen and Holtz were retained at the inception of the retention of Kopplow and Cooper in the Morrison, Brown, Argiz litigation on behalf of Baron’s Stores, Inc. and Norman Lanson, individually

As to Appellee Kopplow:

- Represented Norman Lanson,individually, in the Morrison, Brown litigation
- Represented Meryl M. Lanson, individually, in the Morrison, Brown litigation
- Represented Baron’s Stores, Inc. in the Morrison, Brown litigation
- Norman Lanson was an insider
- Meryl M. Lanson was an insider
- Norman Lanson was a creditor
- Meryl M. Lanson was a creditor
- Trace Lanson was a creditor
- Norman Lanson was a Guarantor
- Meryl M. Lanson was a Guarantor
- Represented Norman Lanson, individually in the Peterson/Neiman litigation
- Represented Meryl M. Lanson, individually in the Peterson/Neiman litigation
- Represented Baron’s Stores, Inc. in the Peterson/Neiman litigation
- Norman Lanson’s attorney in the Morrison, Brown litigation was also Marc Cooper, Ronald C. Kopplow’s co-counsel
- Meryl M. Lanson’s attorney in the Morrison, Brown litigation was also Marc Cooper, Ronald C. Kopplow’s, co-counsel
- Baron’s Stores, Inc. attorney in the Morrison, Brown litigation was also Marc Cooper, Ronald C. Kopplow’s, co-counsel
- Rachlin, Cohen and Holtz was a creditor
- Rachlin, Cohen and Holtz were the accounting experts in the underlying litigation against Morrison, Brown, Argiz
- Rachlin Cohen and Holtz were retained at the inception of the retention of Kopplow and Cooper in the Morrison, Brown, Argiz litigation on behalf of Baron’s Stores, Inc. and Norman Lanson, individually
- Represented Norman Lanson in Reef Apartments litigation
- Represented David Peterson, the embezzler and employee of Baron’s Stores, Inc. in Reef Apartments litigation. David Peterson was a defendant in the Morrison, Brown, Argiz lawsuit
- Represented Marc Levine in Reef Apartments litigation
- Represented Marc Levine in a personal injury lawsuit
- Marc Levine was an employee of Baron’s Stores, Inc.
- Marc Levine was a creditor of Baron’s Stores, Inc.
- Marc Levine ultimately became a shareholder in the “New Baron’s” whoseaccounting firm was Morrison,Brown, Argiz, the defendants in the lawsuitregarding Baron’s Stores, Inc.
- Represented Alan Glist in Reef Apartments litigation
- Alan Glist was the largest creditor of Baron’s Stores, Inc.
- Alan Glist’s accounting firm was Morrison, Brown, Argiz, the defendants in the lawsuit regarding Baron’s Stores, Inc.
- Alan Glist’s attorney was Jeff Perlow.
- Represented Jeff Perlow in Reef Apartments litigation
- Represented Mark Perlman in Reef Apartments litigation
- The referral of the Lanson’s/Baron’s vs. Morrison, Brown, Argiz et al. case to Mr. Kopplow was attributable to attorney Mark Perlman, a client of Mr. Kopplow
- Attorney Jeff Perlow created the successor firm to Baron’s for Alan Glist, who was Mr. Kopplow’s client
- Attorney Mark Perlman created the successor firm to Baron’s for Alan Glist , who was Mr. Kopplow’s client.
- Represented Charles Alberts and/or Lillian Alberts in Reef Apartments litigation.
- Charles Alberts was an employee of Baron’s Stores, Inc.

As to Appellee Salkin

- Represented Norman Lanson, individually, in the bankruptcy proceedings
- Represented Meryl M. Lanson, individually, in the bankruptcy proceedings
- Represented the Debtor in Possession and the Debtor in Possession’s Principal
Shareholder, Norman Lanson, who was also a Guarantor
- Represented the Debtor in Possession and the Debtor in Possession’s shareholder, Meryl M. Lanson, who was also a Guarantor

The Bankruptcy court reopened the case on April 7, 2005 to consider the merits of the Appellants fraud claims. After a three day trial, the Bankruptcy court ultimately ruled, on April 12, 2007, that no fraud on the court had been perpetrated by the attorneys. The Bankruptcy court’s order was affirmed by the District Court below on January 7, 2008. [A-1]

IX. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Normally, a court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Bankr. P.8013; In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 904 F.2d 588, 593 (11th Cir. 1990); In re T & B Gen. Contracting, Inc., 833 F.2d 1455, 1458 (11th Cir. 1987). Equitable determinations are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Red Carpet Corp. Of Panama City Beach, 902 F.2d 883, 8909 (11th Cir. 1990). Conclusions of law, mixed issues of law and fact, and “ultimate facts” are all subject to de novo review. In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 904 F.2d at 593; In re Sublett, 895 F2d 1381, 1383 (11th Cir. 1990); In re Marks, 131 B.R. 220, 222 (S.D. Fla. 1991). A court abuses its discretion “when a relevant factor deserving a significant weight is overlooked, when an improper factor deserving of significant weight is overlooked, or when the court considers the appropriate mix of factors, but commits palpable error of judgment in calibrating the decisional scales.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2002). A court also abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law. Florida Ass’n of Rehabilitation Facilities, Inc. v. Florida, 225 F.3d 1208, 1218 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing to Sun Am. Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 77 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 1996), finding that a court necessarily abuses its discretion if it “has applied an incorrect legal standard”); United States v. Prairie Pharmacy, Inc., 921 F.2d 211, 212 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[a] court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law or when the record contains no evidence on which it could rationally base its decision”).

X. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The District Court committed error in failing to consider that the disclosure rules under the Bankruptcy Code are mandatory and non-discretionary. The District Court failed to address that the Attorneys lied in their sworn Affidavits claiming no connections and/or conflicts of interest when in fact there were over sixty combined connections and/or conflicts of interest amongst the Attorneys. As a result, “manifest injustice” occurred in the bankruptcy of Baron’s.

XI. ARGUMENT
A. THE DISTRICT COURT MISAPPREHENDED THE MANDATORY DISCLOSURE UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2014 AND 11 U.S.C. 327

Throughout the District Court’s opinion, the focus centered on whether the Appellee’s knew Appellants had an individual claim in the MBA action, instead of on the professional’s mandatory disclosure requirements.
Rule 2014 mandates that any professional seeking to render professional services in a Bankruptcy proceeding, must file an application that includes, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selections, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangements for compensation and to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, all of the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. Pursuant to the Rule, the professional must disclose, in detail “all of the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, or any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States Trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States Trustee”, and not merely those which rise to the level of a conflict. In re: Gulf Coast Orthopedic Center, 265 B.R. 318 (N.D. Fla. 2001) also citing In re: Keller Financial Services of Florida, Inc., 243 B.R. 806 (N.D. Fla. 1999).

Further, in the In re: Gulf Coast, supra, the Court held
“These disclosure requirements are not discretionary and the duty of the professional to disclose all connections with the Debtor, Debtor in possession, insider, creditors, or parties of interest, is a must, including fee arrangements.” (Emphasis added)

“The duty to disclose the professional’s connection under FRBP 2014 is a mandatory requirement and the scope of the disclosure is far broader than what is required for disqualification.”

In the case of In re: Keller Financial, supra:
“A mere violation of the disclosure rule alone was enough to disqualify a professional and deny all compensation, regardless whether the undisclosed connections are fee arrangements, are materially adverse to the interest of the estate or insignificant.” See also In re: Smitty’s Truck Stop, Inc., 210 B.R. 844 (10th Cir. 1997)

Appellee Salkin, as general bankruptcy counsel to Baron’s, the debtor in possession, was required to satisfy 11 U.S.C. 327(a), which states:

In re: Finao Corporation, 2005 WL 419704 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005), states:

“Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:
11 USC §327. Employment of professional persons
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the trustee, with the court’s approval, may employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons, that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under this title.
11 U.S.C. §327(a)(Emphasis supplied). The term “disinterested person” is defined in §101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code to mean a person that “does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or any class of creditors or equity security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the debtor.” [Emphasis added] (See also In re: Jennings, 199 Fed.Appx. 845 (11th Cir. 2006)

All three Appellees submitted Retention Motions and Affidavits, under the penalty of perjury, stating that they had no connections and/or conflicts of interest or held any interest adverse to the estate. [R-44,46] The Appellees committed perjury when they failed to disclose the more than sixty combined connections and/or conficts of interest between them. (A-3)

The District Court, in error, narrowly construed the seriousness of the Appellees’ non-disclosure in violation of Rule 2014 by focusing on one connection to the exclusion of at least sixty-three other connections and/or conflicts of interest.

At Page 12, of the January 7, 2008 District Court’s Order, the Court states:

“Appellants’ central argument is that Appellees represented both the Lansons and Baron’s Stores, and that the Lansons held individual claims against MBA that placed the Lansons in conflict with Baron’s Stores because both the Lansons and Baron’s Stores were seeking recovery from a common limited fund., According to Appellants, Appellees were under an obligation to disclose the conflict of simultaneously representing Baron’s Stores and the Lansons when Appellees filed their initial Motions for Retention before the bankruptcy court, or at the very least as soon as it became apparent that the Lansons and Baron’s Stores had competing interests. When Appellees failed to disclose their conflict in representing two parties with competing interests, Appellants assert Appellees committed fraud…..” [A-1]

The District Court minimized the more than sixty-four glaring conflicts of interest and/or connections of the Appellees at the inception of their retention, and their continuing duty to disclose any conflicts or connections that may have arisen during the Bankruptcy proceeding. For instance, at Page 4 of the February 15, 2008 Order Denying Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, the District Court, relied on the bankruptcy court’s finding that there was no evidence that Kopplow and Cooper understood that they were required to disclose the attenuated relationships or connections as part of their retention as special counsel. [A-2] The District Court further relied on the bankruptcy court that there was no evidence that Salkin even knew of the relationships until after the case had been closed and the Lansons filed their legal malpractice action.[A-2]This erroneous finding is not supported by the record below.

Between March, 1998 and March, 2005, the Lansons, and three different attorneys representing the Lansons and/or Baron’s, Kopelowitz, Osherow and Zukoff, made repeated oral and written demands upon Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin to fulfill their obligation to disclose their connections and/or conflicts of interest. On March 5, 2005, Appellant sent a letter to Appellee, Salkin, (with copies to various Federal Judges and the U.S. Trustee) demanding that she fulfill her fiduciary obligation and disclose the fraud on the court perpetrated in the bankruptcy of Baron’s.[A-7]

The voluminous amount of undisclosed connections, that were intentionally omitted, is, in and of itself, sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s “fraud on the court” under bankruptcy Rule 2014. In re Etoys, Inc., 331 B.R. 176, 188 (Del.2005) [R-390 – p. 11-12]

Failure to disclose connections and conflicts-of-interest pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule of Procedure 2014 and 11 U.S.C. §327 is a fraud on the Court. In re Etoys, Inc., 331 B.R. 176, 188 (Del. 2005). “Defective disclosure is not a minor matter.” In re B.E.S. Concrete Products, Inc., 93 B.R. 228, 236 (E.D. Cal. 1988). “[S]trict compliance with Rule 2014(a) is necessary to the effective enforcement of §327(a) and (e) as this provision goes to the very heart of the bankruptcy system’s integrity.” In re Tinley Plaza Associates, L.P., 142 B.R. 272, 279 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Accordingly, “Failure to meet the requirements of Rule 2014(a) is enough by itself to disqualify an attorney and deny compensation even if no conflict of interest exists.” Id., at 278 (emphasis added). This standard is so stringent that the penalty for failing to disclose a potential, much less an actual conflict is the denial of all compensation. In re Keller Financial Services of Florida, Inc., 248 B.R. 859, 898 (M.D. Fla. 2000).

Further, disclosure of connections must be made “regardless of whether the undisclosed connections ... were materially adverse to the interests of the estate or were de minimis.” Id.. “No matter how trivial a connection appears to the professional seeking employment, it must be disclosed.” In re Begun, 162 B.R. 168, 177 (N.D. Ill. 1993). It is for this reason that “The scope of disclosure is much broader than the question of disqualification.” In re Keller, at 897. Further, “Rule 2014 has long been held to be read broadly.” In re Jore Corp., 298 B.R. 703, 725 (D. Montana). Needless to say, the Attorneys may not usurp the Court’s authority and unilaterally evaluate the significance of the connections. In re Keller, at 897. Finally, “a bankruptcy court should punish a willful failure to disclose the connections required by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2014 as severely as an attempt to put forth a fraud upon the court.” In re Balco Equities Ltd., Inc., 345 B.R. 87, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Although a bankruptcy court enjoys considerable discretion in evaluating whether professionals suffer from conflicts, that discretion is not limitless. A bankruptcy court does not enjoy the discretion to bypass the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. Until proper disclosure has been made, however, it is premature to award fees for two reasons First, the bankruptcy court cannot exercise its discretion to excuse nondisclosure unless it knows what it is excusing Second, employment is a prerequisite to compensation and until there is proper disclosure it cannot be known whether the professional was validly employed. In re Triple Star Welding, Inc., 324 B.R. 778 (9th Cir. 2005).

Despite the numerous demands made upon the Attorneys to make proper disclosure since their retention in 1997, it was not until testimony during the evidentiary trial in Bankruptcy court in 2007 that Kopplow finally flippantly made any disclosure to the Bankruptcy Court.

MR. KATZMAN: “You don’t feel that those are connections, because they’re not an actual adverse interest, right?

MR. KOPPLOW: They’re not connections that are either so close in time – present or so close in time that they would have any impact or bearing on my ability to be independent and continue to bring the claim of Baron’s against Morrison Brown.

MR. KATZMAN: Shouldn’t the Judge have been given the opportunity to make that decision by at least knowing that you used to represent folks who are creditors and owners of creditors of Baron’s?

MR. KOPPLOW: We’re telling him that today.”

R-539-210].

In the case of 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 Attorneys below made no disclosure but filed a boilerplate verified statement that they had no connections and/or conflicts of interest. The disclosure requirements are not satisfied with generalizations or boilerplate admonitions. Such generalizations, at best, cover inadvertent omissions of insignificant connections. They do not adequately disclose known or future connections, particularly with entities who are creditors, litigation targets or professionals associated with the debtor. In re Granite Partners, 219 B..R. at 34-36.

The District Court’s misplaced reliance on the Bankruptcy Court’s erroneous finding that, because the Appellees’ did not know the Lansons had individual claims against MBA, Appellees’ did not have the intent to deceive the Court. (A-1,pg.13). Such a finding turns the mandatory disclosure requirements under Bankruptcy Rule 2014 on its head and renders it meaningless.

B. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONSIDER APPELLEE’S SALKIN’S PATENT ADMISSION OF HER INTENTIONAL NON-DISCLOSURE IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, AS EVIDENCE OF HER INTENT TO PERPETRATE A FRAUD ON THE COURT

Appellee, Salkin, not only was Debtor’s Counsel, but at that time and presently, Salkin was and remains a Panel 7 United States Bankruptcy Trustee for Region 21. In such capacity, Salkin is charged with a higher fiduciary obligation and should be intimately familiar with the mandatory disclosure rules under the Bankruptcy Code.

Salkin, as a Chapter 7 Trustee and as the fiduciary for the Debtor in possession , is held to a very high standard of honesty and loyalty. Woods v. City National Bank & Trust Co., 312 U.S. 262, 278 (1941); Moser v. Darrow, 341 U.S. 267 (1951); In re: Peckinpaugh, 50 B.R. 865 (N.D. Ohio 1985).

THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF APPELLEES INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE COURT:

August 27, 1998 Meryl Lanson and Norman Lanson, through attorney Osherow, file an Affidavit (Entitlement to Fees) in Bankruptcy Court alerting the Court to the conflicts of Kopplow and Cooper (Service List of Affidavit put all professionals, including the U.S. Trustee, on notice). [A-4]

August 28, 1998 Sonya Salkin, Esq., sent letter to Osherow, with copies to Kopplow and Cooper, stating that the “filing of the Affidavit was a very foolish thing” and states:

“No one was going to stand up and object to the treatment of the principals of the Plan. In fact, the Committee has revised the Plan to add language to assist the Lansons. You have now provided the Court, sua sponte, the ability to deny confirmation and require revisions to the disclosure statements and plan, which could take away those negotiated efforts.” [A-5]

August 30, 1998 Osherow sends letter to Salkin and states:

“I am in receipt of your correspondence dated August 28, 1998,...

Suffice it to say, that what is transpiring at this point should have been taken care of earlier. The only consideration that I can glean from your letter, is that you think it is appropriate that the Court should not be aware of the facts as my clients perceives them. The Court has a right, and should know, and the attorneys have an obligation to provide all pertinent information so that the Court can make an informed decision as to anything that may transpire. [A-6]

August 31, 1998 During the Hearing on the Appellant’s Affidavit objecting to the Appellees’ fees based on their non-disclosure, all professionals remained silent in Court as to the conflicts of interest of Kopplow and Cooper.

The above admission is clear and convincing evidence that Salkin, with the approval of Kopplow and Cooper, engaged in a pre-meditated, unconscionable scheme, by preventing the Court from having the information necessary to make an informed decision. The unconscionable scheme was to continue to hide the connections and/or conflicts of interest of Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, for their own financial gain, and to the detriment of the beneficiaries of the estate, the Creditors and the Debtor.

In light of the letter Salkin wrote to Osherow, it is obvious that, at that time, Salkin was sensitive to the issue of conflicts – although she did not share her concerns with the Court. It is therefore all the more evident that when Salkin represented to Bank Atlantic that she was the attorney for the Lansons, individually, and that she did so in the belief that she was the attorney for the Lansons. [A-9; R-532-Exh.31] The Court overlooked the fact that in doing so, Salkin was necessarily cognizant of the conflict and of the necessity to disclose that conflict to the Court.

On page 6 of the District Court’s Order, the Court makes reference that the Lansons did not appeal or seek a rehearing of the August 31, 1998 hearing on the fee entitlement motion. Appellee, Salkin, should have been acutely aware of the fiduciary duties she was charged with in Baron’s to look after the best interests of both the Debtor and Creditors and yet sat silent, knowing all along of the professionals undisclosed conflicts of interest. Ms. Salkin should have sought a rehearing or an appeal of this order on behalf of Baron’s and its Creditors. Appellee Salkin’s failure to appeal or seek a rehearing is a continuation of the Appellees’ unconscionable scheme depriving the Court of the necessary information it was entitled to receive in order to have made an informed decision.

C. Appellant’s Due Process Rights were violated when the District Court affirmed the Bankrptcy Court’s, sua sponte, expansion of inquiry to include the Attorneys’ subjective intent, on the last day of trial.

On September 29, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court denied Appellees’ Motion for Protective Order, as moot, in that the Court bifurcated the trial into liability and remedy negating the necessity for the Appellant to depose approximately nineteen fact witnesses prior to the trial. Three months later, at a pre-trial hearing on January 8, 2007, the Court substantiated his bifurcation by narrowing the scope to what was disclosed and what should have been disclosed. Quoting directly from the January 8, 2007 pre-trial hearing transcript: [A-8,pg. 11 & 23].
The Court: “I’ll tell you now, the only issue is disclosure. What should have been disclosed, and what was disclosed, that’s the issue before me.”

The Court: “Does anyone dispute that the issue before me, not in State Court, but before me, is what was disclosed and what should have been disclosed?” [A-8,pg. 11 & 23].

Even though the record is replete of Appellees’ subjective intent or “motive,” as it stands, the District Court erred in failing to consider the Bankruptcy Court’s sua sponte expansion of the narrow scope of disclosure to include the Appellees’ subjective intent, depriving the Appellants of meaningful discovery on that issue.

Ironically, this same Bankruptcy court, when faced with the same issue of whether or not a professional failed to make proper disclosure, found clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court based on one undisclosed connection. Subjective intent was never mentioned in the twelve page opinion. In re Walker, 2004 WL 3152787(S.D. Fla.) Emphasis added. This Court recently affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision and stated: “Lying under oath is lying under oath.” Walden v. Walker, 515 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2008).
The District Court in its February 15, 2008 Order stated Appellants have not shown clear error or manifest injustice.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “manifest injustice” as an error in the trial court that is direct, obvious, and observable as Bankruptcy Rule 2014 is mandatory, not discretionary, and cannot be left to the professionals to decide what to disclose and what not to disclose. (As argued above). Additionally, this Circuit held in order to demonstrate manifest injustice a party must show: (1) there was error; (2) that was plain; (3) that affected the parties substantial rights and (4) that affected the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. United States v.Quintana, 300 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2002).
As a result of the manifest injustice in the bankruptcy of Baron’s, a fifty-two year old company was destroyed, more than two hundred loyal employees became unemployed, creditors were damaged, the Appellant and her family’s livelihood was stolen from them, all because the professionals broke the cardinal principle of Rule 2014(a) when they arrogated to themselves a disclosure decision that the Court must make in order to protect their ill-gotten fees. Ten years ago, in 1998, pre-confirmation, this situation could have and should have been rectified, but was not because the Attorneys sat silent at a hearing depriving the Court of the information necessary at that time to prevent the manifest injustice that has been ongoing for a decade. Ten years later, in 2008, Appellant is still seeking a remedy for this manifest injustice.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, stated above, this Honorable Court should enter an Order vacating the District Court’s affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that Attorneys did not perpetrate a fraud on the court in violation of the mandatory disclosure rules under the bankruptcy code.

WHEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests this Court to vacate the District Court’s Order and remand with instructions for further proceedings, and award any other further relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this Initial Brief complies with the type-volume limitation set forth in FRAP 32(a)(7)(b). This brief is in Times New Roman 14 pt. font. This brief contains 8,886 words.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail, on this 12th day of May, 2008, to all counsel on the attached service list.

Respectfully submitted,

Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se
mlanson@bellsouth.net

SERVICE LIST

Heidi Feinman, Esq.
Office of the U.S. Trustee
51 S.W. First Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130

Arthur Morburger, Esq.
19 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130

Charles W. Throckmorton, Esq.
Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq.
Two Datran Center
Suite 1612
9130 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156

Reggie D. Sanger, Esq.
208 S.E. 9th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33136

Lewis N. Jack, Jr., Esq.
2950 S.W. 27th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33133

Robert M. Klein, Esq.
Two Datran Center – PH II
9130 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33156

Former Bankruptcy Trustee Who Lied About Creditor Relationships Kept Off Case

2008-06-09T20:22:00.000-04:00

Billy Shields
02-07-2008

A bankruptcy trustee who lost her appointment after a judge found she had lied under oath will be kept out of the contentious case under a ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Linda J. Walden appealed her removal on the grounds her lies shouldn't be held against her in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy of a Plantation, Fla., man. But Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch scotched that notion in her written opinion.

"The idea that false testimony when offered to the court voluntarily is immune to the consequences of lying under oath is absurd," she wrote. "Lying under oath is lying under oath. It does not matter if the false statement is voluntary."

The three-judge panel affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul G. Hyman Jr.'s order removing Walden, a certified public accountant, from the case of James F. Walker.

The court examined three questions of first impression: whether a bankruptcy judge can without a motion eject a trustee for lying, whether a debtor with no financial interest in the estate can seek a trustee's removal and whether the 11th Circuit had jurisdiction to review the district court decision upholding Hyman's action.

In the end, the court found no abuse of discretion or clear error.

Walker's attorney, Gary J. Rotella of Gary J. Rotella & Associates in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., filed an emergency motion to remove Walden as trustee, accusing her of committing a fraud on the court by failing to disclose relationships with creditors.

Walden was quizzed by Hyman about financial relationships with creditors and had signed a statement saying she had no prior connection to any of the parties.

Hyman determined Walden lied in 2004 when she denied having a pre-existing relationship with the second-largest creditor, Florida Caliper. She had served as an accountant for the company and its president, Carl Shuhi.

She also allegedly served as the registered agent for two of Shuhi's companies and worked with Shuhi at least as far back as 1999, the ruling said.

The 11th Circuit decision issued Jan. 31 is just the latest chapter in a 20-year standoff that has been described as a "legal monster" and Florida's "most heavily litigated case."

Walker's neighbor, Eleanor Cole, invested $250,000 with him in 1988 for a Fort Lauderdale property that went into foreclosure, and Walker could not repay her.

She sued him a year later alleging civil theft and fraud, obtaining a $302,933 judgment. Walker also was ordered to pay $250,000 in criminal restitution to Cole in 1990 after he pleaded no contest to criminal charges in Florida's Broward Circuit Court. He served an 18-month sentence and was placed on probation for 15 years.

Walker filed for bankruptcy protection in 2003, claiming total assets of $101 and debts exceeding $1 million. Creditors elected Walden as trustee with the support of Cole, Shuhi and Boca Raton, Fla., attorney Mary Alice Gwynn, who had previously represented both of them.

After Hyman ousted Walden as trustee, he struck both Cole's and Shuhi's outstanding claims, citing their disrespect for the legal system.

Hyman also prohibited Gwynn from representing any parties in the case after ruling she violated court rules "by not remaining familiar with the court's Local Rules, administrative orders, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, The Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct and the Bankruptcy Code."

