Preview
Filing # 94239480 E-Filed 08/15/2019 02:54:30 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 117
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN
AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 06-09516 CA 13
MERYL LANSON, and
BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JUSTUS W. REID, JUSTUS W. REID, P.A.,
MARK R. OSHEROW, MARK R. OSHEROW, PA.,
PETER BERNHARDT, & REID, METZGER & BERNHARDT, P.A.
Defendants.
NOTICE OF FILING COPY OF
PRO SE APPELLANT MERYL M. LANSON’S
VERIFIED MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY APPELLEES SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR THEIR
FAILURE TO CONCEDE THAT THE TRIAL COURT ORDERS
WERE ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED
TO PREVENT THE LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS OWED
APPELLANTS FROM BEING PAID
AND
APPELLEES CONTINUING TO DEFEND WHAT IS INDEFENSIBLE
COMES NOW, ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, hereby files the
attached copy of ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson’s Verified Motion for an
Order to Show Cause Why Appellees Should Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure to Concede
that the Trial Court Orders Were Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the Legally Cognizable
Damage Claims Owed Appellants From Being Paid, and Appellees Continuing to Defend What
Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 1is Indefensible, filed in Meryl M. Lanson. et al. v. Jusus W. Reid. et al., Case Number: 3D18-
2616, on August 15, 2019.
Meryl M. Lanson, pro se
905 North Harbor City Blvd., #301
Melbourne, FL 32935
Telephone: 321-622-8592
Facsimile: 321-622-8593
E-mail: mlansonfla@gmail.com
By: /s/ Meryl M. Lanson
Meryl M. Lanson, pro se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
J HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by electronic mail
via the Florida Courts e-filing portal and via e-mail to all parties listed on the below Service List
on this 15" day of August, 2019.
James Kaplan, Esq. and
Counsel for Defendants
Mark R. Osherow and
Mark R. Osherow, P.A.
Kaplan Zeena LLP
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3050
Miami, Florida 33131
james.kaplan@kaplanzeena.com,
susan.clark@kaplanzeena.com,
dania.saavedra@kaplanzeena.com
carmen.stewart@kaplanzeena.com
Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263
/s/ Meryl M. Lanson
Meryl M. Lanson, pro se
SERVICE LIST
Frank Colonnelli, Jr., Esq.
Laura C. Douglas, Esq.
Jeremiah Richard Jones, Esq.
Marisa Eve Wiggins, Esq.
Craig J. Shankman, Esq.
Elaine D. Walter, Esq.
Counsel for Defendants Justus W. Reid,
Justus W. Reid, P.A., Peter M. Bernhardt, and
Reid, Metzger & Bernhardt, P.A.
Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli
100 S.E. 2" Street, 36 Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
ldouglas@boydlawgroup.com,
fcolonnelli@boydlawgroup.com,
2Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq. servicemia@boydlawgroup.com
Attorney for Baron’s Stores, Inc. mwiggins@boydlawgroup.com
817 George Bush Boulevard cshankman@boydlawgroup.com
Delray Beach, FL 33483 tboyd@boydlawgroup.com
maryalicegwynn422@gmail.com ewalter@boydlawgroup.com
jhrogerslaw@gmail.com
Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 3Filing # 94221564 E-Filed 08/15/2019 12:20:15 PM
RECEIVED, 08/15/2019 12:21:42 PM, Clerk, Third District Court of Appeal
IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
MERYL M. LANSON, et al., CASE NO.: 3D18-2616
L.T. No. 06-9516
Appellants,
v.
JUSTUS W. REID, et al.,
Appellees.
