Killing Justice

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%.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.