Gwynn, Rotella, Shuhi and Cole's attorney, Miami Lakes, Fla., solo practitioner Michael A. Pizzi, did not return calls seeking comment before deadline.

Walker's $101 asset claim is still under scrutiny. Cole discovered in 2002 that Walker owned a house on the Bahamian island of North Cat Cay.

Cole accused Walker of fraudulently conveying a half stake in the property to his wife, Carol Ann Walker, to avoid paying the $550,000 judgment he owed Cole.

The value of the property is reportedly as much as $1 million, but who controls it is the subject of litigation.

The island property has been added to Walker's assets, and Kravitch observed, "It appears as though the assets now exceed liabilities."

US Supreme Court rules this week that Whistle Blower lawsuit may continue

2008-06-09T20:16:00.001-04:00

Court sets limits in government fraud suits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that a whistleblower law intended to expose fraud can be applied to subcontractors and other indirect recipients of federal funds.

The case before the court involved alleged contract fraud by a former unit of General Motors Corp. At issue was whether the False Claims Act covers any fraudulent claim paid for by government funds, or only fraudulent claims directly submitted to a government official.

Justice Samuel Alito charted a middle path, saying the law can be used if fraudulent statements are ultimately intended to get the government to pay claims.

The whistleblower law does not apply in situations in which a subcontractor does not intend the government to rely on a fraudulent claim as a condition of payment.

A lower appeals court had ruled that the whistleblower suits could proceed, because the False Claims Act covers claims made to other parties, "so long as the claim will be paid with government funds."

The court sent the case back to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to apply the standard it laid out Monday.

The case is Allison Engine v. United States, 07-214.

Crooked Lawyers Caught!

2008-04-11T17:21:00.003-04:00

BY SAM FRIEDMAN

When insurers and brokers step out of line, Congress always rushes to probe the business, vows to pass sweeping reforms, and threatens to revoke the industry's cherished federal antitrust exemption. Funny, but I don’t sense similar outrage when high-profile plaintiff attorneys are caught corrupting the judicial system they are sworn to serve.

Indeed, despite the outrageous criminal misbehavior of two of the profession's most potent litigators, I don't see Congress rushing to investigate misdeeds by the plaintiffs bar, or pontificating about the need for direct federal oversight.

I imagine Congress is averting its gaze because just about all of our legislators are members of the bar themselves. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, right?

Still, you’ve got to be appalled at the chutzpah of two of the most notorious lawyers in the business.

First, trial attorney extraordinaire Dickie Scruggs pleaded guilty to bribing a judge. (His son followed suit soon after.) Meanwhile, another king of class actions, Melvyn I. Weiss, copped a plea for his role in a scam to drum up plaintiffs.

The Scruggs case struck close to home for the insurance industry, as the bribery took place in a legal battle among plaintiff attorneys over $26.5 million in contingency fees from a Hurricane Katrina-related claim settlement with State Farm.

Mr. Scruggs simply got greedy, preferring to assure his firm's piece of an already fat pie by paying off the judge. He of all people should respect the integrity of the civil justice system.

As for Mr. Weiss, he pleaded guilty to a federal racketeering charge, for which he’ll pay a $10 million fine and accept a jail sentence of up to 33 months for his illegal plaintiff recruitment activities in connection with hundreds of class-action lawsuits.

“This kickback scheme lasted for more than 25 years and had a severely detrimental effect on the administration of justice across the nation as lies were routinely made to judges,” said U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien in Los Angeles. “The scheme was based in greed, and it affected the integrity of the courts and the interests of an untold number of absent class members.”

Of course—as I noted when New York’s former crusading attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had to resign as governor following a prostitution scandal—self-inflicted wounds like these destroying the industry’s harshest foes doesn't mean insurers or brokers weren't guilty of the blatant bid-rigging, book-cooking and contingency fee abuse they were caught committing.

But it must feel good among the vast majority of those who conduct business honestly and honorably in the insurance community to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.

In fact, it would feel even better if Congress was as indignant about the misdeeds of these officers of the court as they were about insurance industry wrongdoing.

As far as I understand the system, lawyers are state-licensed. Perhaps the feds should take over, if the states are not up to the job of policing their renegade lawyers! (Or shall we have an optional federal charter for attorneys?)

Yet all we get out of Washington in the wake of these despicable falls from grace is deafening silence.

At least these cases prove that no matter how rich and powerful the attorney, no one is above the law. Hopefully, this will discourage other plaintiff lawyers from going rogue and abusing the judicial system.

As the TV cop Tony Baretta used to lecture those he busted, “don't do the crime if you can't do the time.”

Sam Friedman is NU’s Editor-In-Chief. To respond to his column, e-mail sfriedman@nuco.com, or go to his blog at www.property-casualty.com.

Re: Illegal Operations of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company

2008-04-09T21:46:00.000-04:00

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net

April 8, 2008

The Honorable Alex Sink
Chief Financial Officer
Department of Financial Services, State of Florida
200 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

Re: Illegal Operations of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company

Dear Ms. Sink:

Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company provides malpractice insurance coverage to Florida lawyers. As you may know, it was created by The Florida Bar.

There is no problem with FLMIC’s stated function. What it actually provides, however, amounts to protection of lawyers guilty of ethics breaches from appropriate discipline by The Florida Bar. Its policyholders are not just buying malpractice insurance; they are buying discipline protection, much as businesses, historically, have purchased “protection” from the Mafia.

That is one side of FLMIC’s illegal activity, one side of the tarnished coin. The other side of the coin is that those who do not purchase liability insurance from FLMIC are more likely to be disciplined by The Florida Bar. We have data to support all this.

This illicit commercial tying arrangement by which what is purported to be a governmental regulatory function of the practice of law to the purchase of an insurance product clearly violates a) federal anti-trust laws, b) federal and state anti-racketeering laws regarding extortion, fraud, and other predicate RICO acts c) federal mail fraud laws, d) state and federal fraud laws, and e) obstruction of justice laws.

FMLIC helps accomplish its ends illegally by having the executive director of The Bar and two Bar Governors sit on its board, along with a former president of The Bar. It is beyond unseemly that Bar officials who owe a strict fiduciary duty to Bar members would even think of sitting on an insurance company’s board of directors that must assess claims against lawyers against whom disciplinary charges may have been brought. No Bar official in his or her right mind would fail to see the conflict. In point of fact, these people serve in both capacities because of the conflict of interest, and it appears, based upon the data that we have that these conflicts are bearing fruit to the advantage of FLMIC and its policyholders.

When I informed The Bar and the Florida Supreme Court of this illegal activity involving FLMIC and my concerns about it, the Florida Supreme Court entered an order on February 19 as retribution for my whistleblowing. This Supreme Court order in and of itself violates Florida Statute 768.295, as the State may not punish a citizen for whistleblowing. One would think Supreme Court Justices would know that. Thus, we have the highest court in the state involved directly in this illegal enterprise by being willing participants in a knowing cover-up re whistleblowing at to FLMIC.

I and other plaintiffs—lay citizens as well as lawyers--intend to bring a civil action this week arising out of FLMIC’s illegal activities. We will be applying to the court for certification of it as a class action.

We thought you should know of this because of your duties to oversee the insurance industry in this state. Relatedly, FLMIC is using its illegal ties to the judicial branch of this state, through The Bar, in a fashion that improperly works to the considerable commercial disadvantage other insurance companies that provide liability insurance to lawyers in our state.

We shall be informing these other insurance carriers that this scam is occurring in our state, and that we have informed you of it.

We would very much like to tell these companies that the State’s CFO is on top of this outrageous situation and part of the solution. Please advise.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Copies: Florida Supreme Court
The Florida Bar and Its Governors
Various insurance carriers
Media

Re: Criminal Conspiracy to Violate Federal Civil Rights and Anti-Racketeering Laws

2008-04-09T21:43:00.001-04:00

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net

April 9, 2008

The Honorable Gregory Robert Miller
US Attorney, Northern District of Florida
111 N. Adams Street, 4th Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301 Via Fax to 850-942-9577

The Honorable Robert E. O'Neill
US Attorney, Middle District of Florida
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 33602 Via Fax to 813-274-6246

The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta
US Attorney, Southern District of Florida
99 NE 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132 Via Fax to 305-530-7087

Re: Criminal Conspiracy to Violate Federal Civil Rights and Anti-Racketeering Laws

Dear Mr. Miller, Mr. O’Neill, and Mr. Acosta:

I wrote you thirty days ago and under oath informed each of you of an ongoing criminal conspiracy by certain state officials to violate not just my civil rights but the rights of others. As you recall, I signed the letter to each of you under oath.

Since then, The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court have proven the validity of my letter and the request I made of each of you.

The Supreme Court has now retaliated against my lawyer by initiating lunacy proceedings against him with an order it entered April 2. Prior to that, The Florida Bar stole his medical records in order to try to intimidate him from representing me. The Supreme Court, the day after it entered the April 2 order against my attorney who assisted me at my Bar trial, entered an order prohibiting me from representing myself, which order violates my Sixth Amendment right to represent myself, as enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Faretta.

The Court is telling me that I, a lawyer of 31 years in continuous good standing with The Bar, rated A/V by Martindale, and someone who secured a number of historic firsts, can represent clients but not myself. Maybe the Justices are the ones in need of a psychiatric intervention.

On April 7, just this week, my Comcast e-mail account was “hacked,” and it appears to me and to others that the culprit was The Florida Bar. The Bar had previously intercepted, it appears, an electronic communication between me and my lawyer. If so, both instances constitute a serious federal crime.

Gentlemen, when did the State of Florida become the gulag Archipelago? The President of The Florida Bar, Frank Angones, who claims he was part of the Pedro Pan airlift out of Castro’s Cuba, has knowingly approved The Bar’s use of phony lunacy proceedings to intimidate critics. The above-noted April 2 order secured by The Bar is just the latest event that shows The Bar and the Court have adopted the shrink-our-critics methods of Fidel Castro. There are multiple victims of this criminal use of lunacy proceedings against lawyers who are willing to talk to the FBI. I have their names. They want to talk to the FBI.

The Bar did this to me as well, threatening me with a mandatory mental health examination to try to coerce my compliance with The Bar. One of The Bar’s own experts is a forensic psychologist who has told The Bar this was outrageous and meritless.

Bar Governor Ben Kuehne, who is under indictment by the US Justice Department, is involved in this criminal conspiracy. He transferred money to my Bar referee on the same day that a Bar prosecutor did the same thing. When I sought federal relief in U.S. District Court here in the Southern District for The Bar’s excesses, Miami lawyer Steve Chaykin increased twelve-fold the punishment The Bar sought. Such retribution is itself a federal crime, and Chaykin should be charged. I’m sure Bill Sadowki would have been proud of Comrade Chaykin.

Despite your forwarding this matter, Mr. Acosta, to the FBI, the FBI has done nothing and refuses to talk to me.

With all respect, either the FBI takes this seriously—the computer hacking, the criminal use of lunacy proceedings, the whole nine yards of Castro’s dump truck of tricks—or I and others will do what we need to do.

Mr. Acosta, the last time this flared up, the FBI did open a criminal investigation, headed by FBI Agent Swinerton, and you let it be shut down apparently by political friends of President Bush inconvenienced by the investigation. I know you have been reading my e-mails updating you on this criminal activity. I have your e-mail receipts proving that you have read them.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Copy: United States Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

2008-03-10T21:08:00.000-04:00

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net

March 10, 2008

The Honorable Gregory Robert Miller
US Attorney, Northern District of Florida
111 N. Adams Street, 4th Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301 Via Fax to 850-942-9577

The Honorable Robert E. O'Neill
US Attorney, Middle District of Florida
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 33602 Via Fax to 813-274-6246

The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta
US Attorney, Southern District of Florida
99 NE 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132 Via Fax to 305-530-7087

Re: Criminal Conspiracy to Violate Federal Civil Rights and Anti-Racketeering Laws

Dear Mr. Miller, Mr. O’Neill, and Mr. Acosta:

The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court, along with certain of their personnel, are at the center of a criminal conspiracy to violate the federal civil rights of a number of Florida attorneys in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 241 and Section 242.

These state governmental entities, along with certain private sector entities and their respective agents, are also violating the federal RICO Act. One facet of this criminal activity is that lawyers who purchase liability insurance from The Bar-created Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company are purchasing “Bar discipline protection” from FLMIC, on whose board improperly sit The Bar’s Executive Director and certain Florida Bar Governors. This arrangement probably also violates federal anti-trust laws as well.

A formal poll of Bar members corroborates the fact, not the surmise, that The Bar and the Florida Supreme Court target lawyers for reasons that have nothing to do with ethics violations whatsoever. Further, various predicate RICO acts are being committed by The Bar, including but not limited to extortion, mail fraud, perjury, bribery, fraud, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and infliction of bodily harm.

In one instance, The Bar has gone so far as to steal the confidential medical records of a Florida lawyer for the purposes of extortion.

I am not the only victim of this criminal conspiracy. There are scores of other lawyers as well who have been targeted, many of whom are willing to come forward along with non-lawyer citizens who are willing to make these charges, name the names, and provide proof of all of this under oath.

Some individuals who deserve particular scrutiny in a criminal investigation are The Bar’s Executive Director Jack Harkness, who is at the center of the above-noted FLMIC scam and The Bar’s current President Frank Angones, who is part of The Bar’s ongoing criminal violations of the aforementioned civil rights and RICO laws.

One other person who should be targeted by a federal investigation of these matters is Miami attorney Benedict P. Kuehne, who was recently indicted by “Main Justice” at the Justice Department for money laundering. Mr. Kuehne is a Bar Governor who has extorted me and who, despite his federal indictment, continues, improperly, to serve on The Bar’s Board of Governors. Mr. Kuehne has bribed a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge to secure a certain result in a Bar “disciplinary” matter and has done so with a “campaign contribution” coordinated with a Bar prosecutor. That judge has been found to have been the beneficiary of a forged document that has now spawned a state criminal investigation.

Further, the Miami law firm of Greenberg, Traurig is at the center of this criminal conspiracy, as it has been repeatedly caught engaging in fraud to protect The Bar from scrutiny. This is the law firm that coughed up Jack Abramoff, so it appears it has learned nothing from that experience.

I have written all three of you US Attorneys because this criminal conspiracy involving state officials and private citizens stretches across all three of Florida’s federal districts.

I make these assertions, on my own behalf and on behalf of others, knowing full well the consequences of fabricating any of these charges or in any fashion shading the truth.

I have been a lawyer in continuous good standing in this state for thirty-one years. I am a Christian, and thus I am not allowed by God and His Word to bear false witness.

Please advise how we are now to proceed. I would suggest that a special grand jury be impaneled, as provided by federal law, in one of your jurisdictions.

I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.

Signed, John B. Thompson, March 10, 2008

2008-03-08T18:35:00.001-05:00

Courthouses are built with an imposing facade,
with the words chiseled in stone,
"We who labor here seek only the truth".

Words of Mass Deception

The rhetoric is convincing less and less individuals that the United States is a country of laws, with the best legal system protected by a constitution guaranteeing that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. This is becoming more and more a coverup for the thievery in the name of justice. The extent of the callous disregard for the truth and of the law still leaves those who come in touch with what is supposed to be a "civil" court system shell shocked. It is still difficult to accept that where the constitution is flaunted as an inalienable right it has become discretionary with many judges whether they follow its dictates. Even if finally a party prevails in a lawsuit it is at an enormous financial cost and expense of time and can be a traumatic experience.

All these constitutional rights have been reduced to a meaningless rhetoric where they have become unenforceable, including in the federal courts, . Unfortunately, many judges have assumed the position that their job is to confiscate your money, your assets, your property to curry favors with lawyers and other judges. The facts are whatever suits the end result. Once in a blue moon a judge is apprehended by the system as you may read in our News and Articles but, that is the exception, a make believe that it is a few judges who taint the system, a mere cover-up to allow the lawless business of justice to continue as usual in the courts. It is coming to that a victim has a better chance to escape from the jaws of a shark in the ocean than in the courthouse.

Lawsuits are now being filed in the USA at the rate of over one hundred million a year. Where there is money to be made there will be a lawsuit. Lawyers can walk into the courthouse to file a lawsuit and sue anyone, even on fabricated facts, that berate the opponent and is tailored into a lawsuit on some legal theory or resembling one, which is then often treated by the courts as a lawsuit worthy to be litigated. Many of these lawsuits have nothing to do with right or wrong, the facts and the law, but are based on the desire to extract money or property from the party sued and of course fees for lawyers. The case becomes simply a means to transfer assets to enrich some in the legal profession, a holdup with a pen. America is no longer the land of opportunity it is the land of the opportunist.

When a potential plaintiff walks into a lawyer’s office, before filing a lawsuit, the lawyer will ascertain if the potential defendant has sufficient assets, especially when the attorney is working on a contingency fee basis. Prior to commencing a lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorney will perform a financial investigation of the target defendant’s assets, seeking to locate any real estate, bank accounts or other valuable property. If the investigation reveals that the defendant has substantial assets the lawsuit will proceed. If all the facts are not there, as can be seen from some of the individual cases presented here by CJA, facts can be created and even falsified as a means to achieve the desired end.

In many types of litigation the plaintiff can obtain from the court a pre-judgment writ of attachment, or a restraining order, or secure the appointment of a receiver for the property, effectively freezing all of the defendant’s funds pending the outcome of the case. This is often the single most potent weapon available to the plaintiff. Without access to funds to meet business and personal expenses the defendant will not be able to survive financially during the lawsuit. The tactic will usually force a defendant to enter into an unfavorable settlement regardless of the merits of his or her defenses. Even where no property is frozen just the potential expense of a litigation will force a defendant into an unfavorable settlement, which is often akin to turning the civil justice system into legalized extortion.

In cases where there is no contingency fee, or where a defendant seeks to retain counsel, the attorney will investigate the finances of his client. The attorney will take a substantial fee in advance, generally at an hourly rate of over a hundred dollars or several hundred dollars depending on the "prestige" of the attorney or of the "firm". When that retainer fee is used up in the manner accounted for it by the attorney, more fees are extracted, often at a crucial time, such as when an important response is due or even on the eve of a trial. If the client fails to comply the attorney threatens withdrawal from the case.

In cases where no property is involved, but the case is based on some kind of claim, where David is facing Goliath, in spite of the evidence it may very well be that it is Goliath who is going to prevail, or depending on which way the interest of power struc-ture lies. Lawyers who dare to tip the balance of power, or speak out on wrongdoing, may be ostracized and are even punished by suspension or disbarment. A function of the lawyer is to keep the client under control. A person who goes to court without an attorney called a "pro se" litigant, is disfavored by the judges and such litigants are often treated unfairly. The United States Court of Appeal for the The Ninth Circuit's Prepared an Interim Report titled "Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants", which shows a deferential treatment of the self represented. A formidable response has been prepared by the organization A Matter of Justice, "Comments on the Ninth Circuit pro se Task Force Report" setting forth the problems faced the pro se litigant. However, it is noteworthy that this maybe the case even if the litigant is represented by counsel. To read the report and comments click here. Since intimidation is obviously one of the tools of the legal system, it is essential not to be intimated and to know what your legal rights are. Also in many cases alternative dispute resolution by mediation or arbitration may be more desirable in the least it saves time and the exorbitant legal fees. A recent approach is the Collaborative Practice which is different from mediation. A a neutral, third party helps the disputing parties settle their case. In collaborative practice, the spouses and their attorneys make these decisions in four way discussions click here.

Some people maybe lucky to have avoided involvement in litigation, but upon their death it may very likely catch up with all that they possessed and worked for in their lifetime. The personal representatives of decedent’s estate and their lawyers are guaranteed their fees by statute and they receive additional fees if there is litigation. They become the unnamed true heirs of the decedent, because their fees as "administrative expenses" come first. However, that involvement may come sooner in the lifetime of the individual such as upon becoming incapacitated in an accident or because of advancing years a guardianship maybe set up. If there are no liquid assets then the property of the ward and even the ward’s home may be liquidated, to provide funds. Both in probate and guardianship cases the assets of the decedent and ward come under control of the court. The presiding judge awards the fees to the personal representatives, to the guardians, their lawyers, accountants and so forth from the estate of the decedent or incapacitated person. So, that the fees are usually not negotiable not even by the immediate family.

The fees are generally based on "billable hours", which in practice means whatever is billed by the attorney, often turning it into the "billable horrors". Even if objections are filed to the fees, if there is money the fees are generally approved by the presiding judge. Billable hours often include traveling time to court and other non-legal activities charged at an hourly basis as legal fees by attorneys, which have been adopted by other professionals such as accountants and so forth. Often the time to bill the "billable hours" and if there is a hearing on it that time is also billed. Also more fees are charged to the estate for the time to defend against objections, which are also generally approved by the court. It is not unusual to have a whole estate or a substantial portion of it converted to court appointees under disguise of fees and expenses. This is often the case in other type of cases where the court has the authority to award fees, such as in divorce, bankruptcy, foreclosure, and so forth. The divorce industry is a very lucrative practice, especially with clients of means. In many cases as long as the parties have the money the litigation goes on, condoned by the judges. So, that no matter how many judges there are it is never enough. In effect these lawyers with their endless litigation are subsidized by the public.

The trials and tribulations of the middle class litigants who are stripped of their property, of their livelihood, or of their rights, are generally not news worthy and so they are rarely if ever reported by the news media. What gets coverage are the sensational murder trials, or lawsuits involving large corporations with deep pockets, who are hit with a big judgment creating the impression that justice has been done. We at CJA receive numerous complaints. We are presenting here a few these cases in detail as told by the victims based on the record, to make the public aware of what transpires in court with regard to these silenced litigants and to demand reform from governmental bodies. The general response that ours is an adversary system where one party wins and it is the disgruntled loser who complains cannot be applied on cart blanche basis. Not when a party fails to prevail because the law and the facts of the case are disregarded, or the laws and rules and changed or because of other illegal and unlawful activities by the judges and lawyers. It has become common standard to dispose of motions or of even cases with a mere "denied"; "dismissed"; labeling it "res judicata" when those matters were never heard. The "Rule of Law" has been become to mean, those who rule make the laws to suit their own objectives.

A recent study on data compiled by the federal court system, was prepared by Marc Galanter, who teaches law at the University of Wisconsin and the London School of Economics, for the American Bar Association. The study shows that only 1.8% of the civil cases in federal court go to trial. William G. Young, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Boston, said in a telephone interview, that this "is nothing less than the passing of the common law adversarial system that is uniquely American." We know that this change is not a positive but is detrimental to many litigants. It is no longer a litigant's right to have their day in court, but "now they have their day on papers submitted". The study found that in 1962 a federal judge conducted an average of 39 civil and criminal trials a year, but have now dwindled it down to 13 a year. The judges spend the rest of their time on deciding pretrial motions and urging or approving settlement and plea bargain. To read more on this issue click here. However, what is omitted is that federal judges have magistrate judges and much of this work is done by them, with the federal judges merely putting their stamp of approval on it. The same is apparent in state court, where litigants are also denied their day in court, too often cases ending not in well reasoned orders and judgments, but what amounts to judicial edicts. What this obviously ads up to is the constitutional denial of due process, the right to be heard, to present and receive evidence and to give and take testimony. Although, it has been found that the public prefers jury trial over judge it has been found that plea bargaining and arbitration are often resorted to avoid costly trials click here.

Should an appeal be taken, often that is a mere pretense of a review by the higher court, which simply never happened just merely a PCA a rubber stamp, or some further fictionalized version of the case, supported with authorities that are relevant only to the fictionalized version and not to what was before the court. To add insult on injury this is carried out under the pretext that the victims have "constitutional rights". However, as the system is now administered in many cases these rights have become a mere illusion a rainbow in the sky.

Some of the cases presented here show the misuse of contempt powers by judges to intimidate and to eliminate opposition to whatever they wish to accomplish, to the extent of even throwing individuals into jail, middle class law abiding citizens whose only "crime" generally is an attempt to be heard in their cases. This treatment in some cases is also accorded to lawyers who fail to conform to the system. There is also retaliation against judges who expose wrongful activities in the courthouse. So, that the system operates in a "conspiracy of silence". Those who report corruption in the system are often described in derogatory terms such as "whistle-blower". We are also including articles by lawyers and reports and statistics from the courts telling us from the inside the pitfalls of the legal system. The Bar's and the judiciary's response to the complaints by the public is that they do not understand the legal system and their perception has to be changed, but without changing the practices that is objected to by the public.

However, many lawyers are coming to recognize that the legal profession is not the "noble profession" it pretends to be, but, it often brutalizes those it touches. That the objective is not to seek justice or finding reasonable resolutions to the conflict, but how to destroy the opponents by any means possible, such as nasty fights, vicious accusations, twisting the truth etc., to win at any price. Click here Incivility in court between lawyers is a growing problem. Click here The courts are not what it used to be is candidly described by a judge. Click here.

Yet another problem is a large segment of the population who do not qualify for legal aid or their problem is not one that qualifies for legal aid, or who do not have funds to retain counsel, or when they run out of money without resolution but, the litigation continues. These persons then often appear representing themselves known as pro se and many times receive unfavorable treatment in the courts. To read such concerns Click here. That does not mean that one should give up. If rights have been violated that is a reason for continuing on.