/
PRO SE APPELLANT MERYL M. LANSON’S
VERIFIED MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY APPELLEES SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR THEIR
FAILURE TO CONCEDE THAT THE TRIAL COURT ORDERS
WERE ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED
TO PREVENT THE LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS
OWED APPELLANTS FROM BEING PAID
AND
APPELLEES CONTINUING TO DEFEND WHAT IS INDEFENSIBLE
Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson, hereby files her Verified Motion for an
Order to Show Cause Why Appellees Should Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure
to Concede that the Trial Court Orders Were Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the
Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Appellants From Being Paid, and
Appellees Continuing to Defend What is Indefensible, and in support, further states
the following:
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 1ADA-Protected Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson (“Pro Se”) hereby
adopts, ratifies, reaffirms, realleges all statements, arguments, and allegations
avowed in all Appellant’s “verified” filings in these proceedings, and in the
proceedings below.
Rule 1.130(b), provides that “[a]ny exhibit attached to a pleading shall be
considered a part thereof for all purposes.” See Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings,
Inc., 645 So.2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
L
LEGAL PRECEDENT DEMANDS COUNSEL CONCEDE ERROR
For many years, Pro Se, in a plethora of her written filings in the courts, has
been begging, pleading, urging Appellees to mea culpa their transgressions to the
courts, to no avail. Appellees have ignored those pleas, violating the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar, and their Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar. And,
the trial court, having denied Appellants access to the court; and having denied
Appellants due process of law, throughout the entire time the trial court presided, as
further explained hereinbelow; and, as explained ad nauseam in the record below;
and in the record in this Court since the Notice of Appeal was filed on December 21,
2018, Pro Se was left to her own volition to figure this all out, and to get to the
bottom of how what happened to her and the Appellants could have happened if the
integrity of the judicial process was truly beyond reproach.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 2Unbeknownst to Pro Se during all the years that she was begging, pleading,
urging Appellees to mea culpa their wrongdoings to the court(s) because it was the
right thing to do, eventually learned that it was not only the right thing it is the LAW.
Pro Se, in her unwavering faith in the Lord, knew that whatever time it would
take for her to obtain the justice that has thus far eluded her and the Appellants for
decades is already provided for in the statutes, as there is no time limitation to
vacate VOID orders obtained by fraud on the court; and VOID orders obtained by
the courts’ denial of Guaranteed Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law.
Ironically, it was this Court’s late Chief Judge Alan Schwartz, whose
concurring opinion in Rapid Credit Corp. v. Sunset Park Centre, Ltd., 566 So.2d
810, 812 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) opened the door for Pro Se when she found Rapid
in February, 2019, on her own, and not with the assistance of nor help of any
member of the Florida Bar. Another reason to laud the courage and integrity of the
late Chief Judge Schwartz, when he “believe it my duty, imposed by Florida Bar
Rule of Discipline 3-7.7(h), to inform the Bar of these events so as to permit it to
make its own decision. This opinion will serve that purpose, (specially concurring)
in Rapid Credit.
After reading what Judge Schwartz wrote, and the lengths he went to in
exposing such abhorrent misconduct on the part of officers of the court, Pro Se’s
protestations about the Appellees and their attorneys, which Pro Se memorialized
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 3in hundreds, if not thousands of pages, of documents came full circle to absolute
confirmation. The egregious and violative misconduct of Appellees and their
counsels have been ongoing throughout the entirety of the lower court proceedings.
And, the fact that during all that time not one Florida Bar member brought Rapid
Credit, nor subsequent cases standing for the same proposition, to the attention of
Pro Se; nor did any Florida Bar member alert the Bar to the violations attorneys
were committing pursuant to Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically
4-3.3, which requires “candor toward the tribunal;” and 4-3.4, which concerns
“fairness of opposing party and counsel;” nor 4-8.3 “reporting professional
misconduct of other lawyers.”
Comment
Reporting Professional Misconduct of Other Lawyers:
“Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the
profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar
obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated
violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary
investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important
where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.”
Unbeknownst to Pro Se during all that time was the fact that legal precedent
mandates attorneys concede when they know they have obtained erroneous orders
from the courts.
Pro Se respectfully requests this Honorable Court to place substance over
form in the way Pro Se has outlined the following excerpts, as such excerpts are
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 4extremely germane to what has been going on in this case; a case which should have
settled a long time ago, as a matter of law, but for the unconscionable fraudulent
schemes Appellees and their counsels have been perpetrating on the court(s).