In a recent landmark decision the Florida Supreme Court quashed the lower court's appellate decision that approved the lower court judgment prohibiting the father from seeing his son for six years in a judgment that was not written by the trial judge but by the wife's lawyer. The Florida Supreme Court rejected that judgment because the trial judge discouraged the husband from submitting a proposed judgment and thereupon adopted the wife's lawyer's judgment in two hours without making any findings of fact. It was noted that the wife paid her attorneys $850,000. while the husband represented himself. In a specially concurring opinion one of the Justices recognized that "this case is an example of a continuing trend in appellate review in this state to apply the cloak of judicial discretion to approve lower court decisions riddled with errors. In rendering the decision today, this Court takes a modest step toward rectifying a pattern with which many have had a growing concern that we are alienating the public’s trust in the judiciary". To read further Click here.

As to criminal law see the article on a Report issued on prosecutorial misconduct by Center for Public Integrity. State and local prosecutors who bent or broke the rules to help put 32 innocent people in prison, some under death sentence, since 1970, according to the first nationwide study of prosecutorial misconduct. To read more about it Click here.

The United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) released a study showing the tort system costs U.S. small businesses $88 billion a year. "As a small business owner, I have seen first-hand the devastating effect legal costs can have on small businesses," said Maura Donahue, Vice President of Donahue/Favret Contractors, Inc., of Mandeville, Louisiana, and Chair of the U.S. Chamber's Small Business Advisory Council. "Money that should be used to expand and hire new employees is instead siphoned off to pay for legal costs. Small business owners are the engine that drives the U.S. economy. They create 75% of the new jobs in this country, but are clearly being handcuffed by a steep rise in frivolous litigation." The study, conducted for ILR by NERA Economic Consulting, found that the total annual cost of the tort system to U.S. businesses (large and small) is $129 billion per year. Small businesses with $10 million or less in revenue bear 68 percent of that cost, paying $88 billion a year. That equates to about $150,000 a year for each small business - money that could be used to hire additional employees, expand operations or improve health coverage. For full story Click here.

However, it is not only financial losses that is suffered by individuals but, the failure of the legal system has been found by a noted psychologist, Karin Huffer to inflict severe psychological harm as well on the victims, to which she coined the terms "Legal Abuse Syndrome" a form of "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". The victims are traumatized not only by the crass treatment accorded to them in the courtroom, but upon being confronted by the fact that fundamental civil rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are trampled upon. Many victims do start out represented by attorneys, but unable to continue to pay their fees, or out of frustration end up as pro se litigants. They continue on the litigation in some faint hope that the truth and law will prevail or it must prevail because that is what the constitution and the law says. However, that would apply only in a court of law, administered by men and women of honesty and integrity, but unfortunately not where the judiciary have manipulated the system to place themselves above and beyond the law.

http://www.judicialaccountability.org/beyondthefacade.htm

2008-01-07T20:50:00.000-05:00

Legal Victim Assistance Project
Telephone: (561) 488-7678
Facsimile: (561) 488-2861
Email: mlanson@bellsouth.net

Program Manager: Meryl M. Lanson

January 2, 2008

Senator Charles E. Grassley
135 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND REGULAR MAIL

Dear Senator Grassley:

Your solid stance on Protecting Tax Dollars Against Fraud, published January 20, 2006, along with your career commitment to America’s promise that the government will be of, for, and by the people encourages us that we might turn to you. We turn to you because we are sure you recognize and agree with the premise that a private citizen can be extremely helpful to the federal government. Citizen assistance, when done voluntarily, can be an extremely valuable resource:

- By providing research at no cost to the federal government.

- By providing analysis of information at no cost to the federal government.

- By providing solutions and recommendations at no cost to the federal government.

On June 18, 2007, we submitted complete packages to every member of the Senate and House Judiciary Committee – Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. It was confirmed that every member received our work. In our package we told firsthand stories of FRAUD and ABUSE in the BANKRUPTCY COURT. We recommended that action be taken to prevent the genesis of all fraud and abuse in the Bankruptcy System by deterring “fraud on the court.” We identified this species of fraud as the primary reason for the loss of judicial accountability and fairness in the bankruptcy system as well as in other areas of the law.

Enclosed please find a copy of the initial correspondence. Since the submission of our initial package, through the “Legal Victim Assistance Project,” a 501(c)(3) organization, we have continued to perfect our observations and recommendations through research and hands on assistance to victims of these frauds and abuses; “victims” whose lives were permanently destroyed through a “corrupted” bankruptcy system.

It would be improper and incorrect for us to say that the entire system is corrupt; however, if there is ANY CORRUPTION, the system has failed. Citizens are relying on the bankruptcy system to reorganize and recover when financially challenged.

If one citizen is damaged by corruption of the bankruptcy system, the system has failed. We believe that any and all corruption stems from “fraud on the court” perpetrated by officers of the court. That was the theme of our initial correspondence to Congress.

The second attempt to influence change in the bankruptcy system is the Report entitled “Legal Victim Assistance Project – Report on Fraud and Abuse in Bankruptcy,” which is also enclosed with this letter. This Report discusses the failure of the U.S. Trustee Program to prevent fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system. It also makes the accusation that the bankruptcy system is corrupted, and gives, as an example, a specific bankruptcy case, Baron’s, Case No. 97-25645-BKC-PGH, Region 21. This specific case has irrefutable evidence of “fraud on the court,” irrefutable evidence of the U.S. Trustee’s failures, and yet, after almost 10 years since the discharge, after a fraud trial, after countless notices to the U.S. Trustee, not one corrective step has been taken to recover assets fraudulently distributed.

The role of the U.S. Trustee in Bankruptcy is clear in the following excerpt:

Roberta A. DeAngelis, Acting United States Trustee for Region 3 United States Department of Justice before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law – Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives July 21, 2004

“Although only the bankruptcy court may approve employment and compensation, and although creditors and parties in interest may object to employment and compensation, the United States Trustee Program considers its authority to review these applications to be an important tool in carrying out its mission to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the bankruptcy system. Congress has prescribed a comprehensive regimen of legal standards and procedures governing the retention and compensation of professionals employed in Chapter 11 cases. Bankruptcy courts are expressly required to review and approve the employment of all professionals and the payment of all fees and expenses. The responsibility to identify non-compliance with these standards and procedures in Chapter 11 cases is a responsibility shared among the courts, the United States Trustees, and other participants in the bankruptcy system.”

As a direct result of the U.S. Trustee’s failure in the case of Baron’s, a fifty 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. 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.

- Baron’s was an S-Corporation producing taxable income to its owners and therefore Income Tax Payable of $100,000.00 per year.

Loss of 10 years Income Tax equals $1,000,000.00.

- Baron’s employed 200 workers with a payroll of $4,000,000.00 per year. The lost FICA tax employers share over the past 10 years at 7% (rounded) $280,000.00 x 10 years equals $2,800,000.00.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- THE TOTAL ESTIMATED LOSS OF SOCIAL CAPTIAL IS $18,300,000.00 OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS!

THIS IS ‘ONE’ FAILED REORGANIZATION CAUSED BY “FRAUD ON THE COURT” UNDER THE WATCH OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE IN REGION 21

In the attached Report, reference is made to the 30,000 notices of FRAUD and ABUSE in fiscal year 2002. If 3% had a similar pattern of corruption, the loss in Social Capital would be over $18 billion for 2002 alone. The same Report that estimated the 30,000 reports was actually proud of recovering $160 million. That is an abysmal result.

We are seeking HEARINGS on this topic. We have the cases, the victims who will testify, and the research that should save significant investigative dollars. There is no topic more pertinent to the well being of the public than the issue of “FRAUD ON THE COURT.” Americans must depend on their courts to be fair, impartial and deliver honest services.

You gave birth to the anti fraud legislation describing the U.S. Department of Justice as the federal government’s best weapon against fraud. You asked for whistleblowers to come forward and expose wrongdoing. We have provided the evidence, the laws, and the path voluntarily. We have had no contact from any member of Congress. As we know your fine work, what we are handing over fits the bill. Please read all of the attached documents in light of your quote from January 20, 2006:

“In the last two decades, I have learned valuable lessons in my effort to expose financial mismanagement and outright fraud against the federal government. It takes constant vigilance by hard-nosed lawmakers, old-fashioned journalistic snooping by members of the media and courageous do-gooders working on the inside to unearth waste, fraud and abuse. I’m committed to continued work as a taxpayer watchdog in Washington.”
We are hoping that you will be the one Congress Person who will care about this issue and who will make use of the work we have done.

Very truly yours,

Meryl M. Lanson / Karin Huffer

Enclosures: With Certified Copy Only

1) June 18, 2007 Correspondence

2) Legal Victim Assistance Project – Report on Fraud and Abuse in Bankruptcy

"Southern District of Florida Bankruptcy Judge Cristol's Testimony Before Congress"

2008-01-06T13:52:00.000-05:00

TESTIMONY
of
A. JAY CRISTOL
Chief Judge Emeritus
United States Bankruptcy Court
Southern District of Florida
Hearing on the United States Trustee Program:
“Watch Dog or Attack Dog?”
before the
Subcommittee on Administrative and Commercial Law
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
October 2, 2007

My name is A. Jay Cristol. I am a United States Bankruptcy Judge in the Southern District of Florida. This is my 23rd year on the bench. I served as chief judge from 1993 to September 1999. Prior to my appointment to the bench I was a civilian lawyer for 25 years with an extensive bankruptcy practice and service as a trustee in bankruptcy.

I also served twenty years in the Reserve Judge Advocate Generals Corps where, among other assignments, I lectured in the Pentagon and elsewhere to lower ranking enlisted personnel and military legal assistance lawyers on financial management and bankruptcy.

I am proud of the bankruptcy system of the United States of America and believe it was intended to be the most compassionate and, at the same time, most effective system in the world because it goes beyond the ancient concept of looking only to the distribution of assets to creditors and offers the honest debtor a fresh start. When the 1978 Code and its amendments were enacted the bankruptcy judge was elevated from a referee in bankruptcy to pure judge status and the administrative tasks were ultimately transferred to the U.S. Trustee who should have been more accurately named the U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator.

The program worked well for many years under the directorships of Gerry Patchen and others. In answer to the question, “Watch Dog or Attack Dog?” the answer is the U.S. Trustee is not one dog. It is a pack of dogs.

In the area of chapter 11 reorganizations the U.S. Trustee staff at local levels provides extremely valuable assistance to the Courts. In this area the U.S. Trustee is a beloved Lassie or a Rin Tin Tin. Sadly, in the area of chapter 7 and chapter 13 the U.S. Trustee program is a pit bull.

Let me be quick to say the local Assistant United States Trustees and their staffs are generally competent and understanding and the regional Assistant U.S. Trustees generally are the same. The problem, as I see it, comes from the top. As I mentioned, the program ran well when
Gerry Patchen was Director. Over the tenure of the past two directors, Lawrence Friedman and Clifford White, the policies sent from Washington to the soldiers in the field have turned the U.S. Trustee program in the area of consumer debtors into the pit bull.

I do not mean to make ad hominem attacks on Mr. Friedman or Mr. White. I respect them both as to their integrity and professional talents. It should be noted that Mr. White was honored in 2006 with a Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Senior Professional Service.

The problem, as I see it, is the perspective of Mr. Friedman and Mr. White, whose distinguished career has been served in the office of the Federal Prosecutor. These gentlemen seem to view all debtors with suspicion through prosecutorial eyes as dishonest crooks trying to beat the system and perceive debtor’s lawyers as disreputable and untrustworthy.

Nothing is further from the truth. In my more than two decades on the bench I have observed that almost all consumer debtors seeking relief in the bankruptcy court are honest, decent, hardworking citizens who suffered a catastrophic financial tragedy, seldom of their own making, such as serious medical disaster and no health insurance, loss of employment, dissolution of a marriage or some financial mistake or misfortune. The consumer lawyers who represent them are generally competent and well-meaning without blemish on their character.

Yes, there are a few bad apples in the barrel. Prior to the U.S. Trustee’s much publicized “National Civil Enforcement Initiative” most of the bad apples were caught by the system. Some got away, just like things happen in all segments of our society.

The U.S. Trustee boasts in its Annual Reports of a small number of anecdotal success stories, most of which would have come to the same result without intervention by the U.S. Trustee. The total numbers boasted about are infinitesimal against the total numbers of bankruptcy filings.

Likewise, the U.S. Trustee reports of the initiative yielding “millions in debts not discharged.” The most recent report for fiscal year 2005 speaks of yielding $583 million in debts not discharged. There is substantial difference between debts not discharged and debts collected. The U.S. Trustee offers no figures on debts collected. The old adage “You cannot get blood from a stone” is especially applicable here. Very little of the non-discharged debts are collected so what has been accomplished?

The report claims a better than 99% success rate in the 1112 complaints filed to deny or revoke discharge. It fails to mention how many cases are won by default.

Think about it. A destitute, honest debtor that has appropriately turned over all his or her property to the panel trustee, except for exempt property, which in many states is meager, is served with a lawsuit filed by the United States of America, represented by highly skilled, wellpaid lawyers. In these circumstances most debtors have neither the money nor the will to fight. In many instances their remaining exempt property will not even cover the amount of a retainer to a competent attorney. It is not Goliath against David, it is more like Goliath against an ant.

And what is the benefit to society of most of these undischarged debts or denials of discharge? Without discharge and the fresh start it provides, these victims of the existing initiative find it difficult to get a job, get credit or climb out of the deep pit in which they are trapped. They are denied a fresh start and the opportunity to re-enter society as productive
citizens.

The new law codified some useful procedures to assist panel trustees and the court in administering cases. The mean-spirited streak that permeates the new law provides draconian penalties for the most minor and insignificant failures to comply with the even unimportant statutory requirements. The U.S. Trustee is enamored of these harsh penalties and swings its sword with a vengeance. When local U.S. Trustee lawyers follow some of the policies set by Washington, I sense a feeling of embarrassment by the U.S. Trustee’s attorneys at what they have been directed to do. Some specific examples are:

Consumer bankruptcy attorneys have the experience of explaining the new requirements to prospective clients, only to have the clients go away discouraged, and never return. Debtors must obtain all “payment advices” for the 60 days before the bankruptcy is filed; they must obtain a tax return or transcript for the most recent year before the petition is filed; they must provide information on every penny of their income for the six months prior to when the petition is filed; they must provide bank statements to the trustee and evidence or other current income; they must attend a pre-petition credit counseling briefing, no matter how hopeless their situation and regardless or whether their problems were caused by imprudent credit decisions or unavoidable financial catastrophes; attorneys must complete numerous additional forms, including a six-page means test form that requires arcane calculations about which there are many different legal interpretations. According to the United States Trustee program, attorneys must also provide clients with pages and pages of so called “disclosures”, many of which are either irrelevant to the client’s case or inaccurate, which then requires much additional time spent explaining why they are irrelevant or inaccurate. U.S. Trustee policy sees no problem denying a debtor bankruptcy because their income calculated on the statutory method as the average over the last six months is too high when, in fact, the Debtor lost their job and their income is zero. But if an expenses element on the mean test is higher than the actual number, the U.S. Trustee’s policy has the chutzpah to ignore the statutory calculation and wants to use the actual number.

The recent GAO report states that the credit counseling requirement is not serving its supposed purpose. Even the credit counselors report that only 2-3% of the prospective debtors they serve could even contemplate a debt management plan. The counseling requirement serves primarily as yet another barrier to bankruptcy, especially in those districts where judges have ruled that debtors, even those facing emergencies, cannot file their bankruptcy cases until the day after they receive the credit counseling briefing. Why not the same day?

If a debtor’s papers contain minor discrepancies in the numbers, discrepancies that would have had no effect on the results of the case, the debtor should not be publicly accused, as they are now, of making material misstatements.” Such serious accusation should be reserved for cases in which the debtor’s misstatement had a significant impact on how the case was administered. There is no valid reason for the U.S. Trustee to persecute debtors.

The new law makes it harder for consumers to save a home from foreclosure or a car from repossession and the U.S. Trustee policy seeks the harshest implementation of these provisions. Result: honest people become homeless. Families are broken up. The victims lose their jobs because they have no car to drive to work.

The problems of consumer debtors are only exacerbated by the aggressive anti-consumer stance of the United States Trustee program. The independent decisions of career personnel and local offices have been subordinated to central directives from a politicized central office dedicated to serving the political interests of the administration - in this case by effectively becoming an arm of the administration’s corporate backers in the financial services industry and trying to make bankruptcy as difficult and unattractive as possible. Spending enormous resources in going after minor document defects in papers filed by consumer debtors has done nothing to address the widespread fraudulent claims and charges of mortgage companies in bankruptcy and other creditor abuses. Most documents filed by debtors’ attorneys are not as poorly and inaccurately prepared as the unsupportable documents filed in great profusion by creditors – yet the U.S. Trustee spends little or no time on creditor wrongdoing.

The U.S. Trustee was supposed to be a neutral monitor of the system and, for many years, it was. More recently, it seems to devote almost all resources to going after consumer debtors. They give great scrutiny to consumers’ filings, but almost none to creditors’ activities. The neutrality has been maintained in North Carolina and Alabama under the Bankruptcy Administration System under judicial control.

It appears that the U.S. Trustee sees its mission to deny people relief through bankruptcy. They file dismissal motions for minor defects, which makes things especially difficult for pro se debtors. The U.S. Trustee should be helping not hindering these people. Dismissal motions filed for things like credit counseling a few days early, or one or two missing pay stubs, when it is obvious that such omissions are of no significance.

A final sad example is my case In re Jean Raul Petit-Louis, a pauper. He did not own real estate. He did not own a car. He had no money and little more than the clothes on his back. He lost his job and could not pay his rent in public housing where he lived in a tiny apartment. Upon getting back to work he was in danger of eviction because of the few dollars of unpaid rent. He could only keep a roof over his head if the debt was paid, which he could not do, or if it was discharged. Petit-Louis (“Little Louie”) could not speak English and could not obtain credit counseling in Creole, the language he understood. Of ten U.S. Trustee approved credit counselors in southern Florida not one had a Creole speaking counselor. The U.S. Trustee had not carried out its statutory obligation to provide credit counseling in a meaningful way. Instead of agreeing to a waiver of the requirement as allowed by the statute, the U.S. Trustee sought to bar Little Louie from bankruptcy relief and when I granted a waiver the U.S. Trustee filed a lengthy motion to reconsider followed by an appeal and a threat to Little Louie that they would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Eventually, Little Louie voluntarily dismissed his case. Although he maintained the Court had jurisdiction to grant relief, it became clear to him and his pro bono counsel that the U.S. Trustee would use its unlimited resources to continue litigating the dispute, even if it required litigating the issues all the way to the Supreme Court.

I have submitted a number of cases of similar actions by the U.S. Trustee against other Little Louies.

I will close by warning Little Louie and other poor but honest debtors with the words of Cicero: Fear not those who do evil in the name of evil but heaven protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.

APPENDIX TO TESTIMONY
of
A. JAY CRISTOL
Chief Judge Emeritus
United States Bankruptcy Court
Southern District of Florida
Hearing on the United States Trustee Program:
“Watch Dog or Attack Dog?”
before the
Subcommittee on Administrative and Commercial Law
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
October 2, 2007

Appendix to A. Jay Cristol Testimony

1. A. Jay Cristol cases:
In re Petit-Louis, 344 B.R. 696 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2005)
In re Petit-Louis, 338 B.R. 132 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2005)

Debtor spoke only Creole and no credit counseling was available at the time in Creole. UST filed motion to dismiss, arguing that debtor must obtain counseling in language he did not understand. Court denied dismissal and UST moved for reconsideration. Court again denied dismissal. Court stated: “The U.S. Trustee's disregard for non-English speaking residents seeking counseling in the Southern District of Florida, a district which the U.S. Trustee admits ‘presents its own unique set of language issues’, evidenced the failure of the Office of the U.S. Trustee to comply with its duties in determining whether counseling services are adequate in this district. If the U.S. Trustee fails to manage the bankruptcy counseling system in a non-discriminatory fashion, the Court has the authority and indeed the responsibility to allow a debtor access to the bankruptcy system by waiving a requirement which, in practice, is inappropriately excluding him on the basis of his lack of English language ability.”

In re Morgan, 2007 WL 2298010 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2007)

The debtor performed “means test” calculation, taking the housing ownership expense deduction for his residence which was free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Chapter 13 trustee objected to above-median-income debtor's proposed plan, as failing to satisfy “projected disposable income” test. The Court held the debtor is allowed a deduction for the mortgage/rental expense. “The plain meaning of the statute and its use of the term “applicable” instead of “actual” evidences Congress' intent to set the Local Standards as a fixed allowance rather than a cap. The Court must assume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said. Had Congress wished the Standards to act as a cap rather than an allowance, it knew what language to use.”

In re Benedetti, 2007 WL 2083576 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2007)

UST moved to dismiss debtor's Chapter 7 case, as presumptively abusive under a properly performed “means test” calculation. Specifically, the UST objected to the “means test” calculation performed by debtor on the grounds that debtor had improperly deducted vehicle lease payments on motor vehicle that she intended to, and actually did, surrender. The court held that debtor who, on date bankruptcy petition was filed, was contractually obligated to make automobile lease payments to creditor asserting an interest in one of her two motor vehicles was entitled to deduct her obligations on this motor vehicle lease in performing “means test” calculation, even though she intended to surrender vehicle and would not actually be making these lease payments. “Using a ‘snapshot’ view of the Debtor's expenses on the date of filing makes sense in the context of a Chapter 7 case. The application of the provisions of sec. 707(b)(2) involves an evaluation of the Debtor's financial condition on the petition date such that a post-petition surrender of collateral is irrelevant and inconsequential. The means test is statutorily defined as a mechanism for determining whether a presumption of abuse arises in a Chapter 7 case, with reference to expenses ‘as in effect on the date of the order for relief.’
11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). The test has been described as a "snapshot” on the petition date rather than an evolving progress report on the Debtor's finances. See In re Nockerts, 357 B.R. 497 (Bankr. E.D.Wis. 2006).”

2. In re Meza, 2007 WL 1821416 (E.D. Calif. 2007)

UST moved to dismiss the case because the debtor’s certificate of counseling was from an unapproved agency. The bankruptcy court found the debtor substantially complied with counseling requirements and denied the motion. (Debtor had been in a credit counseling plan with a debt consolidation service pre-petition.) UST appealed and the District Court affirmed.

3. In re Jones, 352 B.R. 813 (Bankr. S.D.Tex. 2006)

Debtors obtained credit counseling about 190 days before case was filed. UST moved to dismiss because counseling was not obtained within 180 days before petition. Court found that it had to dismiss case but stated, “if the US Trustee has any discretion (akin to "prosecutorial discretion" in other functions of the Justice Department), the Court would hope that the US Trustee would decline to prosecute a motion to dismiss under the circumstances presented in this case. A debtor who obtains credit counseling only 190 days prior to filing a bankruptcy petition and who delays filing a bankruptcy petition to try to implement the lessons learned in counseling certainly seems to meet the objective of the statute, if not the literal requirement. And unless the US Trustee has unlimited resources, it would seem that limited resources would be better put to other litigation.”

4. In re Romero, 349 B.R. 616 (Bankr. N.D.Calif. 2006)

Debtors filed bankruptcy to stop a wage garnishment of their only income and asked for deferral of credit counseling due to exigent circumstances. They obtained counseling within time permitted by court. UST filed a motion to dismiss arguing the wage garnishment was not an exigent circumstance. The court denied the motion, stating: “In this case, Debtors faced imminent garnishment of their only income. The only way to stop
the wage garnishment from taking effect was for Debtors to file bankruptcy by July 10. Debtors requested credit counseling from an approved agency on July 7, but were unable to obtain the requested services until seven days later. I determine that the looming wage
garnishment constitutes exigent circumstances permitting a temporary waiver of the credit counseling requirement.”

5. In re Bricksin, 346 B.R. 497 (Bankr. N.D.Calif. 2006)

The debtors obtained counseling more than 180 days before the case was filed. The court denied the UST motion to dismiss, stating: “The Court finds that application of the statutory scheme to dismiss this case, as the Trustee urges, would produce a result at odds with Congressional intent. The intent behind these statutory amendments is to encourage debtors to seek alternatives to the bankruptcy process and to promote debtor awareness of the effects of a bankruptcy filing by requiring pre-petition credit counseling. Debtors had received extensive pre-petition credit counseling and then -- during the 180-day period prior to filing for bankruptcy -- were proceeding with their repayment plan, and making very substantial payments to creditors. While failing to comply with the law's technical letter, the Debtors were clearly in compliance with its spirit. The Court finds that the Debtors' need for a bankruptcy filing was not and could not have been obviated by additional credit counseling. Debtors were keenly aware of the implications of the bankruptcy filing. Indeed, CCCS had advised the Debtors that their only viable option was to file for bankruptcy. . . . Debtors have already paid for and completed two credit
counseling sessions. It would be inequitable for this Court to hold that these Debtors' technical non-compliance with the law, despite their very best efforts, warrants dismissal of this case, which would require these Debtors to start all over, to pay another $ 299.00 filing fee, and potentially deprive them of the protection of the automatic stay.”