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 573 (Fla. 2005)
“Petitioner warns that adopting a rule allowing sanctions against
appellees will require “the extreme, indeed unprofessional, act of
‘throwing in the towel’ when there is any chance that an order may be
reversed on appeal.” This argument overlooks counsel’s professional
responsibilities as officers of the court. We do not hold that appellate
counsel should concede error in all or even many cases. And whether
counsel should concede error does not depend on the statistical chances
for reversal. In (we hope) rare cases, however, the trial court, whether
because of its own misconceptions or counsel’s misrepresentations,
may incorrectly assume the relevant facts or apply the wrong law. In
such circumstances, appellate counsel has a duty to recognize and
apprise the appellate court of that fact.
Contrary to petitioner’s arguments, allowing sanctions against
appellees or their counsel for defending indefensible orders requires the
quintessentially professional act of admitting defeat when there is no
chance of victory, or when victory will have been obtained at the price
of integrity and truth.”
The Florida Supreme Court instructs:
“We do not accept the notion that outcomes should depend on who is
the most powerful, most eloquent, best dressed, most devious and most
persistent with the last word-or, for that matter, who is able to
misdirect a judge. American civil justice ... is surely defective,
however, if it is acceptable for lawyers to “suggest” a trial judge into
applying a “rule” or a “discretion” that they know-or should know-is
contrary to existing law.”
In addition to Rapid Credit and Boca Burger, Pro Se then came upon Santini
v. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 65 So0.3d 22 (2011):
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 5A vast amount of what transpired in the trial court in Santini is “mirrored” in
what happened, in this case, in the trial court.1 Again, Pro Se respectfully requests
this Honorable Court to place substance over form, as just a few, of many excerpts
from Santini, which are relevant, are stated hereinbelow:
AWARD OF APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES TO APPELLANTS
“Despite being given multiple opportunities to ethically concede error
including a spirited oral argument session scheduled by this court on its
own motion, Miller has callously proceeded in blatant bad faith.
As such, we have determined that this is one of those “rare
circumstances” in which we should impose sanctions against an
appellee and sua sponte award appellate attorney’s fees to the
appellants in this case. See Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561,
570 (Fla.2005).
In Boca Burger, the Florida Supreme Court held that “an appellate court
may, in appropriate circumstances, impose sanctions on an appellee or
its lawyer for its frivolous defense of a patently erroneous trial court
order.” The supreme court warned that although an appellee may be
defending an order of a trial court, “an appellee cannot hide behind the
‘presumption of correctness’ of an order that the appellee itself
procured by misrepresenting the law or the facts. The presumption of
correctness is necessarily based on another presumption: that the
appellee correctly informed the trial court of the facts and applicable
law.” In explaining that appellate counsel must sometimes concede
error on appeal, the supreme court wrote:
1 The difference is that it was Pro Se (and not the trial court, reiterating: the trial
court never saw the face, nor heard the voice of Pro Se or the Appellants, having
denied Appellants access to the court and due process rights to be heard at every
conceivable turn) who, through her written verified documents, including but not
limited to the Verified Motions to Vacate Orders pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(4) as
Void, which has never been heard nor ruled upon, gave the Appellees every
opportunity to mea culpa their transgressions to the trial court, even, as late as June
17, 2019, as shown below.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 6[A]ppellate counsel ... has an independent ethical obligation to present
both the facts and the applicable law accurately and forthrightly. This
will sometimes require appellate counsel to concede error where,
although trial counsel obtained a favorable result, either the facts were
not as represented to the trial court or the law is clearly contrary to the
appellee’s position and no good-faith basis exists to argue that it should
be changed. (emphasis added).
Appellants have correctly raised at least fifteen reversible errors that
are strewn over the trial court’s three orders. Yet, Miller and his counsel
have not conceded even a single one. To add flagrant insult to injury,
not only has Miller not conceded a single error, but, in almost
surreal fashion, has actually filed a motion for sanctions in this
court against Dr. Santini and McCoy alleging that all of their
“arguments on appeal are completely unsupported by the material
facts necessary to establish the defenses asserted and have no
support in the law.”