6. In re Koliba, 338 B.R. 39 (Bankr. N.D.Ohio 2006)

Debtors and attorney failed to sign bankruptcy petition before it was filed electronically. UST moved to dismiss case. The court stated, “in this case, absolutely nothing has been put forth or even alleged which would tend to show that the Debtors are not honest, and thus not deserving of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code. On the other side of the coin, the UST did not offer any satisfactory explanation as to how an objective of bankruptcy law would be furthered by dismissal. For example, it did not allege that the dismissal of the Debtors' case would be in the best interest of the Debtors' estate or their creditors.” The motion was denied.

Question for Judge Cristol:
What is the policy of the U.S. Trustee regarding the means test?

Complete Oversight Testimony of Mary Powers, Esq.

2008-01-06T13:45:00.000-05:00

TESTIMONY OF MARY POWERS, ESQ. FORMER TRIAL ATTORNEY FOR THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE : WATCH DOG OR ATTACK DOG

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL LAW HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PRESENTED OCTOBER 2, 2007

My name is Mary Powers and I am an attorney who for the majority of my twenty year legal career practiced bankruptcy law. I was fortunate to begin my career as confidential law clerk to the Honorable Beryl E. McGuire, Chief Judge for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York. After that I worked for two well respected Buffalo law firms, representing debtors, creditors and creditor committees in a variety of bankruptcy matters. In 2002, I applied for the position of Trial Attorney in the Buffalo office of the United States Trustee (â€œUSTâ€). At that time, I was very happy at my law firm, received challenging work, was well compensated and, above all, was respected by my colleagues just as I respected them for their integrity and dedication to their clients. There was only one legal position which would have prompted me to leave this wonderful working environment and that was a position with the Department of Justiceâ€™s United States Trusteeâ€™s Office. I felt my background was ideal, but more importantly, I felt that it would be an honor and a privilege to serve the Department of Justice in its mission to promote the integrity and efficiency of the bankruptcy system. It was a chance, for the lack of a better phrase to â€œwear the white hatâ€. I felt very fortunate to have been offered the position. Over time, it became clear to me however, that what I was doing had very little to do with â€œjusticeâ€ and, as such, my personal passion and enthusiasm slowly eroded. In February 2007, not wanting to spend the remainder of my career doing something that I had trouble believing in, I resigned. I have never once regretted that decision.

Upon my arrival, I came to understand more clearly what was meant by â€œcivil enforcement â€œand that the UST was now considered a litigating component of the Department of Justice. I had enough experience at that time to realize that the Buffalo office did not have the resources to be a true â€œlitigating forceâ€, but I was optimistic that I could still make a difference, elevating the level of practice and protecting both debtors and creditors. During my years, little focus or training emphasized creditor abuse. I quickly came to understand that ferreting out abuse by debtors was of primary importance. I screened numerous filings. Through inquiries of debtors and their attorneys, I confirmed what I could have intuitively guessed from being a Buffalo and Western New York native. The majority of filings were not abusive. Buffaloâ€™s poor economy caused loss of jobs, loss of medical benefits and often marital dissolution, due in large part to financial setbacks. These factors were at the heart of the vast majority of filings. This became very apparent when the UST implemented a reporting system (one of many) known as SARS (â€œSignificant Accomplishments Reporting Systemâ€). Every action taken by staff was to be documented in this system. Every entry where no action was taken referred to a â€œmitigating factorâ€ which obviated the need for any action. â€œCancerâ€, â€œjob lossâ€, â€œdivorceâ€ were noted frequently, demonstrating what I knew to be the case: that Western New Yorkers were down on their luck. When an abusive filing was found, dismissal or conversion to Chapter 13, was pursued with vigor, but always understanding that the judges in the Buffalo Bankruptcy Court were very aware of the harsh economic realities in Western New York and gave debtors every consideration. Initially it never occurred to me that those in Washington and New York would not trust the assessments of seasoned lawyers, those hired by them for their expertise and experience. I thought it was common sense and easily understood that regions and individual districts differed significantly in their bankruptcy demographics. I learned later that I was quite naÃ¯ve in that belief.

I became aware that the debtor abuse â€œnumbersâ€ for the Buffalo office were low and that offices that had low numbers were perceived as not looking hard enough to find abuse. This became very apparent when then Director Lawrence Friedman on a visit to the Buffalo office pulled one of our â€œinquiryâ€ files and concluded on its face that a debtor examination should take place and he would â€œshow us how it was doneâ€. He told us that as the debtor was a retired teacher it was likely he had a boat, although none was listed. I was not familiar with the link between retiring teachers and boats, but I assured him I would investigate and do a detailed document request for his review prior to his return to conduct the examination of the debtors. Our independent investigation revealed no intentional omission of assets on the debtorsâ€™ schedules. The examination done by Mr. Friedman also revealed nothing. The debtors were sincere and honest and nothing warranted the dismissal of their case. The case was flagged by our office for one more appropriately in Chapter 13 which is my recollection of what ultimately happened in the case. I feel certain that this result, as had occurred with other similar cases, would have occurred without the burdensome document requests and a lengthy examination of the debtors. Buffalo is a small community of bankruptcy practitioners and my experience led me to know that for many cases aggressive pursuit was unnecessary to achieve the same result. Unfortunately, as we did not conduct as many unnecessary examinations as other districts , we appeared less aggressive. Again, I felt that we understood the practice in our district best and there was no need to put the debtors and their attorneys through unnecessarily burdensome â€œhoopsâ€ if the same result could be achieved in a more timely and cost efficient manner for all involved. I felt that treatment of attorneys and debtors in that manner raised our credibility with the bench and bar, fostered cooperation and promoted a much more efficacious system. Unfortunately, the opinions of those in the â€œtrenchesâ€ in the individual offices seemed to matter very little. Although, the same information could be easily obtained at a meeting of creditors, we would have gotten more â€œcreditâ€ from the powers that be had we engaged in costly examinations and document requests. Our â€œSARSâ€ report, a seeming â€œreport cardâ€, certainly wasnâ€™t impressive to those who measured success in terms of dismissals and conversions only. Unfortunately, we could not manufacture â€œabuseâ€ where little existed. Even when we did obtain a conversion to Chapter 13 and the total amount of unsecured debt deemed nondischargeable was entered as the result, in truth, most of that debt would be ultimately discharged because the majority of Chapter 13 payment plans were of a very low percentage. If the case was dismissed, it was likely very little of that debt was collectible either. We understood however, that it was partially these numbers that the Office of the United States Trustee relied upon to justify its existence and demonstrate success. Feeding the SARs machine at times seemed as important as practicing meaningful law.

The lack of autonomy and inability to exercise discretion as well as the pressures to produce â€œnumbersâ€ was exacerbated after the passage of BAPCPA in October of 2005. Admittedly, the UST was forced to comply with a new law everyone was struggling to understand and certainly there would and should be uniformity in policies regarding application, but again the same pressures to produce presumed abuse under the â€œmeans testâ€ was paramount. I remember one pivotal moment for me after the passage of the new bill. I, through the Assistant UST in the office, learned that the US Trustee in the region asked about a specific case. My first thought was that despite a multi-level screening process, something big must have been missed. When I reviewed the filing, I realized that the case wasnâ€™t flagged because the debtor was only slightly over the median and had a blended family with six children and all the legitimate expenses that accompany a family of that size. You didnâ€™t need the means test to figure that out. Common sense and living in the real world would have sufficed. More importantly, I was incredulous that someone at the level of a UST would not have something more important on her plate than this insignificant case from Buffalo. It was clear that â€œbabysittingâ€ was the order of the day and that the most important focus of the UST was accounting for â€œdebtor abuseâ€ and raising the numbers for statistical purposes. It was that day when I knew I could not spend the rest of my career in a micromanaging bureaucracy. I also knew that the satisfaction that would arise from pouring over cell phone bills and determining if â€œgrandmaâ€ was part of the household would be nonexistent, especially when ultimately it would make very little monetary difference to creditors. As one well respected Buffalo attorney told me, the UST had come to be known as the â€œuseless Trusteeâ€™s officeâ€, not a flattering nickname, but one I sadly understood.

The most unfortunate aspect of this to me was that the Office of the United States Trustee employed many intelligent, hard working individuals all over the country, many of whom I was fortunate to work with and to meet. Those individuals produced many wonderful initiatives over the years. Many of them expressed frustrations similar to those I have expressed, but obviously only one who left government employment would feel free to speak. In closing, it is my belief that the mission of the Office of the United States Trustee is admirable however, the current execution of the mission is flawed, an impediment to the functioning of the system and does very little to promote the integrity of the system.

Legal Victim Assistance Project - Report on Fraud and Abuse in Bankruptcy

2007-12-21T19:45:00.000-05:00

This is a Report regarding the existence of Organized Crime in Region 21 of the U.S. Trustee Program. There appears to be criminal conversion of Debtor assets perpetrated by a criminal network under the watch, and with the assistance and full acquiescence, of the U.S. Trustee in Region 21. The Report would also seem to substantiate that this type of Organized Crime exists in other Regions of the U.S. Trustee Program.

Fraud and abuses in Bankruptcy were recognized by Congress more than 80 years ago. Violations remain unchecked to this day affecting citizens and their companies. Hard working people who are honest Debtors are sustaining significant financial and emotional harm at the hands of a small group of ruthless racketeers who violate the Rules of the Bankruptcy Code and get away with it because the Judiciary approves the illegal conduct and the first line of defense, the U.S. Trustee, has failed miserably as “first responders” to protect the public. The failure is more egregious because it involves the criminal conversion of Debtor assets in favor of the U.S. Trustee.

Organized Crime is not limited to familial, racial or ethnic lines. It can be and is also along professional lines. Criminal networks have become more sophisticated in their operations and capabilities. Corruption remains an indispensable tool of the criminal trade. The corruption of a Federal Bankruptcy Judge for the purpose of providing “high level protection” is inherent in the success of the Organized Criminal Activity. The corruption of a U.S. Trustee, through an implicit alliance with this senior official, “heads off” law enforcement initiatives that could interfere with the criminal activities and allows the crime group to operate in a benign legal environment. The power of these high level protectors is the most important factor in how well the criminal group prospers.

As a specific case on point: Baron’s Stores, Inc. - Case No. 97-25645-BKC-PGH.

In this case the U. S. Trustee failed to adhere to any fiduciary responsibilities entrusted by the appointment, including, but not limited to:

- The U.S. Trustee failed to monitor the estate assets with timely reporting and oversight.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to procure proper applications for appointments.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to procure proper fee applications.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to monitor asset distributions.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to prevent the distribution of estate assets to an insider in a sweetheart deal.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to prevent the payment of fees to a “defacto” debtors counsel in addition to a debtors counsel.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to prevent payment to “special counsel” on a contingency basis in complete deference to a court order awarding fees on a general retainer.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to perfect and protect the true value of the debtor estate.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to prevent pre-petition costs to be reimbursed in full.

- The U.S. Trustee failed to correct these failures, having been given notice.

The failures of Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr. raised in the Judicial Complaint against him:

- Judge Hyman violated the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules by waiving the requirements enacted by Congress.

- Judge Hyman hired professionals under a General Retainer Agreement and paid them under a Contingency Agreement including pre-petition costs.

- Judge Hyman waived the requirement of Bankruptcy Rule 2016.

- Judge Hyman paid a conflicted attorney whom, by his own admission, represented the Unsecured Creditors Committee and was defacto Debtor’s Counsel.

- Judge Hyman denied me due process by ignoring my Affidavit whereby alerting the Court to the conflicts of interests of the attorneys.

- Judge Hyman signed an Order containing false information pursuant to the hearing on my Affidavit.

- Judge Hyman bifurcated the case into liability and remedy after liability was established by the attorneys “admission against interests.” Judge Hyman ignored the admissions by the attorneys thereby preventing me from discovery of nineteen witnesses who knew or should have known about the intent of the attorneys’ fraud.

- Judge Hyman ignored my request for fiduciary assistance on behalf of a bereft Debtor, and caused me further financial damage.

- Judge Hyman acted as a witness at the evidentiary trial.

The conclusion any person would draw from the Baron’s case is that Organized Criminal Activity occurred, perpetrated by the U.S. Trustee, Bankruptcy Attorneys and the Bankruptcy Judge. It may never be shown that the U.S. Trustee got illegal funds - too smart for that. It may never be shown that the Bankruptcy Judge got illegal funds - too smart for that. But it can be shown that the assets of Baron’s estate were improperly accounted for, improperly evaluated, improperly distributed, and that the beneficiaries were the Attorneys, and an insider Creditor, all to the detriment of the other Creditors and the Debtor.

The revelations in the Baron’s case should come as no surprise. Examining the history of Congress reveals that continual problems in the bankruptcy courts still existed and Congress stated its concern in the Matter of Arkansas Co., (cites are available in the written version, 798 F.2d645,649 (3d Cir. 1986).

“It is significant that Congress chose to place the requirement of court approval for the employment of an attorney, accountant, or other professional directly in the Bankruptcy Code in 1978 - 11 U.S.C. 1103(a). The legislative history makes clear that the 1978 Code was designed to eliminate the abuses and detrimental practices that had been found to prevail. Among such practices was the cronyism of the “bankruptcy ring” and attorney control of bankruptcy cases. In fact, the House Report noted that “in practice...the bankruptcy systemoperates more for the benefit of attorneys than for the benefit of creditors.”
(H.R. No. 595, 95th Cong.,2d Sess. 92, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 5963,6053).

In January, 1993, a review of the effectiveness of the Justice Department oversight was presented in the form of a Report to Congress:

United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

“BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES - OVERSIGHT IMPROVED BUT EXTENT OF TRUSTEE FRAUD IS UNKNOWN”

The Report dealt with FRAUD in the oversight of Bankruptcy cases by U.S. Trustees appointed to do just that.

- The Report focused on the “wrong” conflicts of interest as a problem. It is not the U.S. Government that the Trustees would be helping.

- The Report focused on embezzled money, primarily, and not the damage done by mishandling, misdirecting and fraudulently conveying assets to improper parties.

- The Report assumes that the appointed U.S. Trustees are stupid and would make the finding of their impropriety an easy task.

- The Report focused on Chapter 7’s and did not consider Chapter 11 liquidations; these are the most lucrative for the criminal activity. These are companies that have a chance to reorganize which, through the manipulation by the trusted parties, become their financial windfalls. Do these have the worst exposure because they are a bastardization of a Chapter 7 and therefore fall outside the protections that should be afforded a Chapter 7? Is the U.S. Trustee’s role different because it starts as a Chapter 11?

Further evidence of cumulative, rampant Bankruptcy Fraud and Abuse was published in a March 2003 Report, No. 03-17, Office of the Inspector General

The U.S. Trustee Program’s Efforts to Prevent Bankruptcy Fraud and Abuse APPENDIX 10
U. S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for United States Trustees
Office of the Director, Washington, D.C. 20530

February 27, 2003

MEMORANDUM

TO: Guy K. Zimmerman
Assistant Inspector General for Audit

FROM: Lawrence A. Friedman (original signed)
Director

SUBJECT: Draft OIG Report on “The United States Trustee Program’s Efforts to Prevent Bankruptcy Fraud and Abuse”

This Report is an insult to the public. It should offend every Congressman to the core. If one reads this Report, and reflects back to the premise upon which the Trustee program was founded, “to be the first line in identifying improper conduct” in the Bankruptcy process, one has to grasp the simple enormity of the failure. The Report is a classic example of misinformation through misdirection. The purpose of the Trustee program is to uncover and prosecute fraud and abuse. If we were to set the analogy with other first responders, for example, firemen, it will become clear as to how absurd the Report is. The Trustees’ job is to identify criminal conduct. The identification of criminal conduct is prompted by a formal or informal report. The Trustees don't have to do anything to uncover the fraud. The prompt is from a report made by an interested party. To play on naivete that says such a report is meaningless, and that such reports do not require a systematic investigation of some type, is patently absurd. It would be like someone calling 911 to report a fire and the dispatcher referring the report to find out if there was really smoke; is the reporter capable of identifying a fire, what kind of fire is it, what is it burning, etc etc . The first response system, in the instance cited, would send a first responder to put out the fire. That is not the case in the U. S. Trustee program. The Report discusses creating uniform management control procedures to detect the “more common and higher risk types of fraud, concealment of assets and serial filers.” This is the wrong target and ignores the patient screaming he’s in pain. In fiscal year 2002, field offices received 30,000 formal and informal reports of enforcement action. This number tells the story in a nutshell. So much abuse is going on because the abusers know they can get away with it. If the first report was properly attended to on a first responder basis, and the wrongdoer found out, or it was found that no wrongdoing occurred, the very least that would be accomplished is deterrence. The present system does not deter any fraud or abuse. It has no teeth. The program has an incentive to join the gravy train, not to stop it. As a result of this purposeful laxity a case like Baron’s occurs.

Boldly apparent and unacceptable for the American taxpayer to endure for one more day is the recycling of official catering and compliance to esoteric and powerful insider demands. For nearly a century, solutions have been neutralized, laws violated, and takings against the Fifth Amendment accelerated to the point that the American citizen has no protection or right to property ownership that will be enforced under the intent and letter of the law in bankruptcy. The organized criminals do not sneak and hide to steal. They fearlessly step up using taxpayer supported systems and take their bounty leaving creditors unpaid, businesses destroyed, while stealing the productive moments of life that Americans are promised. Furthering the outrage, Debtors pay for this racketeering enterprise to thrive. The U.S. Trustee Program is supported by DEBTORS. In Chapter 11, the quarterly fees support the system. In Chapter 7, the panel trustee, presiding over the meeting of creditors, is paid out of the filing fee if the case has no assets. In Chapter 7 asset cases, panel trustees receive a sliding scale commission from the assets. In Chapter 13, trustees receive 10 percent of amounts paid into the plan. Debtors, no matter what Chapter, are disemboweled by using their own assets against them.

HOW DOES THE PROBLEM OF FRAUD AND ABUSE
IN BANKRUPTCY GET RESOLVED?

The first step is to stop “fraud on the court” by members of the Judiciary. The laws that are in place in bankruptcy are sufficient. It is the corruption of the machinery of the Court, by its Officers, that allows Organized Criminal activity in the profession to flourish. First we need to pass legislation that clearly defines “fraud on the court” that provides strict remedies that are non-negotiable, and that creates a failsafe method to stop proceedings where an allegation of “fraud on the court” has been made. Secondly, we need a responsive first line of defense to act upon each and every formal or informal complaint filed by an interested party. Only then will the fraud and abuse stop.

Legal Victim Assistance Project - Mission:

“To assist individuals who have been victimized (or damaged) by the legal system and unscrupulous attorneys”

Legal Victim Assistance Project (“LVAP”) sponsors research primarily into areas of the law that create an unusually high number of legal victims. Legal victims are individuals who have been “wrongfully damaged” in a legal matter due to, but not limited to, a fraud on the court being perpetrated by an officer of the court. One area of the law that has been the focus of our research is Bankruptcy.

The attached report was written by independent contributors in collaboration with, and at the direction of, the firm Meryl Lanson Consulting, Inc. Meryl Lanson Consulting, Inc. is a firm contracted by Legal Victim Assistance Project to direct and carry out its mission.

The Report concerns Organized Criminal activity occurring in Region 21 of the U.S. Trustee Program.

Legal Victim Assistance Project

Telephone: (561) 488-7678
Facsimile: (561) 488-2861
Email: mlanson@bellsouth.net

Program Manager: Meryl M. Lanson

This is a project of Congressional District Programs, Inc – a registered 501(c)3 public charity 6201 Leesburg Pike, Suite 403, Falls Church, VA 22044
E-Mail: cdp@nhf.org Website: http://www.cdprograms.org/

Re: Request for RICO Investigation

2007-11-12T21:14:00.000-05:00

Notice: As this blog has limitations as to certain forms of postings, I want to alert the public, in the interest of full disclosure, that R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, U.S. Department of Justice, did respond to my request in a letter, on his stationery, dated November 2, 2007 postmarked November 8, 2007. The contents of the letter are as follows:

November 2, 2007

Meryl M. Lanson

Re: Request for RICO Investigation

Dear Mrs. Lanson:

We are in receipt of your letter regarding your allegations of criminal RICO violations that occurred in the bankruptcy courts.

The United States Attorney’s Office is a federal agency in which federal violations are prosecuted. Cases received and prosecuted in this office are presented by other federal agencies, i.e., the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), etc. In order for this office to accept a case for prosecution, it must be introduced by an investigative federal agency.

We have forwarded your information to the following agency for their review and any action they deem appropriate:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
16320 NW 2nd Avenue
North Miami Beach, Florida 33169

Very truly yours,

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Vanessa Morgan
Citizen Complaint Department

DRAFT RULES WILL NOT STOP JUDGES' SYSTEMATIC DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THEM

2007-11-07T09:33:00.000-05:00

The Draft Rules Governing the Processing of Judicial Misconduct Complaints Will Not Stop Their Systematic Dismissal by Federal Judges, Who Thus Self-exempt from Accountability for Their Coordinated Wrongdoing

Last October 15 finished the period for filing public comments on the draft rules to amend the current rules for handling complaints filed by anybody against a federal judge under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. Neither the Act nor these rules establish standards of complainable misconduct or disability, let alone what discipline judges are to mete out to themselves. They set up a system of judicial self-discipline and only prescribe the procedure for federal judges to process complaints filed against them.

Since a man cannot be impartial in his own cause, self-discipline does not work. Judges, who were rendered neither more honorable nor incorruptible upon their politics-determined nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, have proved to be mere men and women as incapable of self-discipline as their neighbor.

7,462 judicial misconduct complaints,
but only 9 judges disciplined in 10 years!

Indeed, out of the 7,462 complaints filed against federal judges in the 10-year period 1997-2006, they disciplined only 9 of their peers! These are official statistics that the judges must file by law with the highest administrative body of the federal judiciary, i.e., the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, whose director is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Both review them with the court of appeals chief judges that produce them when they meet twice a year in the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the judiciary’s highest policy-making body, whose Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, formed by judges, drafted the rules at the request of the Chief Justice, who once was also a lower court judge as were the other Justices. (28 U.S.C. §§332(g), 604(h)(2),331 4th par., 601)

They all have known about these statistics and what they prove: That all of them, from the bottom to the top of the Judiciary, have engaged in, tolerated, and benefited from, the systematic dismissal of complaints against them! (The statistics are collected with links to the originals in http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/DrCordero_draft_rules.pdf

Their systematic dismissal of complaints against them amounts in practice to the unlawful abrogation of an Act of Congress by judges sworn to uphold the law. By systematically dismissing those complaints, judges have self-exempted from any discipline: They have abused their judicial power in self-interest and to the detriment of all the complainants, whom they have left to suffer at the hands of the complained-about judges.

Types of serious judicial wrongdoing excused by the judges' self-exemption

Fearing no disciplinary, let alone penal, consequences, the judges have engaged in, and tolerated, the types of misconduct and disability under which they classify complaints: abuse of judicial power, prejudice, bias, conflict of interests, bribery, corruption, undue decisional delay, incompetence, neglect, mental or physical disability, and judicially unbecoming or abusive demeanor.

Since they ensure their unaccountability, they have managed an inherently suspicious feat: Though there have been tens of thousands of federal judges in the 218 years since the creation of the federal judiciary in 1789, the number of those impeached and removed from the bench is 7!
(official statistics at http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf >Judges of the U.S. Courts>Impeachments of Federal Judges)

Ordinary men and women as judges are, they would not give up such extraordinary privilege: They are above the law. Hence, the draft rules are practically a carbon copy of the current rules that have served them so well. To conceal this fact as much as possible and put their peers also beyond public scrutiny, the judges on the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability announced the release of their draft rules on one single website, that of the barely known Administrative Office, and held only one single hearing in the whole country: in a district court not covered by a press corps. The public comments that they requested on the rules, have not been made public.

Yet, this commentator managed to obtain a copy of the official transcript of the hearing and is making it and his comments public through the first link above.

Neither AG Nominee Judge Mukasey nor Congress
will investigate the systematic dismissal of misconduct complaints
but a Watergate-like Follow the money! investigation
can expose coordinated judicial wrongdoing

Neither the systematic dismissal of complaints nor the abuse of judicial power will need to stop if Judge M. Mukasey is confirmed as Attorney General, for he was a participant and would incriminate himself if he ordered this coordinated judicial wrongdoing investigated. (See evidence in (http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/judicial_complaints/JMukasey_2.pdf)

Nor will they be voluntarily investigated by Congress, described by its Speaker, H.P. N. Pelosi, as "dominated by the culture of corruption", so that its members are leery of becoming known as ‘judicial inquisitors’, for if their own corruption landed them in court, the judges could exploit the opportunity to retaliate.

However, Congress could be forced to investigate judges and reform the judiciary by a public outraged at the exposure of the judges’ coordinated wrongdoing, in general, and one of its most egregious manifestations, in particular: a fraud scheme in bankruptcy, an area in which judges control annually tens of billions of dollars. This would be the purpose of a Watergate-like Follow the money! investigation conducted by judicial reform advocates and investigative journalists, as set forth in http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/Follow_money/investi_jour_proposal.pdf

For details on how to join the Follow the money! investigation, contact:
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq. at DrRCordero-collaboration@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Re: Request for RICO Investigation

2007-10-31T21:48:00.000-04:00

October 30, 2007

Mr. R. Alexander Acosta
United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida
99 Northeast 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132

FEDERAL EXPRESS AND REGULAR MAIL

Re: Request for RICO Investigation

Dear United States Attorney Acosta:

It is my belief that I am a victim of Criminal RICO violations that occurred in the bankruptcy of Baron’s Stores, Inc., Case No. 97-25645-BKC-PGH.

This bankruptcy which was filed on September 9, 1997, and closed on December 10, 1999, was the subject of an evidentiary hearing that took place in January, 2007 before Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr. The evidentiary hearing was ordered by Judge Hyman based on an Emergency Motion which I filed, Pro Se, alleging that “fraud on the court” had been perpetrated by three attorneys - Ronald C. Kopplow, Esq., Marc Cooper, Esq. and Sonya Salkin, Esq.[1] during the opened bankruptcy period. The evidentiary hearing resulted in a finding by Judge Hyman that no fraud on the court had occurred. That finding is now on Appeal before the Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga, Case No.: 07-cv-60770-ALTONAGA/TURNOFF.

In addition to all the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, new information has been discovered, through contact with other individuals having proceedings before Judge Hyman, that leads me to request a racketeering enterprise investigation be initiated. I fully recognize that this is a sensitive criminal matter involving corrupt action by a bankruptcy judge.[2] That being said, facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that Judge Hyman, Ronald Kopplow, Marc Cooper and Sonya Salkin are engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in the RICO statute, 18 USC §1961 (5). I have evidence that criminal acts have been committed by Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr., Ronald C. Kopplow, Esq., Marc Cooper, Esq. and Sonya L. Salkin, Esq. Indictable acts under the following provisions of Title 18, United States Code sections:

1503 Obstruction of Justice
1510 Obstruction of Criminal Investigation
1952 Racketeering (Criminal acts of judicial misconduct, fraud on the court, perjury, violations of the Borah Act, and Misprision by a U.S. Trustee [3]and other members of the bankruptcy bar[4] in addition to other Part 1, Crimes under Chapter 9 - Bankruptcy are part and parcel of the Racketeering activity).

I believe this constitutes a criminal RICO violation because:

- The criminal acts constitute a “pattern” of criminal activity because they are related and continuous.

- The criminal acts are related because they involve the same victims, the Debtor, Baron’s Stores, Inc., and the Creditors of Baron’s Stores, Inc.

- The criminal acts are committed in the same method - i.e. with the assistance of Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr. through obstruction of a criminal investigation and obstruction of justice.

- The criminal acts involve the same participants - Judge Hyman, Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin.

- The criminal acts are continuous as they have occurred over a substantial period of time, at least since August 31, 1998 and pose the threat of indefinite duration as the criminal behavior is ongoing and is evidenced as late as January, 31, 2007.

- This is a criminal enterprise of associated individuals - Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, and their facilitator, Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr. These are three unrelated attorneys but for this enterprise. The Judge is unrelated but for allowing and thereby facilitating the criminal acts of these associated individuals.

- The common purpose is illegal enrichment at the expense of the Debtor and the Creditors.

This criminal enterprise is wholly analogous to the Mafia. Judge Hyman operates as the Godfather while the racketeering activity is carried on in his Court with his knowledge, acquiescence and protection.

I am familiar with the E.S. Bankest/Banco Espirito Santo matter, wherein you were quoted as saying after the sentencing of Hector Orlansky that the “20-year sentence is an important benchmark to our business community that honesty and integrity in commercial dealings must be protected, and that those who cheat face serious consequences” and “those who break the law for their personal or business advantage will face serious consequences. Justice was served.” I hope greater attention will be given this matter because when members of the legal profession, and more incredibly those that serve in the judiciary, abuse their position to protect themselves and their cronies, while destroying the lives of hard working innocent people nothing less than the harshest of punishments should be pursued.

In addition to this request for a RICO investigation, on October 8, 2007, I filed a Judicial Complaint against Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr. in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals alleging judicial misconduct that encompasses all of the facts and circumstances related to Judge Hyman’s misconduct in the bankruptcy of Baron’s and in the reopening of the bankruptcy for “fraud on the court” up to and including the three day evidentiary hearing. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of the Complaint along with the Statement, Witness List and Exhibit List. The Exhibits are available to you and will be produced immediately upon your request.

Very truly yours,

Meryl M. Lanson

Enclosures: Judicial Complaint against Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr. including Witness List and Exhibit List

cc: Clifford J. White, III, Director
Executive Office for United States Trustees, Washington, D.C.

[1] Sonya Salkin is also a Region 21 Panel Trustee and has been at least since 1997.
[2] I am fully aware of the connections, “political” or otherwise and enumerate those I am aware of herein. In or about 1979, Judge Hyman was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Marc Cooper’s law partner at Colson Hicks, Roberto Martinez, was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 1992 - 1993. In addition, Marc Cooper’s law partner at Colson Hicks, Dean Colson, was a law clerk for the late Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist. Furthermore, Mr. Colson served along side the now Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, and also served as Chief Justice Roberts best man at his wedding
[3] Ramona Elliott, the Assistant U.S. Trustee for Region 21 in the bankruptcy of Baron’s, remained silent during the proceedings even though having knowledge of criminal activity. Ramona Elliott is currently employed within the Trustee Program at the Executive Office for United States Trustees in Washington, D.C.
[4] Other members of the bankruptcy bar who remained silent appear on the Witness List attached to my Judicial Complaint against Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr.

Judicial Complaint Form

2007-10-31T21:37:00.000-04:00

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY
UNDER CHAPTER 16

To file a complaint of judicial misconduct or disability, please answer all of the questions on this form and send three copies in an envelope to the Clerk, United States Court of Appeals, 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Please write “Chapter 16 Complaint” on the envelope. Do not write the name of the complained-of judge on the envelope. This complaint must be legible; if possible, it should be typewritten. For other details, see Rules of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability.

CONFIDENTIAL

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT FILED BY:

Meryl M. Lanson, Complainant

AGAINST:

Honorable Paul G. Hyman, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division

1. Does this complaint concern a particular lawsuit? Yes

If yes, please provide the following information about the lawsuit. (If more than one lawsuit is involved, use additional pages, as necessary.)

United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division – later transferred to West Palm Beach Division

Case No. 97-25645-BKC-PGH

Appeal in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division

Case No. 07-60770-CIV-ALTONAGA/Turnoff

What is (or was) your role in the lawsuit?

Party (including pro se)

Please provide the name, address, and telephone number of your attorney in this lawsuit:

2. Have you filed a lawsuit against the judge? No

If yes, please provide the following information about the lawsuit. (If more than one lawsuit is involved, use additional pages, as necessary.)

3. On separate sheets of paper, no larger than the paper on which this form is printed, please describe the evidence of misconduct or disability that is the subject of this complaint. Do not use more than five single-sided pages.

4. Sign your name.

I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read Rule 1 of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit Governing Complaint of Judicial Misconduct and Disability, and that the statements made in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Meryl M. Lanson/Signed October 8, 2007
_____________________________ _______________________
Signature of Complainant Date

Complaint Against Judge Hyman

2007-10-31T21:29:00.000-04:00

The Honorable Paul G. Hyman, Jr. presided over the 1997 bankruptcy of Baron’s Stores, Inc. The Final Decree was issued on December 10, 1999. On March 11, 2005, I, Pro Se, filed an Emergency Motion to Reopen the bankruptcy of Baron’s Stores, Inc. for “fraud on the court” for failure to disclose under Bankruptcy Rule 2014[1]. On April 7, 2005, Judge Hyman reopened the bankruptcy of Baron’s in order to determine if “fraud on the court” for failure to disclose had been perpetrated by three attorneys[2]. Judge Hyman made all the rulings in the 1997 bankruptcy of Baron’s. In 2005, he reopened the case, denied Summary Judgments, and in 2007, presided over the evidentiary trial. The same Judge, who was defrauded, now was in position to correct the rulings he previously made. Instead of doing what was just and right, under the law, as is his duty, Judge Hyman chose to reinvent the Rules of the Bankruptcy Code enacted by Congress so that he could protect certain attorneys[3]. It obviously was too difficult for him to effect the prosecution of attorneys who appear before him on a regular basis. By reopening the bankruptcy, Judge Hyman opened “pandora’s box.” When he saw what lay inside at the evidentiary trial, and the magnitude of the wrongdoing, including his own, in addition to other lawyers involved in the cover-up, he chose to close the box rather than release the secrets. Judge Hyman has failed to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by refusing to correct errors contained in his Orders. As a result, he continues to deprive interested parties their right to object and be heard - violating due process. I was determined to investigate what secrets remained and how and why a decision of “no fraud on the court” could be made. My examination of the documents and understanding of the Rules un- covered the judicial misconduct, bias and impropriety of Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr.

“Professionals must disclose all connections with the debtor, creditors and parties in interest, no matter how irrelevant or trivial those connections may seem. The disclosure rules are not discretionary. The Bankruptcy Court does not have authority to allow the employment of a professional in violation of 327, and the employment is void ab initio. Until proper disclosure has been made, it is premature to award fees for two reasons. First, the Bankruptcy Court cannot exercise its discretion
to excuse non-disclosure unless it knows what it is excusing. Second, employment is a prerequisite to compensation and until there is proper disclosure it cannot be known whether the professional is validly employed. The Bankruptcy Court cannot simply disregard those rules and instead award compensation under quantum meruit or other state law theories. Lack of Rule 2014 Statement “necessitates vacating the employment order.” The Bankruptcy Court has broad discretion to approve employment and award fees after the true facts are known but not when the attorney does not make a full, candid, and complete disclosure. The Bankruptcy Rules do not give the Bankruptcy Court any discretion to waive the requirement of a Rule 2014 Statement.[4]

A Federal Judge must abide by a Canon of Ethics. In the matter of Baron’s, Judge Hyman violated the Canon of Ethics by failing to maintain the honesty, sincerity, uprightness and independence of the judiciary. These lapses of integrity display a pattern of improper activity. Judge Hyman has had many opportunities to correct these lapses and has failed to do so. The failures would lead one to believe that these lapses are intentional. The improper activity has had detrimental effects on not only me, but all interested parties, including but not limited to the creditors and employees of Baron’s Stores, Inc. Following is a series of improper activity and/or judicial misconduct on the part of Judge Paul G. Hyman, Jr. in the bankruptcy of Baron’s:

1) Judge Hyman violated the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules by waiving the requirements enacted by Congress[5] (Ex. A, B, C, D)

2) Judge Hyman hired professionals under a General Retainer Agreement (Ex. B) and paid them under a Contingency Agreement including pre-petition costs (Ex. E)

3) Judge Hyman waived the requirement of Bankruptcy Rule 2016 (Ex. E)

4) Judge Hyman paid a conflicted attorney whom, by his own admission, represented the Unsecured Creditors Committee and was defacto Debtor’s Counsel (Ex. F)

5) Judge Hyman denied me due process by ignoring my Affidavit whereby alerting the Court to the conflicts of interests of the attorneys (Ex. G)

6) Judge Hyman signed an Order containing false information pursuant to the hearing on my Affidavit (Ex. H)

7) Judge Hyman bifurcated the case into liability and remedy after liability was established by the attorneys “admission against interests.” Judge Hyman ignored the admissions by the attorneys thereby preventing me from discovery of nineteen witnesses who knew or should have known about the intent of the attorneys’ fraud (Ex. B, C, I)[6]

8) Judge Hyman ignored my request for fiduciary assistance on behalf of a bereft Debtor, and caused me further financial damage (Ex. J, K)

9) Judge Hyman acted as a witness at the evidentiary trial (Ex. L)

The very protection the Court has from appointing professionals in bankruptcy cases are the Rules of Disclosure enacted by Congress to protect honest debtors and creditors from professionals who choose to play fast and loose with the Court. Examining the history of Congress reveals that it knew the problem existed, especially in the bankruptcy courts, and thus stated its concerns in the Matter of Arkansas Co, (3dCir.1986).

“It is significant that Congress chose to place the requirement of court approval for the employment of an attorney, accountant, or other professional directly in the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. 11 U.S.C. 1103(a). The legislative history makes clear that the 1978 Code was designed to eliminate the abuses and detrimental practices that had been found to prevail. Among such practices was the cronyism of the “bankruptcy ring” and attorney control of bankruptcy cases. In fact, the House Report noted that “in practice...the bankruptcy system operates more for the benefit of attorneys than for the benefit of creditors.”

Congress’ fear as stated in the Matter of Arkansas Co. became a reality in the bankruptcy of Baron’s. What Congress could not have imagined was that the Court itself would engage in the “cronyism” by protecting certain members of the bankruptcy bar rather than protect the public from such “cronyism.” The Federal Courts have the power to improve or destroy the lives of individuals, including through precedents, the lives of millions of Americans. It is the duty of the Judicial Council to fully and impartially investigate my allegations so that I and the public will be confident that a fair process does exist when a Grievance is filed against a Federal Judge with oversight by the Federal Judiciary.

[1] Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure states, in pertinent part: (a) Application for an Order of Employment An order approving the employment of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or § 1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee [or debtor in possession] . . . . The application shall state the specific facts showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation, and, to the best of the applicant's knowledge, all of the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014. In re Jennings, 199 Fed.Appx. 845 (11th Cir. 10/04/2006)
[2]Ronald C. Kopplow, Esq., Marc Cooper, Esq., Sonya L. Salkin, Esq. It should be noted that Sonya Salkin is also a Region 21 Panel Trustee.
[3]It is amazing that on December 1, 2004, Judge Hyman found that Linda Walden, a “creditor elected Trustee” and CPA committed perjury and fraud on the court on a minuscule fraction of evidence compared to what three attorneys did in the bankruptcy of Baron’s. It should be noted that Ms. Walden is not a Region 21 Panel Trustee and obviously did not enjoy the preferential treatment afforded attorneys by this Court - In Re: James Walker, Case No. 03-32158-BKC-PGH.
[4]In re Triple Star Welding, Inc., 324 B.R.778 (9th Cir. 04/28/2005)
[5]In re Triple Star Welding, Inc., 324 B.R.778 (9th Cir. 04/28/2005)
[6]In the Motion for Protective Order it is stipulated by the attorneys that they did not make disclosure to anyone. At the hearing on the Motion for Protective Order it is again stated that the attorneys did not make disclosure to anyone, and yet Judge Hyman failed to address the attorneys’ “admission against interests.” Such admission should have caused Judge Hyman to be outraged that he was defrauded by the attorneys in 1997 when he appointed them and paid them approximately $1 million in fees and costs, (including pre-petition costs) pursuant to the attorneys averment that they complied with Bankruptcy Rule 2014, and now, more than nine years later, they have admitted that they never complied with Rule 2014 under Bankruptcy Code 327. Such admission should have caused Judge Hyman, Sua Sponte, to deny the attorneys’ Motion for Protective Order so that the intent of the attorneys’ fraud on the court could be explored through discovery of the nineteen witnesses I wanted to depose. The Judicial Council should be quite concerned as to why Judge Hyman did not take immediate and appropriate action to protect the bankruptcy process and the integrity of the Court.

Complaint against Judge Hyman Witness List

2007-10-31T21:23:00.000-04:00

COMPLAINT AGAINST HONORABLE PAUL G. HYMAN, JR.
WITNESS LIST[1][2]

1) Honorable Paul G. Hyman, Jr.

2) Clerk of the Court - United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division and West Palm Beach Division

3) Heidi Feinman, Esq. Office of the United States Trustee Region 21

4) Sonya L. Salkin, Esq.

5) Ronald C. Kopplow, Esq.

6) Marc Cooper, Esq.

7) Alan J. Perlman, Esq.

8) Lawrence C. Gottlieb, Esq.

9) Joel Tabas, Esq.

10) Richard E. Brodsky, Esq.

11) Steven Eisenberg, Esq.

12) Ramona Elliott, Esq.

13) Francis Carter, Esq.

[1]I reserve the right to call as a Witness any and all Experts and/or Professors that I deem necessary to substantiate the Judicial Misconduct of The Honorable Paul G. Hyman, Jr.
[2]I further reserve the right to call members of Congress who were responsible for enacting legislation pursuant to Bankruptcy Code 327 and Rule 2014.

2007-10-31T20:07:00.000-04:00

TABLE OF CONTENTS - EXHIBITS[1]
JUDICIAL COMPLAINT AGAINST HONORABLE PAUL G. HYMAN, JR.

EXHIBIT/DOCKET NO.[2] (DESCRIPTION)

A - 343/344 - (Interrogatories by Special Counsel Response to Interrogatories)

B - 415 - (Motion for Protective Order by Special Counsel
including Attachments and Exhibits)

C - 452 - (Transcript of September 29, 2006 Hearing on
Motion for Protective Order )

D - 52, 53, 94 [3] - (Order Approving Employment of Ronald C. Kopplow, Order Approving Employment of Marc Cooper, Order Approving Employment of Sonya Salkin)

E - 168 - (Order Granting Motion for Approval of Settlement Of Debtor’s Litigation Against Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co., P.A.[4] )

F - 243, 268[5] - (Application by Lawrence C. Gottlieb for Creditor Committee for Compensation, and Order Granting Application for Compensation Fees and Expenses - Lawrence C. Gottlieb, Esq. )

G - 222 - (Affidavit by Creditor Norman Lanson, Creditor Meryl Lanson in Opposition to Ronald C. Kopplow’s and Marc Cooper’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees)

H - 224 - (Order Ruling on Motion to Determine Entitlement To Attorneys’ Fees by Marc Cooper, Ronald C. Kopplow)

I - 447 - (Order Bifurcating Fraud Hearing and Agreed Order Denying Motion for Protective Order)

J - 346 - (Notice of Filing Request for Fiduciary Assistance by Creditor Norman Lanson, and Creditor Meryl Lanson)

K - 414, 418 - (Interim Report No. 1 Filed by Interested Party Meryl Lanson, and Trustee’s Reorganized Debtor’s Interim Report No. 2 Filed by Interested Party) Meryl Lanson

L - 543, 544, 545 (Transcript of January 29, 30, 31, 2007 - Volume I, Volume II, Volume III - Trial[6] Excerpt from Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Brief which Appellee’s quote Judge Hyman, acting as a witness, during the Trial wherein he presided, indicating he signed the wrong Order)

M[7] - (Plaintiff’s Motion for Combined Evidentiary and “Martinsen” Hearing to Determine that the Defendants Did Willfully Misrepresent Material Facts in Official Court Proceedings in a Way and a Manner to Materially Effect the Litigation Both in the Bankruptcy Court and in the Instant Action)

N[8] - (Plaintiff’s Chronology of Defendants’ Conflicts and Fraud Filed as a Supplement to: Plaintiff’s Motion for Combined Evidentiary and “Martinsen” Hearing, Etc. )

O - (Docket Report - U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale) Bankruptcy Petition #:97-25645-PGH )

P - (Oral Presentation by Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se United States District Court Southern District of Florida - September 11, 2007 )

[1]Any Exhibits not provided in hard copy, and referred to pursuant to Docket Entry Number, shall be located and furnished upon request if the Judicial Council will not accept the Docket Entry as proof of Exhibit.
[2]For the ready review of the Judicial Council, a copy of the entire docket is included in this Complaint as Exhibit O.
[3]A copy of Order Granting Motion to Employ Sonya Salkin, Esq. shall be referred to pursuant to Docket Entry No. 94.
[4]The handwritten wording of Sonya Salkin, Esq. relating to the attorneys’ fees and costs was in lieu of a Rule 2016 Statement.
[5]Order Granting Application for Compensation - Fees and Expenses - Lawrence C. Gottlieb, Esq. shall be referred pursuant to Docket Entry No. 268.
[6]The Transcripts from the Trial are not incorporated herein - only identified through the Docket Number. The excerpt of Judge Hyman’s testimony during trial is incorporated by way of Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Brief.
[7]This document, part of the court record, is provided to the Judicial Council for an easy understandable read as to what transpired in the 1997 Bankruptcy of Baron’s which ultimately was the reason that Judge Hyman re-opened the bankruptcy case for “fraud on the court.”
[8]Supplement as to Exhibit M - footnote 7.

Scary Federal Judiciary

2007-10-28T20:53:00.000-04:00

Be sure not to miss this Halloween:

Scary Federal Judiciary

An expose' on the federal judiciary
and its seeming efforts to avoid
responsibility for deliberate violations
of rights through judicial rulings.

By Zena D. Crenshaw, Esq., Michael R. McCray, Esq., and Matthew F. Fogg

Article Location:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_zena_d___071025_scary_federal_judici.htm

This past June, the U. S. Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability submitted for public comment up to October 15, 2007, rules for the conduct of primarily federal judicial discipline proceedings. When effective, the proposed rules are to “. . . provide mandatory and nationally uniform provisions governing the substantive and procedural aspects of misconduct and disability proceedings . . .” for federal judges. They marvelously bridle discretion among chief circuit judges, the first responders to private citizens, prisoners, lawyers, court personnel and others, complaining that one or more federal judges are unethical or unable to properly function due to some mental and/or physical condition.

The actual or acting chief judge of any federal circuit in America can dismiss complaints alleging the misconduct and/or disability of his or her judicial colleagues, subject to certain appeals. Fortunately the rules at hand preclude those dismissals when underlying complaints pit the complainant’s word against those of a targeted judge. That situation involves “a simple credibility conflict” and should proceed for special committee investigation.

“Where a judge’s conduct has resulted in identifiable, particularized harm to the complainant or another individual, appropriate corrective action should include steps taken by that judge to acknowledge and redress the harm, if possible, such as by an apology, recusal from a case, and a pledge to refrain from similar conduct in the future.” Should the subject rules become enacted, minor corrections would be an insufficient response to serious allegations. Also, viable complaints could not be dismissed under the new rules if an alleged offender still performs judicial duties.

The foregoing provisions would soon give Americans good grounds for renewed confidence in the self-regulation of federal judges were it not for a disturbing message undermining the process. Through the preemption of complaints “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling”, federal judges suggest they are unaccountable for deliberate violations of rights accomplished through judicial proceedings. In contrast, the U. S. Constitution limits state power, “. . . however put forth, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.” Ex Parte State of Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 at 346 (1879).

In 2004, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed a Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee to appease criticism about the act’s implementation and corresponding effectiveness or lack thereof. Comprised only of judges, court personnel, and similar participants, the committee essentially confirms with its “Breyer Report” that court opinions rarely justify claims of unlawful judicial bias. Yet the circumstances of a court ruling may rebut the presumption that as to a particular litigant or litigants, the presiding judge is a person “. . . of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly . . .” cf., U. S. v. Morgan, 313 U S 409 at 421 (1941). In fact a judge’s willfulness characterized by “open defiance or reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement” of record, may establish a criminal violation of rights under color of law. See, Title 18 U.S.C. §242 and cf. U.S. v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811 at 821 (5th Cir. 1979). That willfulness would be inextricably related to, but exceed mere error.

America’s federal judicial conference now anticipates a wondrous paradox of incorrect court rulings that result from, but in no way evidence improper judicial motive. Its rules are likely to preclude consideration of such matters “. . . to the extent (they attack) the merits” of a judicial ruling; though those linked to alleged collusion somehow go “. . . beyond a challenge to the correctness – ‘the merits’ of the ruling itself”. Such a dividing line is as elusive as “ . . . evidence apart from the ruling itself suggesting an improper motive”. At best it creates an extremely tight rope that prospective complainants under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act should not have to walk.

The U. S. Supreme Court “. . . makes clear that judges and other ‘state officials integral to the judicial process’ are subject to criminal liability for violating the constitutional rights of individuals.” Briscoe v. La Hue, 460 U. S. 325, footnote 26 (1983). That the U. S. Judicial Conference is empowered to skirt such matters for federal judges is troubling, downright scary to say the least.

Apparently the conference will never fathom a criminal violation of rights under color of law warranting impeachment. Of course the Breyer Report and U. S. Justice Department prosecution statistics combine to dubiously suggest that of late, judges are virtually incapable of such crimes.

As America emerged from the height of its civil rights movement, federal judges and Congress boldly restrained deliberate violations of rights by state judges among other state officials. The idea of federal judges needing more independence would be laughable were it not so offensive. But alas, it is an idea aggressively promoted this new millennium through the corridors of America’s highest judicial officers and beyond. Feel free to share that hair raising story this Halloween.