To the contrary, there are a good number of “patently erroneous”
errors contained in the lower court’s final orders, at least some of
which Miller and his attorney had an ethical duty to concede both
below and now before us.” 2
IL.
PRO SE APPELLANT DEMANDED THAT APPELLEES CONCEDE AT
THE TRIAL COURT AND HERE IN THE APPELLATE COURT
On June 17, 2019, Pro Se filed in the Trial Court:
2 Tn the spirit of full disclosure, the parts which Pro Se “bolded” are not bolded in
the Santini opinion of record. The reason Pro Se feels it necessary to emphasize that
portion is because the Notice of Appeal that Appellants filed is because Appellees,
full well knowing that the Appellants were denied access to the trial court, and were
denied their Guaranteed Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law, and that the
trial courts’ orders are void, still had the chutzpah to proceed with its sanctions for
fees and costs against Appellants, which the trial court granted for only the reasons
that the trial court and Almighty God knows.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 7“ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson’s Verified Motion
Demanding Defendants Concede that the Orders of the Trial Court were
Erroneously Obtained by Defendants in Order to Prevent the Legally
Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Plaintiffs from Being Paid,”
Attached as Exhibit “A.”
The Motion is Verified, under the penalties of perjury, and the veracity of
every word contained in that Motion cannot be disputed or refuted by the Appellees,
or anyone. It has now been more than eight weeks since that Verified Motion
Demanding Defendants Concede... was filed in the trial court, and not a “peep”
whatsoever from the Appellees/Defendants. 3
“At any time in any civil proceeding or action in which the moving
party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that any action taken
by the opposing party, including, but not limited to, the filing of any
pleading or part thereof, the assertion of or response to any discovery
demand, the assertion of any claim or defense, or the response to any
request by any other party, was taken primarily for the purpose of
unreasonable delay, the court shall award damages to the moving party
for its reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, which may
include attorney’s fees, and other loss resulting from the improper
delay,” Boca Burger.
3 Having not heard from Appellees, as stated above, in more than eight weeks, as
Pro Se was putting finishing touches on this Motion last night, she received at 5:27
P.M. Appellees Notice of Filing and Request for the Court-Clerk to Take Notice of
the Third District Court of Appeal's 4.22.19 Order Granting Defendants'-Appellees'
Motion to Supplement the Records on Appeal.
This is further proof that Appellees continue their violative misconduct in
proceeding with defending this indefensible appeal.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 8It is impossible for Appellees to ever prevail in this Appeal, as it is the
Appellees who obtained the erroneously begotten trial court orders by perpetrating
numerous frauds on the court(s), and now, through its Appellate Counsel is
attempting to keep their scheme alive, by doing the same thing in the Appellate
Court.
It is extremely important this Court take notice of the Court’s Docket from the
time Appellants filed its Notice of Appeal up until this moment, Exhibit “B.” As
the Court will see from the Docket, after this Court issued its March 6, 2019 Order,
Appellees, on March 22, 2019, filed a Notice to Supplement the Record with 133
record items from the trial court.4 Appellees supplementing the Record at ail, and
even more incredible with a voluminous amount of documents is just yet another
stall tactic by the Appellees, as the Appellees know, without question, that
Appellants were denied access to the trial court, both in-person and via Court Call;
and that the trial court entered the Order of Dismissal of Appellants’ meritorious
claims, prematurely, and also in violation of Appellants Guaranteed Constitutional
+ Almost five months have passed, and the Record is still not complete. What is
even more preposterous is the fact that Appellees know that they will be facing an
evidentiary hearing on Appellees’ Fraud on the Court pursuant to Pro Se’s Verified
Motions to Vacate Judgments for Fraud on the Court and Due Process violations,
which Pro Se filed on October 11, 2017 (with subsequent supplements) and which
this Court, in its March 6, 2019 Order said is: “without prejudice to the Appellants
to seek a ruling from the trial court — if it has not already ruled — on their October
11, 2017 motion to vacate for fraud on the court.”