Crenshaw, McCray, and Fogg are administrators for The 3.5.7 Commission, a privately established commission considering the propriety of summary judgments entered against federal government employees under Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and certain employees seeking relief under the False Claims Act. [ www.the357commission.org ] Ms. Crenshaw is also Executive Director of National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc., a nonprofit organization combating abuses of the legal system that are facilitated by judicial misconduct. [ www.njcdlp.org ] McCray is a $40,000,000 government whistleblower and business developer who considers judicial reform an essential element of government whistleblower protection. Fogg is a currently inactive Chief Deputy U. S. Marshal as well as international human rights advocate.

Justice Dept silence aided fraud

2007-10-28T20:48:00.000-04:00

Associated Press
Judge: Justice Dept Silence Aided FraudAssociated Press
10.25.07, 6:58 PM ET

WILMINGTON, Del. -
A judge on Thursday accused the U.S. Justice Department of contributing to fraud by failing to notify her of a yearlong investigation into a consulting firm suspected of making millions by padding fees in bankruptcy cases.

Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh said at a court hearing that she and other bankruptcy judges in several states are "very upset" they weren't informed of the Justice Department's probe into the billing practices of L. Tersigni Consulting.

The Stamford, Conn.-based firm played a role in more than a dozen big asbestos-related bankruptcy cases.

"Literally millions of dollars went out of debtors' estates that should not have gone out," Fitzgerald said. She said "there was a fraud on this court, and the Department of Justice participated."

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Newark, N.J. who launched the investigation denied there was a ban on communication with the bankruptcy court about the investigation.

"At no time did the U.S. Attorney's Office instruct anyone to withhold information from the bankruptcy court. That simply did not occur," Michael Drewniak said in an e-mailed statement.

Drewniak said the office is "precluded by law and policy not to disclose the existence of a criminal investigation," citing the need to protect the presumption of innocence.

No criminal charges have resulted from the Tersigni investigation, which began in April 2006 and is believed to have ended in May after the death of the man suspected of padding the firm's bills, Loreto Tersigni. But bankruptcy judges in Delaware, Pittsburgh, New Jersey and New York are being asked to appoint examiners to assess the damage.

An employee of the Tersigni firm, Bradley Rapp, discovered discrepancies in Tersigni's billing records in the spring of 2006. He found time records pumped up by 5 percent to 15 percent before being submitted to the court for payment. Within 48 hours, he reported his suspicions to the Office of the U.S. Trustee, his attorney said Thursday.

U.S. Trustee Kelly Beaudin Stapleton, who monitors the bankruptcy court, referred the matter to Christopher Christie, the U.S. Attorney in Newark, N.J. Rapp's attorney said Christie's office called in the FBI and began an investigation.

"Everyone was told to stand down, including the U.S. Trustee," said the attorney, Robert K. Malone.

Malone said Rapp was instructed to stay on the job at the Tersigni firm and supply documents to the U.S. Attorney and FBI, which he did.

"He acted on the advisement of the assistant U.S. Attorney not to breathe a word of this investigation," Malone said, adding, "It was killing him - for this man to go to work every day and not talk about it."

After Tersigni died, Rapp revealed his suspicions to the firm's direct clients, the official committees representing asbestos claimants in major bankruptcy cases. They in turn reported it to the lawyers for the bankrupt companies and later the courts.

Malone said there was evidence that Tersigni in some cases underbilled bankrupt companies.

Judge Fitzgerald on Thursday said the Justice Department was bound by ethical rules that require attorneys who suspect fraud in court proceedings to call it to the attention of the judge.

"What on earth was going on in the Department of Justice?" she asked.

Stapleton, the U.S. Trustee, told the judge that Department of Justice rules bar attorneys involved in a criminal investigation from feeding information to attorneys who work on the civil side, such as the U.S. Trustee. She said she could not say whether the criminal investigation was still under way or whether the matter had been submitted to a grand jury.

Lawyers representing the Tersigni interests could not be reached for comment.

Judges impose secrecy on ethics-rules revision

2007-10-28T20:37:00.000-04:00

FEDERAL COURTS

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/285048.html

Judges impose secrecy on ethics-rules revision

Secrecy on the rewriting of federal misconduct rules is only deepening suspicions among critics who say judges have failed to police themselves adequately.

Posted on Fri, Oct. 26, 2007
By MARISA TAYLOR
mtaylor@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON --
Judiciary Committee, calling a mistake the decision to keep rule-change comments secret.
As the federal judiciary embarks on a historic revision of its rules against judicial misconduct, the panel of judges that is overseeing the drafting of new regulations refuses to disclose the public comments that could help shape the overhaul.

After requesting public comments about the proposed rules, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability refuses to say how many responses it received, who commented or what was said.

''I have never heard of public comments being made confidentially,'' said Abner Mikva, a retired chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ``I'm trying to think of an explanation, but this strikes me as very strange.''

What's known is that several chief circuit judges across the country are among those who weighed in, sparking speculation that the judiciary is debating the merits of the proposed rules, which would impose unprecedented oversight over how federal courts handle complaints.

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Legal experts said they weren't surprised by the reticence to release the information. By tradition and necessity, the federal judiciary often weighs some of its most important decisions behind closed doors and without public input.

Such secrecy, however, threatens to overshadow what's supposed to be the most sweeping tightening of federal judicial-misconduct policies in a quarter of a century.

Some watchdog groups questioned whether the panel's decision to withhold the comments was intended to prevent the disclosure of details of misconduct or to hide unhappiness among judges about having to comply with new rules.

The proposed rules provide strict oversight from Washington and require judges to leave much more detailed paper trails explaining their decisions about whether to investigate misconduct, experts said.

HABIT OF SECRECY

The judiciary previously has been criticized for imposing secrecy in matters that would more appropriately be discussed openly.

Earlier this year, court officials initially refused to disclose details about the sponsors of expenses-paid trips for judges, as new ethics rules require.

''It shows how difficult it is to wean the judiciary off its habits of confidentiality and keeping things to themselves,'' said Arthur Hellman, a professor who specializes in federal judicial ethics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. 'It's so deeply engrained that their first reaction is always, `No, no, that's not for public circulation.' ''

The decision to keep the written responses under wraps comes as the judiciary is under growing pressure from Congress to provide a better public explanation of how it handles misconduct complaints.

Legislators, advocacy groups and legal experts said that withholding the written responses would only add to suspicions about the often-secretive misconduct proceedings.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, called the decision a mistake.

''By releasing them, the judicial branch would have credibility that it is responding to the failure of its own procedures,'' he said.

The changes come in response to criticism that federal judges have failed to police themselves adequately. Last year, a panel overseen by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded that judges who handled five of 17 high-profile complaints had failed to investigate them properly, although it didn't find the problem to be systemic.

COMPLAINTS REJECTED

In the last five years, the judiciary closed 3,532 complaints but took action against judges in only four cases. In defending the high dismissal rate, judges point out that a large number of misconduct complaints are filed by people who misunderstand or abuse the process. Often, litigants who have lost their cases file misconduct complaints when they should be appealing the decisions to higher courts. Accusations of conflict of interest also are generally handled separately in recusal requests.

But critics said they thought that the judiciary might be failing to punish some judges either because the threshold for misconduct was too low or because matters weren't being investigated thoroughly.

Sensenbrenner and Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa have proposed legislation to create an inspector general's office that would independently investigate allegations of judicial misconduct. The judiciary opposes the idea, which Grassley said demonstrated that some judges ``see themselves like gods who are above criticism.''

INCOMPLETE DETAILS

Pittsburgh's Hellman praised the new rules but told the committee that they don't go far enough in requiring details about complaints.

In several cases, circuit courts have provided few details or written vague opinions about judges who are punished for misconduct. In September, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent in Galveston, Texas, but didn't specify his punishment or detail what he did wrong. Publicly, at least one female court employee has accused him of sexual harassment.

Public Comments on Committee's Draft Rules

2007-10-15T16:58:00.000-04:00

Coalition for Judicial Accountability

October 15, 2007

The Honorable Circuit Judge Ralph Winter
Chair, Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability
Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Washington, D.C. 20544
Sent as Directed by Email to:
JudicialConductRules@ao.uscourts.gov

RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS to the
Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings

Proposed by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability
of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee:

On July 16, 2007, your Committee requested public comment upon the Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings, which are being considered for promulgation by the Judicial Branch under the legislative authority delegated to the U.S. Supreme Court by Act of Congress to implement the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364.

The organizations and individuals signing below hereby submit these comments jointly and ask you to seriously consider them. These organizations regularly work for the legal rights of citizens and reform of the legal system.

The “Coalition for Judicial Accountability” is an umbrella project created to facilitate the joint submission of the individual (actual) organizations named below, each of which join in this submission together, along with individuals who have also affixed their name.

The individual organizations signing below may also submit further, individual comments separately. Each of these organizations has a broad range of concerns about the availability of legal services and the fairness and justice of the legal system to Americans, but they join here on areas of agreement to attempt to emphasize the importance of these matters and to ask for your very serious consideration of these joint comments.

Of course, for those in the legal profession, it is an ethical responsibility to work for the improvement of the legal system and to encourage the continuing development of a reliable, fair, and accessible legal system to benefit the public and a society maintained by the rule of law. We are pleased to assist the Committee by this response to the Committee’s request.

We applaud not only the value of good governance in this public comment period provided by the Committee, but also the Committee’s wisdom in accessing the broadest range of experiences, ideas, perspectives, and insights possible during this process to arrive at the best possible rules governing the Federal Courts across the nation.

SUMMARY

We submit that (a) conflicts of interest among judges presiding over a case (refusal to recuse) create some of the most serious examples of judicial misconduct, (b) the Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings must be changed to define a failure to recuse (proceeding under a conflict of interest or appearance) as a very serious category of misconduct, (c) the Court’s Rules must require automatic recusal, whenever an alternate judge is available and the motion is made in a way that will not cause disruption or dilatory delay, (d) the Committee’s Rules must aggressively regulate, enforce, and prosecute requirements of judges to avoid not only the reality but also the appearance of a conflict of interest. In short:

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONG JUDGES PRESIDING OVER A CASE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE and must never be tolerated.

Therefore, proposed Rule 3(b)(A) “EXCLUSIONS” as currently drafted is wholly unacceptable and inadvertently confirms the worst suspicions of a cynical public and of critics of the Judiciary. Rule 3(b)(A) as drafted reinforces and confirms everything that cynics and critics believe is wrong with our nation’s courts.

Draft Rule 3(b)(A) currently provides that no substantive decision can be counted as “misconduct” by a Federal judge – including a failure to recuse (which would be relevant only if actual grounds for recusal had in fact existed, otherwise there would be no failure to act).

In other words, the Draft Rules provide that a failure to recuse can never be misconduct. A failure to recuse could only be considered as wrongful – and potentially misconduct – if the judge in fact had a conflict of interest in hearing the case. Thus, when placed in context, the Draft Rules effectively provide that a Federal Judge may hear a case in which the judge has a direct financial or personal interest – and yet this will not be considered as misconduct.

Thus, the Draft Rules actually provide that it is not misconduct for a Federal Judge to preside over and decide a case in which the Judge has a direct personal or financial interest, or perhaps the appearance of a conflict. Under the Draft Rules, a Judge could actually be an owner of a company involved in a case, and preside over the case, and this could never be misconduct.

STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE

We arrive at the comments below based on the following beliefs:

· The tasks and duties of judges, particularly in the Federal Judiciary, are of enormous mportance to the nation and to American society, including promoting a society governed by fairness, public safety, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

· The Federal courts have the power to improve or destroy the lives of individuals, including – through precedents – the lives of millions of Americans.

· One who serves well as a Federal judge deserves enormous honor and respect.

· Public confidence that the nation is governed impartially and well by the rule of law, in which all persons are under the same law, is crucial to the preservation of civil society.

· Public confidence in the Judiciary can only be produced by the actual reality of fairness, respect, consistency, impartiality, and effectiveness in the Courts. It can never be ‘faked’ by public relations efforts or attempts to limit information to the public. As demonstrated by the recent crisis within the Catholic Church, hiding problems can prove catastrophic.

· Even the appearance of bias or conflicts of interest among judges can be as poisonous to society as the reality. Those who fervently believe that judges are impartial and fair should desire transparency to clearly demonstrate to the public that courts are fair.

· The great importance of the courts and judges to American society demands that only those who are very successful and highly qualified as judges should wield tremendous power over fellow citizens and the ability to preserve order or create chaos and ruin lives.

· Public confidence in the courts has in fact reached crisis proportions. In our interactions with the public, most people who have been to court tell us they are extremely dissatis-fied and disappointed. Nearly everyone complaining about their court experience insists that the judge was overtly biased and judged recklessly in disregard of the evidence.

· Addressing and resolving problems within the courts or inadequate performance of a judge is essential because of the great importance of the courts in society. The Committee should never permit the idea that the courts are too important to have real problems fixed.

· Performing successfully as a judge requires extraordinary mental concentration and attention to detail, enormous patience suited to a saint, a judicial temperament able to show respect to a vast diversity of individuals who may often be difficult or even unpleasant themselves, and the unusual psychological ability to set aside personal opinions and beliefs in favor of impartially applying governing laws and rules.

· As a result, those suited to the post of judge are rare and few, and the Court system must assertively detect and remove anyone who is not successful in the position of judge.

· Meanwhile, any attorney at such a level enjoys many wonderful professional opportunities far more profitable than serving as a judge. American life affords a variety of opportunities to suit the personalities and abilities of different types of individuals. To serve in a different occupation cannot be considered a loss. The Committee should consider only the needs of the country and should never consider a judgeship to be the personal property or right of any individual person.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT

#1 RULE 3(b)(A) FAILS TO REGULATE SERIOUS AND MOST FREQUENT INCIDENTS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT – CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

An impartial decision-maker is the heart and soul of due process. Indeed, the very symbol of the courts in the United States is a statue of a blind-folded woman, meant to signify that law and justice are applied equally and impartially to all persons regardless of whom they are.

A conflict of interest, real or perceived, strikes at the very heart of the legal system of the United States, and threatens to destroy public confidence in the government of the nation and of the states and the rule of law which preserves a modern civilization.

The proposed Draft Rule 3(b)(A) is wholly unacceptable.

Draft Rule 3(b)(A) would define “misconduct” to exclude a judge’s failure to recuse himself or herself upon an allegation of a conflict of interest

Thus, the Committee proposes to announce to the entire nation that presiding over a case in Federal court when the judge has a conflict of interest is not “misconduct” in the eyes of the Committee or the Federal Judiciary.

This message will be regarded as nothing short of shocking to the average American who looks to the Federal Courts as the guardians of his rights and liberties.

It will be sensational that any agency of the Judiciary would suggest that hearing a case while having a conflict of interest is not “misconduct.”

Therefore, the phrase in Rule 3(b)(A) must be modified so that misconduct includes an improper refusal or failure to recuse including for actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

#2 RECUSAL SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED ON REQUEST

Every Court has a process for assigning various cases to different judges. Thus, it is no burden for a court to assign a judge without a conflict of interest, because the Court must already go through a process of case allocation.

The Draft Rules should be modified so that every Federal Judge is obligated to recuse herself or himself upon the slightest showing of even the appearance of a conflict of interest…. unless (a) an alternative judge is not available, (b) the recusal motion is brought at a time that is disruptive or (c) the motion is interposed purely for delay such as the week before the trial.

It must be a bedrock principle of the Federal Judiciary that ANY judge hearing the same case would produce the same result.

If Judges hearing the evidence and applying the law produce the “correct” result, then it must necessarily be true that every Judge would produce exactly the same result in a case.

Therefore, there can be no valid reason for opposing a motion for recusal. The Judiciary should never suggest that which Judge hears a case will change the outcome of the case!

Because – as a matter of public policy and law – it could not make any difference which Judge hears a case, the great need for public confidence in the courts requires that the public be assured that any Judge with the slightest appearance of any conflict will always recuse himself or herself to reassure all parties and the public that the courts will be fair.

For the Federal Judiciary to admit that a different Judge would produce a different result in the case is to admit that Judges do not apply the law to the facts impartially and accurately. For the Federal Judiciary to oppose automatic recusal is to admit that Judges decide cases based upon personal opinions, personal biases, and individual views. This would be an intolerable message to send to the American people. It must be made clear that all Judges are equal.

Of course, there may be occasions when an exception is necessary. (a) A party calling for recusal must do so promptly, before a particular judge has invested significant time and effort in a case (unless the cause for recusal arises during the case). (b) A motion for recusal should not be heard so as to create an excuse for delay, such as waiting to file the motion before a scheduled trial. (c) In extremely rare occasions, there may be no other judge available.

#3 AVOIDING THE PROBLEM IN ADVANCE – AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE

As mentioned above, every Court must already go through a process of allocating cases to various judges. Public confidence in the Courts should be upheld by avoiding the problem before it arises. Once a question of a conflict of interest arises, some of the damage is done.

The Committee should address the clear misconduct of deciding a case under a conflict of interest by defining measures necessary to avoid the offense of misconduct, perhaps in the form of a safe harbor. Again, we believe that the Committee is authorized to – and should – implement the Act by making it practical and effective in the real circumstances of the Court system, even if that means adding on further methods and procedures consistent with the Act.

Avoiding the misconduct of a conflict of interest should be addressed in two parts:

First, every Judge and the Judge’s law clerk(s) should place on file with the Clerk disclosures that will assist in allocating cases to Judges while avoiding any conflicts of interest arising in the first place, including (a) former law clerks practicing in law firms in the region, (b) relatives practicing law or serving as paralegals in law firms in the region, (c) companies in which the Judge or law clerk (including a spouse) has a financial interest, other than through a blind trust or mutual fund, (d) any organization or official who lobbied or assisted in the Judge’s appointment or confirmation to the bench, [1][1] (e) the Judge’s former employers or business associates, (f) relatives living in the region who are owners or managers of companies in the region, (g) organizations or clubs of which the Judge is a member (excluding in his or her official capacity as a Judge), and (h) the Judge’s and law clerk’s alma mater(s).

Second, the local rules of some circuits should be made universal and expanded: Upon assignment of a case, the parties should file a form with the initial pleadings to be reviewed by the judge, his deputy, his law clerks, his staff, that requires full disclosure as to any connection that the Judge or judge’s staff has to any of the litigants and/or their counsel directly or indirectly as a result of a family member and/or business associate to the named parties and their counsel. That completed form should then be sent to the parties in the litigation stating that a connection exists or doesn’t. At the initial stages, the litigants should be given the opportunity to challenge whether the disclosure form filed by opponents provides full disclosure and to raise any objections. To avoid the case progressing and wasting efforts before discovering a conflict, a fair hearing should be obligatory at the outset of a case.

#4 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST SHOULD BE BROADENED

The Draft Rules should be modified to recognize the full range of concerns held by a highly cynical and skeptical public. The narrow range of circumstances that the Courts officially recognize as conflicts of interest bear little or no relationship to the actual concerns of real people. It ought to be obvious to everyone that conflicts of interest include cases in which (a) a member of the Judge’s family works for one of the law firms in the case (except perhaps with large multi-city law firms) or for a company who is a party in the case, (b) a Judge’s former law clerk is one of the attorneys in the case or works for a small law firm in the case, (c) the Judge is a personal friend, neighbor, or fellow club or church member with one of the attorneys, or (d) a litigant is a lobbying organization or person with influence over whether the Judge is nominated or confirmed for a higher Judgeship (assuming an appointment is under active consideration), or actually did influence the Judge’s appointment or confirmation.

#5 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL COMPLAINTS ESSSENTIAL

One of the most damaging injuries to public confidence in the courts is secrecy concerning complaints against Judges. While the Judiciary expects that confidentiality protects the reputation of Judges, precisely the opposite is true. Confidentiality and secrecy casts an air of suspicion and accusation upon all of the Judiciary and severely injures public confidence.

Of course, when a complaint is publicized months or years before the results of the investigation, incomplete disclosure can be unfair, leaving a false impression. Postponing disclosure until the final results can be disclosed with the complaint is fair. However, when the results are never disclosed, the public will assume that allegations are true but hushed up.

Rules 23 and 24 of the Draft Rules attempt to create confidentiality, until a final decision has been reached, followed by mandatory disclosure.

However, Rule 24 should be modified to remove the exceptions and to require disclosure of all information relating to a complaint (perhaps with private identities redacted). Disclosure that a complaint has been fully investigated and the facts found to be untrue would be more protective of the Judiciary than throwing a cloak of secrecy over complaints.

Even where complaints are resolved with minor reprimands or warnings, or on a summary basis, confidentiality is still not appropriate. A Judgeship is a position of public trust, not personal property. The public has a right to be aware of even minor transgressions and be vigilant of relapses. Although there is a danger of copy cat complaints, this should be carefully considered when reviewing any subsequent complaints. A condition of reprimand or warning is avoiding relapses, and therefore public knowledge and vigilance is appropriate.

#6 COVERING UP KNOWLEDGE OF MISCONDUCT

We believe that the Committee has authority to provide for mechanisms necessary to implement the rules. The Committee should define misconduct to include concealing or failing to report evidence of suspicious circumstances or possible misconduct by any judge. It should be obvious that the person so reporting will not necessarily know all of the facts nor be aware if any misconduct has occurred. Because such information may not necessarily form an actual complaint, a method of reviewing irregularities may be required. The Congress might be asked to explicitly provide for such a rule.

#7 BROADER DEFINITION OF DISABILITY

Proposed Draft Rule 3(c) defines “Disability” but the Committee might consider a slightly broader definition. The tasks of a Judge are primarily intellectual. The benefits of wisdom, learning, and perspective for a Judge’s duties have traditionally favored Judges continuing to serve at very advanced ages, when they can still contribute a lifetime of valuable experience. However, medical science has also uncovered medical conditions such as Alzheimers which sometimes have implications for the ability of a Judge to remember, reason, and remain balanced. Emotional irritability and intermittent memory loss can be symptoms.

Curiously, Draft Rule 3(c) explicitly includes an inability to stay awake during proceedings as a disability under the Rule, but fails to include as a recognized disability an inability to remember the facts of the case, such as due to a stroke or Alzheimers, emotional imbalance and irritability (which can be a symptom of the early onset of even undiagnosed Alzheimers) impacting a Judge’s required judicial temperament , etc.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
THE FOREGOING IS SIGNED JOINTLY BY THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WORKING FOR THE REFORM OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Unless Specially Noted, all the signers below are not employees of the Judiciary or attorneys, but are private citizens working for the reform of the courts and the legal system and advocating for the rights of litigants, parents, and others affected by the law.

Jonathon Moseley, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Executive Director
Legal Affairs Council
3601 Jean Street, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(703) 850-3733 Fax (703) 783-0449
Representing 14,000 Members.
LAC has frequently operated legal defense funds for the defense of police officers, public officials, and others in landmark or potentially precedent-setting prosecutions.

Meryl M. Lanson
Victims of the System and
Legal Victim Assistance Project
Post Office Box 880401
Boca Raton, Florida 33488-0401
(561) 488-7678 Fax: (561) 488-2861
E-mail: mlanson@bellsouth.net

http://www.fraudonthecourt.blogspot.com/

http://www.victimsofthesystem.org/

Note that appearing pro se, Meryl Lanson was successful in re-opening a multi-million dollar bankruptcy proceeding on related issues and is maintaining a related multi-million dollar legal malpractice case.

National Coalition for Family Justice
Coalition for Family Justice
821 Broadway
Irvington on Hudson, New York 10533
Contact: Renee Robertson or
Paula Cornacchia, Operations Coordinator
At least 10,000 members
Office: (914) 591-5753 Fax: (914) 591-6981
E-mail: cfjmailbox@aol.com

Dorothy Mataras
Legal Reform Activist
4342 Loveland Drive
Liverpool, New York 13090
Founder & Publisher of Victims-of-Law, Inc.
A New York non-profit corporation
http://victimsoflaw.net/
email: justice96@msn.com

Betsy Combier
"ParentAdvocates.org"The E-Accountability Foundation 315 East 65th Street, Suite 4CNew York, New York 10021
E-mail: Betsy
http://www.parentadvocates.org/
http://www.parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=488

Thomas M. Saunders
Bill of Attainder Project
4360 Platter Road
Calera, Oklahoma 74730
Advisor to the National Judicial Conduct Disability Law Project

Dale Nathan, Esq.
Author, Minnesota Injustice, and representing:
(1) The Justice Committee; (2) Judge Our Courts; and (3) The Truth About America Coalition, (4) Minnesota Court Reform
Post Office Box 211284Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(651) 454-0505 Fax: (651) 454-0507
E-mail: DaleNathan@USFamily.net
http://www.mncourtreform.org/about.html
Note that one of Dale Nathan's lawsuits was chosen by Law & Politics Magazine as one of the eleven lawsuits of the year for 2000.

Krstafer Pinkerton
Post Office Box 1643
Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii 96756
(808) 742 6827
http://www.kpinkerton.com/
http://k-pinkerton.livejournal.com/
Victim of Prosecutorial Misconduct/Non-Attorney

Frank Simard
Past President, New England Coalition for Family Justice
Post Office Box 1546
Plaistow, New Hampshire 03865
Email: SimardRxImages@earthlink.net

Karin Huffer, M.S., M.F.T.
Legal Abuse Syndrome
(702) 528-9588
E-mail: mailto:legalabusesyndrome@adelphia.net

http://www.legalabusesyndrome.com/

Ms. Huffer is author of the book “Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome.”

Mark A. Adams, Esquire JD/MBA
P.O. Box 1078
Valrico, Florida 33595
E-mail: markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com

Caroline Douglas, Esq.
Attorney and Author, Sneaky Judge Tricks and Lexis-Nexis’ Family Law (Equity Pub. Co.)
Email: oxford92748@mindspring.com

Mr. Mike Blodgett
Paralegal, private law firm
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
E-mail: lawview_inc@yahoo.com
(215) 290.8038

Mr. Lesley Winston
13095 Biscayne Island Terrace
North Miami, Florida 33181
E-mail: lwinston@winifs.com

Mr. Martin Salazar
1341 Freeman Harris Road
Harlem, Georgia 30814
Legal Reform Activist (not employed by Judiciary or attorney)

Meredith Taggart
Miami Shores, Florida
Email:

Mr. Laser Haas
Delmar, Delaware

Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq.
Delray Beach, Florida

Norman Lanson
Boca Raton, Florida

Carol Reeth
Westhampton, New York

Sid Soloway
Boca Raton, Florida

Stephanie Ricottone
Oceanside, New York

Christine Carlile and Brian Carlile
Wyckoff, New Jersey

Roseanne Mauro
Frank Mauro
Lake Worth, Florida

Frederick Nielsen
Nielsen & Associates
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 251-1620
E-mail: nielsenassoc@aol.com

Jenny Johnson
Creative Funding Solutions
Houston, Texas
[1][1] Not those carrying out their official duties, such as the President or his staff nominating a Judge or Senators voting on the nomination, but those actually advocating for or promoting the Judge’s nomination or confirmation.

Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct and Disability Complaint Proceedings

2007-10-14T18:46:00.000-04:00

Attention: The Honorable Ralph Winter

VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

Dear Judge Winter:

I am the Moderator for the blog at www.fraudonthecourt.blogspot.com. I disseminate news to the public, for the public, in their best interests. I have also been very fortunate to have members of the legal profession offer praise and support of my efforts in hopes that positive and constructive change will result, much needed change (reforms) I might add. If you take some time to review the blog, I am confident that you will get a real sense of my determination to keep the public informed as to my efforts, and those of other conscientious, credible advocates for legal and judicial responsibility.

This past August, I posted the U.S. Courts’ request: For Public Comment: Draft Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings. I urged the participants viewing the blog to take an active role in the Courts’ request and to voice their comments no later that the requested submission date of October 15, 2007. I, personally, and on behalf of my organizations, Victims of the System, and Legal Victim Assistance Project, participated with a Coalition to bring to your attention, and that of the Committee, our suggestions. Also, I have been following Dr. Richard Cordero’s ongoing efforts, and his participation at the hearing held on September 27, 2007 in the U.S. Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. Those posts relevant to Dr. Cordero are also on the blog.

I must assume, by your role as the Chair of this esteemed Committee that you share my vision, and I trust that you, too, support what I am doing. Educating the public and keeping the public informed is what we must do. In that regard, I request a copy of the audio/visual tape and stenographic transcript of the hearing that the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. held on its draft rules governing judicial misconduct and disability complaint proceedings this past September 27, 2007. Please advise when my request will be available.

The Federal Courts have the power to improve or destroy the lives of individuals, including through precedents, the lives of millions of Americans. The public’s trust must begin to be restored. You have taken the first steps in that endeavor, and I commend you. Have faith that I, too, will continue to diligently pursue this matter with the utmost integrity. I stand ready to assist you and the Committee in our mutual desire to protect the public and keep the public informed.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Meryl M. Lanson
1-561-488-7678 Office
1-561-488-2861 Facsimile

Victims of the System
Post Office Box 880401
Boca Raton, Florida 33488-0401

www.victimsofthesystem.org

www.fraudonthecourt.blogspot.com

cc: Mr. Richard Carelli
Administrative Office of The U.S. Courts

PRESS RELEASE - DUE PROCESS DEFENDERS - RECONCILING THE 110TH CONGRESS

2007-10-10T21:37:00.000-04:00

Following a March 26th trip to Washington DC, and an additional trip on May 15th, providing Congressman John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy with replete and repetitive violations of due process, perpetrated by court employees, government workers, and elected officials, individuals known as the Due Process Defenders, have sought to make their voice heard, demanding accountability, and Constitutional Law be restored to this nation. While violations of law are being repeatedly carried out against citizens across this nation, one collective group is standing in unison demanding our country be solvent and accountable, even our judiciary. On September 27, 2007, the Due Process Defenders after months of follow-up with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees spoke with the latest contact from Congressman John Conyers Office, Mr. Burt Wides, replacing prior designee Ted Kalo. Mr. Wides has a long and prestigious history of service with the House, Senate, and foreign nationals.

As a result of the ongoing and relentless effort to ensure the 110th Congress addresses a more critical issue than Mattel toys, the Defenders continue to demand as assured during the March 26th, meeting with Congressman John Conyers, an investigation of rampant due process violations against law abiding citizens. Thus, dedicated Due Process Defenders, via a conference call, spoke directly to Mr. Wides regarding pressing and critical concerns affecting EVERY American, in addition to posting the conversation at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc. The Defenders spoke directly with Mr. Wides, voicing their outrage and demand for justice, for which Congress clearly bears the ultimate jurisdiction, and responsibility to act upon. Apologies were offered by Mr. Wides concerning unreturned calls and ongoing delays.

You see, 5 groups (Family Rights Radio, AHRC, AIB, Private Attorney General, & We the People), initially joined together in order to heighten the focus and demand for due process protections (Due Process Defenders) for ALL Americans. Specifically during the March 26th Meeting, Rod Class of NC started off with a presentation, providing Congressman Conyers and Staff with rules and legal guidelines, as well as a copy of the 1996 Conference for Chief Justices, sponsored by the State Justice Institute, (http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/tagh.html ). This video contained instructions and comments by Ohio Justice Thomas Moyers http://newsclipautopsy.blogspot.com/2004/12/half-truth-ap-fails-to-report-diebold.html, and guest speakers to include the Southern Poverty Law Center, indicating citizens in American Courtrooms, asserting Constitutional rights should be labeled ‘freeman’ or ‘terrorists’ under the (UN)Patriot Act! The preeminence of ‘judicial independence’ and protection of state judges by their federal counterparts, were open topics of discussion.

This treasonous behavior or orchestration of insurrection demonstrated during the State Justice Institute video www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us, was NOT ‘interpreted’ but clearly stated, as evidenced on the CD provided to Conyers and Staff. The gravity did not require a subpoena, a separation of power, or any outstanding factor! You see the State Justice Institute http://www.statejustice.org/ by its own admission, seeks to “facilitate better coordination between State and Federal courts,” among other things using public funds to the tune of “$127,000 million to support more than 1,400 projects.” And while you might wonder how this group is able to obtain public funds, the answer is, “SJI is a non-profit corporation governed by an 11-member Board of Directors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By law, the President must appoint six State court judges, one State court administrator, and four members of the public (no more than two of whom may be of the same political party).”

And for those, enduring and ultimately recognizing the replication of tyranny carried out by judges, who refuse to overturn overt violations of law, rest assured that assessment was not your imagination. Accordingly the State Justice Institute website reveals, “Only SJI has the authority to assist all State courts - criminal, civil, juvenile, family, and appellate - and the mandate to share the success of one State’s innovations with every State court system as well as the Federal courts. Key areas of interest include court budgeting, court-media relations, access to the courts, intellectual and physical threats to courts, and the relationship between State and Federal courts.” So there you have it!

An organization you fund with public funds REALLY is, working in concert to deny the rule of law is upheld, by those challenging or documenting violations of law and jurisdictional issues. And don’t forget the Senate and President are hand picking them! Maybe that’s why the Due Process Defenders have NOT heard anything from Senator Leahy’s Office, you think?

So with disclosures including not only members of the court acting in violation of law, conspiring, but literally engaging in racketeering for the sack of uniformity, is there any question, America is being destroyed from within. But for the first time in history, a group, Due Process Defenders has documented this issue, wiretapping akin to the NSA effort initially condoned by Congress, and election fraud, to name but a few. And now you wonder, will Congress REALLY investigate and stop the madness? The future of our nation, government, economy, and very lives depend upon it, (http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=380) !

As the Due Process Defenders continue to join with others in demanding justice, we ask that you stay tuned, sign up, make your voice heard, and DEMAND JUSTICE. To have your due process violations heard, simply phone the Due Process Defenders Media Contact 770-605-5921, send an email or click ‘Contact Us’ via the website www.PrivateAttorneyGeneral.us, or Mr. Wides directly. So if you are ready to have your due process rights heard and violations known, contact Mr. Wides at 202-225-2825 or fax him a summary of facts to 202-225-7680. These contact numbers are available online and also included in the ‘Talkshoe’ replay of phone conversations and conference calls with the House Judiciary Committee and related members of Congress, (http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc).

It is TRULY time for Americans to DEMAND JUSTICE, and protect the rights you expect your children to benefit from. For without strong voices and hearts, America will continue to solidify a British Colony status, by a population of Serfs, enslaved by those given a title of British Nobility (BAR-British Accreditation Registry), sent to rob and control the very lives and fruits of American labors.

Won’t you stand with the Due Process Defenders, supporting the Constitution and ‘rule of law,’ despite the void created by connected judges and ‘elected officials,’ using Diebold deception among other tools? Feel free to contact Private Attorney General, Family Rights Radio, or Media Contact Taffy Rice (770-605-5921), for more information. May God Bless those who persevere with the will ONLY to do what they know is right, while being forced to live with fear, deception, injustice, and tyranny, by those seeking omnipotent control through any means without regard to law or conscience, (http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/revoltingjudges_03a.htm).

Related Links Include:

*Prior relationship by State Judiciary with Federal Judiciary; as Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyers invites and affords Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, a trip to his district as a supporter, provided via private jet flight owned by American Electric Power, who at the time was being sued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Justice Department (DOJ), for allegedly violating the Clean Air Act, (http://ohio.sierraclub.org/central/07_2004_Rehnquist.asp ). No conflict or 'quid pro quo,' according to Moyers, but certainly a common bond and lack of separation between the state and federal 'unbiased triers of fact,' it would appear! Do corporations have more rights and legal standing than an American, law abiding citizen, even the ones being sued for violations to federal guidelines affecting others?! In the words of ALEC, another legislative 501c3 corporation, 'Show Me the Money,' which probably answers more questions than even need to be posed or asked!

**Chief Justice Moyers dismissed an election challenge involving the President and HIS OWN judicial race challenge (!), without considering a recusal! In so doing Diebold vote tampering testimony was conveniently suppressed by Judge Moyer as noted in the link, while President Bush, afforded protection, appointments, and funding, to members, contributors, and participants, in the State Justice Institute (SJI), (http://newsclipautopsy.blogspot.com/2004/12/half-truth-ap-fails-to-report-diebold.html )

*** The Federal Judges Association (FJA) according to this site is a 'voluntary association of Article III judges devoted to protecting the independence of the judicial branch'… (http://www.federaljudgesassoc.org/ ). Wasn't that what former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (formerly of the US Supreme Court - highest court in the land!), purported was required along with electing lawyers to the legislature, in order to preserve the system, at the National Governors Conference, when discussing the willful effort to defeat or derail the Judicial Accountability Initiative Legislation (JAIL)?

Wrong must NOT win by technicalities. *

Aeschylus

Taffy RiceMedia Contact770-605-5921

"Justice too long delayed is justice denied….Martin Luther King, Jr.

“The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery."

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

***

Is there any question, it's time for Georgians and Americans to DEMAND JUSTICE?!

May God Bless, those who thirst for the light of truth and the courage to live it!

>>Seven years of injustice at the hand of a British Judge, I have learned the same lesson, like those who heard verified testimony in 1933 before Congress regarding the Facist attempt by key members of the Bar Association and FDR's Administration to overthrow the American core fundamentals on behalf of J. P. Morgan and company, using government as well as a network of other wealthy industrialists, best explained in the quote:

"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war [business/enterprise] a few people make huge fortunes."

Brigadier General Smedley Butler USMC

(The most highly decorated Marine in US History, a double-winner of the Medal of Honor)

Make no mistake, we as Americans have become openly and forcibly engaged via our Courts, on United States soil for our lives, children, property, liberty, justice, and labors!«

* It's high time for ALL of us to stop paying for and furthering sin, corruption, and fraud upon the innocent*

***Demand JUSTICE - Make your voice heard!***

Oral Argument - September 11, 2007

2007-09-11T14:25:00.000-04:00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 07-60770-CIV-ALTONAGA/Turnoff
IN RE: BARON’S STORES, INC.

September 11, 2007

Good morning, Your Honor.

I requested that I be heard in this Court as a matter of public importance. I want to thank you for signing the Order which has now allowed me the opportunity to do so. I want the record to reflect that the request to address the Court was also made and granted in the Evidentiary Trial that took place in January, 2007. In reliance upon that Court’s Order, I prepared a statement which was never read because the Court said it did not have to hear opening statements. With the utmost respect for this Court, I thank you for fulfilling your judicial responsibility by adhering to the Order which you signed.

Attorneys Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin’s scheme compelled them to violate Rule 2014. These attorneys, officers of the court, each filed an Affidavit, under the penalty of perjury, whereby they each denied having any connection with any party in interest in the bankruptcy of Baron’s when, in fact, more than fifty connections were present. More than fifty connections that needed to be explored by the Court. The evidence was and remains overwhelming that many of the connections rose to the level of a conflict of interest, whether potential or actual. Such disclosure would have prevented Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin from being appointed in the bankruptcy of Baron’s. Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin must have known that mandated disclosure under Rule 2014 would have caused their disqualification. Thus, their intention was not to comply with the rules in order to achieve their desired result. A result obtained by defrauding the bankruptcy court and preventing interested parties their right to be heard. An unjust result that placed them in a position to negotiate a settlement and fees that inured to their benefit, other professionals, and the Chairman of the Creditors Committee, another undisclosed connection. Such an unconscionable scheme is what ultimately caused damage to the unsecured creditors, the debtor, the destruction of a fifty-year old company, the loss of two hundred jobs, and the loss to the community who benefitted by the philanthropy of Baron’s and its owners.

You cannot imagine what these almost fourteen years have been like in our pursuit for justice. My wonderful husband, Norman, at almost seventy-six, has been deprived of what should have been his golden years reaping the fruits of his labor. Our beautiful son, Trace, is now sixteen years old. He has been denied financial security that his grandparents and parents worked so hard to bequeath and provide for him. He has been denied my undivided devotion as a mother since he was two. I have been denied a normal life forced to understand why and how things like this happen, and then working towards getting back what was taken from us so cruelly and inhumanely.

Your Honor, I now want to move from the issues in my case to the core of the process that is dictating the dynamics of my case which is a matter of great public importance. The behavior of Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin is glaring in its contempt for the rights of the citizens who must use the courts to maintain a civilized problems-solving process in society. It is glaring in its contempt for the intent and purpose of the rules and laws governing the professional behavior of lawyers who practice in our courts. But worse, is the use of such tactics that drive the pertinent issues of a case into a realm of irrationality, and disorientation, that is not accidental or “just legal game playing.” It is intentionally denying justice to the citizens for the warped benefit of a few who have grabbed power over our courts at any price. Tactics that use misinformation to distort the reality of a situation and deny the responsibility where it falls, are the interrogator’s tools for breaking the psyche of terrorists and others who may threaten our civilized society. Your Honor, I know that might sound like quite a radical leap. However, consider that I have walked into court with an apple. It was grown from an apple seed, produced by an apple tree; tastes like an apple, cuts like an apple and meets all known scientific criteria for being an apple. Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin tell me and the Court it is an orange. Regardless of the evidence and sound scientific proof I can supply and have supplied that it is an apple, these attorneys stand firm that it is an orange and cause the Court to concur through falsehoods, manipulations, and a host of unsavory, unprofessional, unethical and criminal machinations.

By the time the trier of fact has agreed that the pure apple may be an orange, my entire orientation to life, rational belief system based on a balance of truth and principles is shattered. My psyche is assaulted. Many who cannot verbalize, or who are not educated simply collapse at this point of clandestine attack on the foundation of citizens’ trust that they have an avenue to pursue justice through our courts.

Your Honor, my case was reopened on April 7, 2005 for fraud on the court for failure to disclose under bankruptcy rule 2014. That remains the issue and the violation of that plain and simple rule by attorneys Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin could not be any clearer. In the legal process, I can think of nothing more heinous, and I pray the Court concur, than the deprivation of ones due process rights by officers of the court. Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin impaired my right to due process by ignoring the rules, failing to adhere to the court’s orders, failing to provide honest representation, failing to carry out the duties of their contracts, and failing to make honest and complete disclosure to the court. The court, thus far, has failed to protect my due process rights by allowing the rules to be manipulated, allowing its orders to be ignored, and allowing officers of the court to place their interests ahead of those they are duty bound to protect by not only giving Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin a pass for perpetrating a fraud on the court but allowing them to profit by their scheme.

What I have come to learn, as a Pro-Se advocate, is that precedent is supposed to be set by previous rulings and that those rulings are the Court’s interpretation as to how to apply the law. I also have come to learn that “fraud on the court” is a particular species of fraud that is extremely difficult to prosecute because of cronyism, fraternalism, and protectionism, that the legal community affords its members.

On January 29, 30 and 31st of this year, I participated in the Court’s evidentiary trial. I thought the Court would diligently explore the facts presented in light of its pre-trial order and its order would turn thereon. I firmly believed, upon completion of the trial, that justice would finally be served. What I did not recognize and could not comprehend was the effect that a “fraud on the court” determination would have on the bankruptcy bar in South Florida, and also the unraveling of all of the final rulings made as a result of that “fraud on the court.” Please note that Judge Hyman, who made all the rulings in the 1997 bankruptcy of Baron’s, is the same Judge who reopened the case, denied Summary Judgments and presided over the evidentiary trial. And so the same Judge who was defrauded now faced the huge burden that would be created by a “fraud on the court” ruling. In addition to that burden, I believe that because of the close knit relationships developed in the bankruptcy bar, it becomes very difficult to effect the prosecution of people who appear before you on a regular basis. Whether this is difficult is not the issue - what is just and right is! Judges must have the courage to correct wrongs that are against public policy in spite of relationships.

Perhaps, in reopening the bankruptcy, Judge Hyman opened Pandora’s Box, realized what lay inside at the evidentiary trial, and then chose to close the box rather than release the secrets. Judge Hyman was able to close the box by “re-interpreting” the disclosure rules and making his own judgment of the intentions of the parties. “Fraud on the court” should not be left to interpretation by anyone. The actions of the officers of the court must speak for themselves. Re-interpreting the rules to protect officers of the court to the detriment of the public destroys the entire judicial system.

What happened in our case is rampant in bankruptcy cases around the country. The Courts rely on attorneys to act with honor and trustworthiness. To tell the truth, know the law, and protect the sanctity of the process is the responsibility of these officers of the court. To allow violations of any of these tenets to obstruct justice cannot and must not be tolerated.

The very protection the court has from appointing professionals in bankruptcy cases are the Rules of Disclosure enacted by Congress to protect honest debtors and creditors from professionals who choose to play fast and loose with the court. Examining the history of Congress reveals that it knew the problem existed, especially in the bankruptcy courts, and thus stated its concern in the Matter of Arkansas Co., (3d Cir. 1986)).

“It is significant that Congress chose to place the requirement of court approval for the employment of an attorney, accountant, or other professional directly in the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. 11 U.S.C. 1103(a). The legislative history makesclear that the 1978 Code was designed to eliminate the abuses and detrimentalpractices that had been found to prevail. Among such practices was the cronyismof the “bankruptcy ring” and attorney control of bankruptcy cases. In fact, the House Report noted that “in practice...the bankruptcy system operates more forthe benefit of attorneys than for the benefit of creditors.”

When such Rules are intentionally violated in spite of numerous opportunities to comply nothing less than the harshest of punishments should be imposed. The fact that there is no statute of limitation for fraud on the court is somewhat of a comfort to the public as to their right to redress and the vitiation of all judgments and orders procured by such an act.

In closing, Your Honor, I refer to a 1944 United States Supreme Court case, Hazel Atlas. “Furthermore, tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Surely, it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants. The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud.”

Your Honor, apples cannot be oranges. Only a fair hearing will allow that truth.

Thank you.

Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se

Bankruptcy Fraud eToys

2007-09-05T05:53:00.000-04:00

Did eToys commit fraud against its shareholders when its corporate officers paid themselves millions of dollars and then filed bankruptcy?
The shareholders say yes and are yelling foul about every one washing their hands of the crime in bankruptcy court while the Wilmington, Delaware U.S. Trustee turns a blind eye to the mouns of evidence given them that the fraud continues in the bankruptcy case with sweetheart deals between the bankruptcy trustee and liquidation companies.
A small group of the shareholders organized to fight back when they learned that the attorney that was supposed be representing the creditors was in bed with the bad guys. As they investigated eToys, they uncovered layers of fraud within the Delaware Bankruptcy System, where lawyers and bankruptcy trustees conspire with each other to benefit at the expense of the victims; and that justice from the U.S. Trustee is just a word with no meaning.

The Shareholders Revolt

In the late 1990s, eToys growth was staggering and investors dumped millions into the on-line retailer giant.

But like so many of the dot.com companies, it was an illusion. In this case, Merrill Lynch cooked the books to make eToys look profitable.

By 2001, eToys, like so many other dot.coms, collapsed. Months before filing bankruptcy, the corporation's officers gave themselves millions of dollars and then quit. An interim chief was appointed to manage the company through its asset liquidation in bankruptcy.

The eToys shareholders have found themselves in the position as other victims of bankruptcy fraud, when they gave the U.S .Trustee in Wilmington, Delaware, the criminal complaint and evidence goes into a black hole and no justice.

"I have been trying to get the FBI and the Dept of Justice to clean up the corruption and I am always sent to a party of authority that places the investigation in a dead end, with no results," said Stephen L. Haas, one of the eToys victims seeking justice. "I alleged possible corruption, failure to perform by the attorney for the bankruptcy trustee Mark Kenney, who has sat idle while these crimes against us all continue to be rampant, blatant and flagrant."

Below is a Wall Street Journal article about the eToys bankruptcy scandal. The victims say the story is from a business publication standpoint and misses the big story, which is hedge fund corruption (big money, power and influence) on the Bankruptcy Court.

Shareholder's Issues:

eToys bankruptcy trustee, Mark Kenney, hired John Traub, a lawyer from the firm Traub Bonacquist & Fox to be legal counsel for the Kmart Shareholders.

Traub Bonacquist & Fox are involved in an extremely large percentage of all retail bankruptcies over $10 million such as Office Max, Montgomery Wards, Sears Homelife, KB Toys, Standard Living, Brueners, Finova and many more.

The Kmart shareholders received $0 and yet Kmart was able to acquire Sears just a few months after exiting from bankruptcy.

1 - US Trustee Robert DeAngelis replaced by Kelly B Stapleton in Phil Region 3 on Dec ( the date of the hearing on the original allegations).
2 - RR Donnelley and Goldman Sachs dissolve themselves of one another on Jan 5th 2005. ($300 million suit of Sachs that RR Donnelley voted on.)
3 - The US Trustee has sought sanctions, (due to the responses of Jan 25 2005, in the public record, the Hearing of Feb 1, 2005 where we were permitted to place the attorney's on the stand, the Depo's of Feb 9 2005, where we were permitted by the Court to depose the Attorney's and Barry Gold) where the sanctions were for $1.6 million and $750,000 ( the 750 was agreed to by Traub).
4 - The March 1 2005 hearing where James Garrity (former Fed Justice NY, who is of the firm Sherman Sterling and was hired by Traub to negotiate the Trustee settlement) -- where the Court (Her Honor Walrath) rejected approving the settlement, took all matters under advisement and most importantly, when Garrity raised the issue that I could no longer be Pro Se as my claim was by a Corporation, the Court did the depose of Traub, Barry Gold etc, on the Stand, under Oath, on the details of the Payments by Traub's firm to Barry Gold and gave us the terms, in Her Court room discussions, of void "ab initio" and removal of Mark Kenney by USC 324 for "failure to do and continued failure to perform". (the fact that brought light to the legal terms was the way counsel(s) went quite on the subject when the terms were stated.)
Lawrence A. FriedmanFormer Chief AdministratorU.S. Trustee Office Washington, D.C.
5 -Lawrence Friedman -- the Chief Administrator in Washington DC of the Dept Of Justice US Trustee Office (who had personally corresponded with Haas and assured him that corrective measures would be taken) -- RESIGNED for personal reasons shortly afterwards.
6 - The Judge in the KB case did strike and expunge Haas notes in the public pacer system of the same conflicts ongoing in that case where Paul Traub partner with Barry Gold, who worked at Stage Stores with Michael Glazer (CEO of KB) -- where Traub asked the Court for permission to prosecute the $100 million payment Michael Glazer paid himself and others prior to filing Bankruptcy of KB.
7 - 5 days after Judge Sullivan did strike and expunge my notes to him and the public he was removed from the Case and replaced by His Honor Shapero. ( I feel it was most likely the corny consistent references to the "concern" about the 8000 employees for Christmas.)
8 - The firm of Traub Bonacquist & Fox is now just the firm of Traub as Bonacquist is out of touch and Michael Fox has gone to Olshan & Frome for better business opportunities, where Frome does no Bankruptcy work and TBF was doing mega millions a year in billings.

Kentucky Trial Derby

2007-09-04T22:10:00.000-04:00

Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2007

How's this for a legal bestseller? Three tort lawyers are accused of defrauding their clients of $62 million. A state judge signs off on the scam, and is rewarded with a cushy job. When the scandal comes to light, the bar association looks the other way and another state judge fails to force the men to return the money. A federal judge finally intervenes and jails all three as flight risks.

Welcome to Kentucky, where this thriller is unfolding in real life. Scholars are calling it one of the biggest legal frauds in U.S. history, but it's better viewed as a case study in how hard it is to hold trial lawyers accountable for their low crimes and misdemeanors.

The facts are largely undisputed. In 2001, American Home Products reached a $200 million settlement with 440 plaintiffs for claims that they'd suffered heart damage using the fen-phen diet drug. The lawyers -- including William Gallion, Shirley Cunningham, Jr., and Melbourne Mills, Jr. -- were supposed to get one-third of the payout. Instead, the lawyers kept $106 million, put another $20 million into a charity they established, and left the plaintiffs with a mere $74 million. Plaintiffs say they were told by their lawyers that if they complained they could be sued or go to jail.

Some plaintiffs complained nonetheless, and the circus that has followed has become a black eye for Kentucky's legal establishment. In court papers, the three men denied wrongdoing, and said they deserved the extra money. They noted that the judge who'd signed off on the original settlement, Joseph F. Bamburger, had said the lawyers were due this windfall "for their services and for the incredible risks they took," as well as for various "administrative headaches."

Maybe. Then again, when Judge Bamburger retired from the bench in 2004, he was made a director of the very same charity the lawyers had established with that $20 million. The judge was paid $5,000 a month, money he later returned. He was also reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Commission of Kentucky for "misconduct in office."

Complaints were made to the state bar association soon after the 2001 settlement, yet six years and a criminal indictment later the organization hasn't held a full hearing on permanent disbarment. Meanwhile, Lexington attorney Angela Ford filed a civil lawsuit asking that 414 of the fen-phen plaintiffs get their money back. After a prolonged proceeding in which the defense was accorded great deference, state judge William Wehr found that Ms. Ford's clients were owed as much as $62 million.

Yet he has so far refused to require a return of the money. The three attorneys have instead had 18 months to hide, spend, or transfer it offshore. Two of the lawyers were splashed across newspapers in May as co-owners of Curlin, winner of the Preakness Stakes. Judge Wehr also inexplicably separated a fourth attorney, Stanley Chesley, from the proceedings. Mr. Chesley happens to be a powerful national tort lawyer, whose wife is a federal judge.

Messrs. Gallion, Cunningham and Mills might have got away with all this were it not for higher authorities. This June a federal grand jury indicted them on charges of fraud. Recently, in the face of endless stalling, federal judge William Bertelsman granted the defendants' motion to move their trial to January, but at the same time ordered them to jail.

He voiced his suspicion that since the three were all in "their 50s and 70s," and that under federal sentencing guidelines they faced 20 years in jail, they had a "tremendous motive to stonewall." He also felt that there was a "serious risk that the funds will be moved offshore and that with these funds at their disposal the defendants will flee to a country with which the United States has no extradition treaty. . ." The judge said he wanted a speedy proceeding because "not only these three gentlemen are on trial, the whole legal profession is on trial in this case."

For this bit of candor, Judge Bertelsman has been assailed, with law professors publicly complaining that it was inappropriate to impugn the whole profession, or to jail the poor millionaire attorneys. We'd say Judge Bertelsman has been the only one clear-eyed enough to realize that the foot-dragging and wink-winking that has characterized the treatment of these attorneys has already left a bad taste about the way some lawyers and judges protect their own.

Other judges should pay attention. A New York law firm also faces trial over accusations it conned its clients out of fen-phen money, while firms across the country are facing scrutiny for manipulating silicosis and class-action securities suits. The trial bar has too often become a law unto itself, and the only way to stop such behavior is for judges and prosecutors to hold the lawyers accountable.

"No Justice No Peace" by Mark Adams

2007-08-30T21:03:00.000-04:00

No Justice No Peace by Mark Adams, Video Speech

National Judicial Reform Conference
Unfairness and Abuse of Process as Evidence of Judicial Misconduct
No Justice, No Peace

1. I’m Mark Adams. First, I want to thank Zena Crenshaw for her efforts to form the National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, for her efforts to put this Judicial Reform Conference together, for her efforts to expose the problems in our court system and push for reforms, and for inviting me to speak at this conference. Also, I want to thank Rice University for hosting the conference, and I want to thank the other speakers who have the courage and integrity to speak out about the problems with our court system and to push for necessary and long overdue reforms, reforms that are absolutely necessary if we truly want liberty and justice for all in America.

2. Finally, I want to thank those of you who took the time to attend this Judicial Reform Conference and those who are taking the time to watch this video. I truly appreciate your interest in learning about your rights, about our court system, and about the things that you can do to help restore justice in America.

3. I’m an attorney from Florida. I earned my bachelor’s degree in Business from the University of South Florida with a major in Finance and a minor in Economics. I earned my law degree and my MBA at the University of Florida. They not only have great sports programs. The University of Florida’s law school is consistently ranked as one of the best public law schools in the United States, and it’s also considered to have one of the best public business schools in our country. While earning my MBA, I worked as a teaching assistant in the Economics Department, one of the most important disciplines to be educated in.

4. Some of you may know me from my work on election reform or on media reform. These go hand in hand with judicial reform because if our votes are not counted accurately, then we have no power to elect leaders who will act in the public’s best interest to ensure a just court system, and if the cartel that controls the media in our country will not expose election fraud and will not expose judicial corruption, then that cartel needs to be broken up or we need to turn to new, independent, and more trustworthy news sources.

5. Our country’s Founders realized that a free flow of information is necessary to preserve democracy. This is why they protected freedom of speech and the press, and why they required public trials. They understood that the public needs to know what our government is doing. They knew that an informed and empowered public was the only way to prevent tyranny and protect liberty and justice.

6. Most of us have heard the saying, no justice, no peace. In fact, many of you have probably chanted that a rally. Some may think that it’s a threat, but it’s not. It’s the truth. Without justice, there can be no peace.

7. The Florida Supreme Court has said that if a man cannot find justice in the courts, he is likely to seek justice in the streets. However, vigilante justice is just one of the problems caused by a failure to find justice in the courts.

8. Without justice, there is no peace, because at any moment your life can be turned upside down. At any moment, your job, your property, and even your children, can be taken away. Your only choices are to fight back, and quite possibly lose everything, even your life, or give the man with the power whatever he wants. Without justice, you cannot find peace, unless you are a member of one of the privileged classes, and even then, you have to worry about crossing paths with someone with greater privileges.

9. Without a court system that will protect your rights and give you the same treatment that it gives every person, you have no rights and no justice. If the court system gives some people special treatment and you end up crossing paths with someone from one of the privileged classes, then they win and you lose. If the law is not applied equally, it’s not fair or just. When the law is not applied equally, there is injustice, there is tyranny and oppression. Without justice, there is no peace. There is anarchy.

10. Many leading economists believe that America’s justice system is one of the main reasons why our country grew so much more quickly than others and came to be so prosperous. Of course, there has always been injustice in America, but our system was more just than others, and that is what encouraged Americans to invest time, effort, and financial resources in economic endeavors. They made these investments because they felt that their investments would be protected and they could reap the benefits.

11. However, those who suffer from an unjust government do not have the same incentive to make the investments that lead to a better life because they know that at any moment their investment can be unjustly taken from them. Our Founders understood this, too. They had seen what could happen when people in government had too much power. They knew that it would lead to abuses, and that the abuse did not just hurt the people who lost their property or their liberty. They knew that it hurt everyone. This is why they tried to put a system in place that would ensure that people were treated equally and fairly.

12. Our Founders designed our system of government to try to protect us from abuses of power. They had experienced tyranny where the king, his judges, and his ministers could change the law at their whim, and they wanted to design our system to protect us from tyranny, both that of a dictator or king and that of the majority. To do this, they designed a system of checks and balances which includes the three branches of government, the press, and the public through elections, the right to assemble, the right to freedom of speech, the right to petition for a redress of grievances, and through jury service.

13. Our Founders intended to continue the protections afforded by the grand jury. The Fifth Amendment requires the government to present evidence showing probable cause to convince a grand jury to issue an indictment before charging someone with a capital or infamous crime which is also known as a felony. However, the Fifth Amendment has since been interpreted as only requiring the Federal government to seek grand jury indictments.

14. When our Constitution was ratified, the public prosecutor as we now know it did not exist. If your cattle were stolen and you learned who did it, you petitioned the court for a redress of grievances, and the court summoned a grand jury to hear you present evidence that your cattle were stolen and who did it. If the grand jury found that you presented evidence showing probable cause that a crime was committed by a certain person, they would issue an indictment which allowed you to prosecute the wrongdoer in a criminal trial.

15. Our Founders intended to protect a citizen’s right to petition for a redress of grievances so that you could present evidence of criminal conduct to a grand jury. Imagine, if you could show a grand jury that a judge ignored the law or the facts to rule in favor of the opposing party. Do you think that a grand jury would find probable cause that the judge had been bribed? Would you?

16. Unfortunately, your Constitutional right to present evidence to a Federal grand jury was taken away in 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure first provided that only a United States attorney could present evidence to a Federal grand jury. This important right still exists in a few states, but it’s not taught in schools, even law schools, and therefore, it’s rarely used. Just take a moment and imagine how quickly justice could be restored if a judge had to fear being indicted if he ignored the law and threw a case.

17. Our Founders provided in Article 3, § 2 and in Sixth Amendment, that all criminal prosecutions shall be tried by an impartial jury, and they gave us a right to a jury trial in civil cases. They intended that the jury decide both what version of the evidence was to be believed and whether the law which the parties were asking to be applied was just. The Founders envisioned the jury to be the ultimate check on the power of the state and the ultimate protection against injustice.

18. As Patrick Henry stated, “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort, that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.” Alexander Hamilton said that juries make bribery more difficult because there is always more time and better opportunity to tamper with a standing body of judges than there is to tamper with a jury summoned for a trial. However, the jury’s role has been undermined, because now, judges routinely tell jurors that they have to follow the law as explained to them by the judge, and the United States Supreme Court has said that you are not entitled to a jury trial unless you are charged with a felony.

19. Our Founders required public trials so that they public would know if a judge was acting improperly. They protected freedom of the press so that the press would inform the public of government wrongdoing. They understood that if a judge was subject to public scrutiny, the judge would be less likely to act improperly for fear of being shunned by his neighbors. Now, there is much less public scrutiny because Federal judges and most state judges live in homes with undisclosed addresses, and cameras are not allowed by court rules in Federal courts and in many state courts so the public doesn’t get to see what’s going on unless they take the time and effort to go watch a hearing or a trial.

20. So, how do you know if a judge has acted unfairly or has engaged in misconduct? You may feel that a court ruling did not seem fair or know that it was contrary to the facts or the law, but how do you know whether or not the judge engaged in misconduct? What is evidence of judicial misconduct? How are judges supposed to act?

21. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that judges should comply with the law, as well as the provisions of the Code of Conduct. It states that public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility, and that conversely, a violation of the Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

22. The Code provides that a judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. It provides that a judge should not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge, and that a judge must avoid all impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety.

23. The Code requires a judge to disqualify himself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned including instances in which the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. It requires a judge to be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it, especially when you are a judge Furthermore, the code requires a judge to give every person who is legally interested in a proceeding the full right to be heard according to law.

24. The provisions of the code require judges to act in a manner which is consistent with due process which guarantees us the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal which follows the law. The codes of conduct for state court judges are very similar as they are also based on these fundamental requirements of due process.

25. Due process also requires the court to have jurisdiction to hear the type of case brought before it, requires that such subject matter jurisdiction must be invoked by a properly filed petition or complaint naming the parties to the action, and requires that process must be served in order for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction over the parties against whom relief is sought and in order to notify such parties of the lawsuit. Due process also requires that a party must have the opportunities to be represented by counsel, to have time to prepare, and to be able to call and present witnesses and evidence. Due process is also known as the fundamental fairness doctrine.

26. What is the law that a judge should follow? The supreme law is the Constitution against which all other law must be judged. Then, there are statutes and court rules, and there are cases construing them. Judges are required to follow the statutes and rules and the cases construing them issued by superior courts. The code of conduct requires it, as do thousands of cases, in which superior courts have instructed the lower courts to follow the rules, the statutes, the Constitution, and the case law construing them.

27. So, what is evidence of judicial misconduct? Of course, some actions clearly violate the Code of Conduct, such as instances when a judge is caught taking a bribe. However, although judges have been caught accepting bribes, that rarely happens because they are usually not stupid enough to take money from someone who is not part of the crooked judges’ club.

28. Also, if an attorney or a party is heard bragging about bribing a judge, that should be probable cause to start a criminal investigation of them, as well as the judge. But, as you can probably imagine, our system has become so corrupt that the authorities have failed to act on even that type of evidence and even have even failed to act on documentary evidence that I have submitted showing the commission of felonies by members of Florida’s court system.

29. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, the parties involved in fixing a case will not be so stupid that they will brag about their ability to improperly influence a judge or so stupid that they will leave evidence of the commission of criminal acts visible in a court file. In most cases, the only ways to determine whether judicial misconduct has occurred is by being present when the misconduct occurs or by reviewing the case file and the transcripts of the proceedings to see whether the judge has ignored the law or the facts to the point that the judge’s actions indicate a fundamental violation of due process or an abuse of process.

30. What is abuse of process? Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as improper and tortious use of a legitimately issued court process to obtain a result that is either unlawful or beyond the process' scope. However, if a court issues an order or enters a judgment against a person who is not a party to a lawsuit, and therefore, a person who the court has no jurisdiction over, can you say that such order or judgment has been legitimately issued? Of course not, and if a court does so, it’s a prime example of judicial misconduct. In fact, in Florida and many other states, if a judge issues a judgment or order against a person who is not a party to an action, the judge is personally liable for the damages flowing from such order or judgment, but Federal judges are protected from liability for such outrageous actions by the Federal doctrine of judicial immunity which of course, they created.

31. The Restatement of Torts defines abuse of process as use of a legal process against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. For example, if a judge charges a person with indirect criminal contempt for filing a motion which is allowed by the rules of procedure and case law rather than paying a judgment entered against him even though he was not a party to the lawsuit, it would appear that such judge was threatening to use his power to imprison in order to extort money from someone who the judge has no jurisdiction or power over. Of course, this would also fit the definition of malicious prosecution which is the institution of a criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose and without probable cause. You may believe that a judge would not do the outrageous things that I just mentioned, but it has happened in cases that I have been involved in.

32. Although incidents do occur where a judge engages in conduct which indicates that such judge has acted without jurisdiction or has abused his contempt power without probable cause, most of the time the judge will not be so obvious that he is engaging in misconduct. In most cases, you will need to see whether the judge has acted in a manner which indicates that he is favoring one side by ignoring the rules or controlling precedent or is otherwise acting in a manner which is inconsistent with due process. To do so, you must review the applicable rules of procedure and the cases construing them.

33. For example, if a judge refuses to allow a party to present witnesses in his defense or refuses to allow a party’s witnesses to testify about all matters which are relevant to that party’s claims or defenses, then the judge is clearly violating the party’s right to due process and is most likely biased in favor of the opposing party. Also, if an appellate court refuses to require the lower court to comply with the rules requiring preparation of the record and also refuses to allow you to submit documents which disappeared from the record, then the appellate court is ignoring the rules of procedure and appears to be biased in favor of the opposing party.

34. So, if a judge has acted in a manner which has unfairly deprived you of due process, what can you do? You could report it to the appropriate authorities in the court system, but the U. S. Supreme Court’s own study shows that over 90% of such complaints are dismissed without any investigation and that disciplinary action is rarely taken in the few cases that are investigated.

35. In Florida, you could report it to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, but those reports are kept secret unless the Commission decides to files charges against the judge which rarely happens, and when it does, quite often, the Commission is going after a judge who rocked the boat by exposing improper conduct by another judge. Yes, fortunately, there are judges who have integrity and who will follow the law, but if you’re not in one of their courtrooms, you’ll be lucky if you find justice.

36. Unfortunately, these commissions are made up of judges, so having them protecting the integrity of our court system is about as successful as having the fox watch the hen house, and in Florida, it’s even worse, because the watching is done in the dark, hidden from public view.

37. You could report judicial misconduct to law enforcement, like the FBI or the prosecuting attorney, but although action is occasionally taken against corrupt judges, it’s rare.

38. You could write your Congressional representatives and Senators, but Congress has rarely taken action to remove a Federal judge. You could write your state legislators, but that also rarely results in any action being taken.

39. You could tell the press, but they almost never report on judicial misconduct unless it involves drunkenness or sexual misconduct or unless too many people know about it for the press to ignore it.

40. You could tell your friends, your family, your coworkers, and those in your church, but you will probably find that many of them are scared to face the truth because they don’t want to believe that it could happen to them. Of course, some will be supportive rather than running away, but what can they really do that can help? They can show up for hearings because judges feel more uncomfortable ignoring the law and the facts when a crowd is watching. They can attend a rally at the courthouse which may draw some media attention.

41. Of course, if your state allows you to present evidence to a grand jury, then you should put your evidence of misconduct together and try to get an indictment although since this is a route that it rarely taken, you will still be fighting an uphill battle.

42. When you are being railroaded, it’s really almost too late to do much other than make it as difficult as possible to get run over. So, if you really want justice, you need to act now.

43. You can fight to restore your right to petition for a redress of grievances to a grand jury.

44. You can fight to restore your right to a jury trial in all cases because far too many judges have proven that they are untrustworthy.

45. You can fight to have more public oversight of the judiciary by requiring information on judges’ homes and finances to be made public and by requiring video cameras to be allowed in the courts.

46. You can push to make complaints about judges public record, available to all to see on the internet, and to have those complaints reviewed either by a grand jury or at the least, by a committee that is not made up solely of judges and attorneys.

47. You can take away the power of bar associations to take actions against attorneys without a jury trial.

48. You can support the National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, the Full Informed Jury Association, and the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, and help spread the truth about the problems with our court system. You can contact We The People or the Lawmen to see if they have a court watchers group in your area, and if not, you can start one for your area. You can ask those seeking office whether they support judicial reforms, and you can support the ones who are speaking out about problems with our court system.

49. We have to work together to restore justice in America. Without all of our efforts to raise awareness about these serious problems, our court system is doomed to move further down the path towards a third world system, and we and our children are doomed to suffer the dire consequences which flow from a corrupt court system which include a declining standard of living and increasing crime and violence, consequences which we are already experiencing.

50. Remember, without justice, there can be no peace. If you want peace, take action to restore justice, and do it now.

I look forward to working with you in this fight, and I truly believe that if we work together, we can get justice in America.

Good Government Advocates Press To Place Judicial Accountability On The Agenda Of 2008 Presidential Candidates

2007-08-26T16:23:00.000-04:00

Good Government Advocates Press To Place Judicial Accountability On The Agenda Of 2008 Presidential Candidates

Rice University of Houston, Texas was the site of what may turn out to be one of the most important civil rights and constitutional liberties conferences in recent history. On August 11, 2007, National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP) hosted a free conference at the prestigious university campus to solidify a national grassroots movement for important judicial reforms.

Crown Point, IN (PRWEB) August 20, 2007 -- Rice University of Houston, Texas was the site of what may turn out to be one of the most important civil rights and constitutional liberties conferences in recent history. On August 11, 2007, National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP) hosted a free conference at the prestigious university campus to solidify a national grassroots movement for important judicial reforms. The conference title asks the rhetorical question "Silencing of the Lambs?", prompting consideration of whether average Americans truly have a say about the quality of justice dispensed by American courts. Zena Crenshaw, NJCDLP Executive Director, explained that "we begin our analysis with a consideration of how effective average Americans seem to be in holding the gatekeepers of justice accountable for their conduct."

Attending the NJCDLP conference were many good government advocates representing more than a dozen states - Texas, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, California, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Minnesota, Virginia, District of Columbia, Florida, New Mexico, and Georgia. The gathering summoned the spirit of Washington Whistleblower Week (WWW) which brought scores of activists to Washington, D. C. to protest government waste, fraud, and abuse in May 2007. While strengthening and expanding federal legislation was a key focus of WWW, its participants largely understood that law breakers essentially act with impunity when legal processes and courts are not affordable, reasonably prompt, and fair.

Sheriffs, prosecutors, and judges tacitly aligned to deny the civil and constitutional rights of Blacks among others, even at the height of America's civil rights movement. Attending the NJCDLP conference in Houston were Louisiana's infamous "Jena 6" as well as poor and minority residents of Abilene, Texas who could relate to that problem and saw through conference presentations its potential link to inadequate judicial accountability. Crenshaw reminded the audience that "the halls of justice are supposed to be open in America", noting the "large number of dollars and supporters it (otherwise) takes to access justice when your name is not Scooter Libby." Marcel Reid, a NJCDLP conference presenter and President of the D. C. chapter for ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) added "if there is no justice for the least of us, then there is no justice for the rest of us - Without Justice for All there will be Justice for None." ACORN is the nation's largest community organization of low and moderate income families with over 350,000 member families.

The appointments of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito and recent controversial High Court decisions assure that America's judiciary will be on the agenda of 2008 Presidential candidates. NJCDLP and most who convened with the organization in Houston seek to ensure that appropriate judicial reform and accountability are part of the Presidential debate. Attorney Michael R. McCray, chairman of "The 3.5.7 Commission", confirmed that "an unaccountable and unassailable judiciary is a serious threat to democracy and can literally destroy the American way of life." His newly formed private commission will examine the propriety of summary judgments entered against federal employees under Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and certain employees seeking relief under the False Claims Act.

Matthew F. Fogg, a high profile government whistleblower presenting at the NJCDLP conference, lauded the event and WWW for uniting patriots who fearlessly combat government corruption. Fogg referenced impending federal legislation, initiated by the D. C. based No FEAR Coalition which he co-chairs. No FEAR II would amend the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 and is presently co-sponsored by U. S. Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx), Albert Wynn (D-Md), and John Lewis (D-Ga). According to Fogg, "No FEAR II closes loopholes hindering enforcement of various antidiscrimination and government whistleblower protection laws." It also harkens to a concern expressed by famed civil rights activist Thomas N. Todd at the NJCDLP conference.

Attorney Thomas N. Todd, widely known for his dynamic oratorical skills as TNT, personally called on House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich) to move towards federalizing the regulation of speech among lawyers. In an explosive pre-recorded interview, Todd calls for a complete overhaul of professional disciplinary rules purporting to preserve the sanctity of America's judiciary. He projects that in some communities, lawyers are likely unwilling to accept cases that may place them in "bad standing with the judiciary". This "chilling effect" on a right as fundamental and critical as free speech, particularly troubles Todd when lawyers are called in 2007 to represent "very, very unpopular clients, just as they did in the South". Noting the "consistent" concern about equity and justice of Chairman John Conyers, Todd envisions that relevant hearings before the House Judiciary Committee may lead to a "national (lawyers') commission with one standard" for free speech.

Others riveting the NJCDLP audience at Rice University included attorney Mark A. Adams of Florida; attorney Dale Nathan of Minnesota; Dr. LeRoy Gillam, national president of Southeastern Christian Association; school reform activist Peyton Wolcott; NJCDLP director Thomas Saunders; and attorney Caroline Douglas. Keynote remarks were made by the stately, 2006 congressional candidate Byron De Lear. "Coming from all walks of life and from a diverse set of political affiliations, we all see and feel the urgent necessity for a more representative and fair justice system supporting the principles of equal protection under the law and equality for all" says De Lear.

Participants left the NJCDLP conference, committed to pursue their lofty ideals through practical, effective action. Rodney Logal, a NJCDLP board member and primary benefactor, emphasized that "meaningful government reform will likely come on a grassroots basis through the small financial contributions of many if it is to be afforded at all." Echoing that sentiment and other tenets of grassroots activism, NJCDLP Project Coordinator Andrew D. Jackson announced the formation of "You Can Count On Me". This new commercial venture of NJCDLP is a professionally administered network of organizations and individuals, pledged to provide each other a manageable level of simple, but vital support.

NJCDLP is a nonprofit, grassroots organization combating abuses of the American legal system that are facilitated by judicial misconduct. NJCDLP is also a member of the No FEAR and Make It Safe coalitions which advocate for federal workers, including Title VII claimants and government whistleblowers. For more info on the NJCDLP conference at Rice University, please visit http://www.njcdlp.org/Conference_Recap.html