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 9Rights to Due Process of Law, rendering the Orders/Judgments of the trial court
Void, as a matter of law.
Respectfully, Pro Se, reminds this Court, once again, that the trial court has
never seen the face, nor heard the voice of Pro Se, during the entire time the trial
court presided, even going as far as scheduling hearings, and then cancelling them
just prior to, and even proceeding with hearings, ex parte, while keeping Pro Se, Pro
Se’s ADA Advocate, and Appellant’s counsel, waiting on hold for inordinate amount
of time via Court Call, but never connecting Pro Se to the court proceedings. These
facts are sworn to in Affidavits of Pro Se, Representatives of Court Call, Pro Se’s
ADA Advocate, and Appellant, Baron’s, counsel, and are part of the trial court
record; and are reflected in the hearing transcript.
These are facts that cannot be refuted, not even by the Appellees, who are
attorneys, nor their counsels, and sadly, not even by the trial court.
Only the Appellees, and their counsels, and the trial court, and God, know the
reason why Appellants were denied access to the court and were denied their
Guaranteed Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law. Pro Se would like nothing
more than to believe that the trial court judge relied on the Appellees, who are
attorneys, and their counsels, with blind faith, that they would never perpetrate a
fraud on the trial court, as well as perpetrating frauds on the preceding trial court.
But that is exactly what they did, and the evidence is incontestable. The problem
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 10has always been that Appellants, being denied access to the trial court, and an
opportunity to be heard, prevented the Appellants from the evidentiary hearings that
were mandated to have taken place, but never did. And, if that is the case, and the
trial court “blindly” relied on Bar members to be truthful, it still does not change
anything other than the trial court being /ed astray by those he trusted more than he
should have.
Boca Burger v. Forum.
“Busy judges managing overloaded motion calendars often depend on
the attorneys appearing before them to provide them with accurate
information about the issues involved, the facts relevant to those issues,
and the law applicable to those facts. When it becomes apparent that
counsel misrepresented this information, counsel cannot later hide
behind the presumption of correctness to avoid sanctions.
Appellate courts, too, must manage heavy caseloads. They depend on
counsel to accurately state both the facts and the applicable law.
Therefore, regardless of trial counsel’s conduct or representations,
appellate counsel (who often is separate from trial counsel) has an
independent ethical obligation to present both the facts and the
applicable law accurately and forthrightly. This will sometimes require
appellate counsel to concede error where, although trial counsel
obtained a favorable result, either the facts were not as represented to
the trial court or the law is clearly contrary to the appellee’s position
and no good-faith basis exists to argue that it should be changed.”
The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably
straightforward. As set forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):
The requisite fraud on the court occurs where “it can be demonstrated,
clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some
unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 11system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly
influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of
the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892
F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
Fraud on the court is an “intentional deflecting of the Court from
knowing all the facts necessary to make an appropriate judicial decision
on the matter before it.” Pearson v. First NH Mortgage Corp., 200 F.3d
30 (1st Cir. 1999).
Appellees have known since as early as 2002 that Appellants were entitled to
the damages that they suffered, as a matter of law. No one was in better position to
know those facts than the Appellees, for they were the attorneys who represented the
Appellants in the underlying legal malpractice case, and they were the attorneys who
prevailed on behalf of the Appellants, as a matter of law.
It has been the Appellees, and their counsels, who have intentionally deflected
the trial court from knowing all the facts to make an appropriate judicial decision on
the matter before it. And the reason has always been about denying the Appellants
the substantial damages Appellants have been entitled to for decades, as a matter of
law.
What Appellees are now attempting to do is delay the inevitable, in perpetuity,
depriving the damages Appellants have legally been entitled to for at least the past
seventeen (17) years, pursuant to state court orders, and for at least the past twelve
(12) years, pursuant to federal court orders.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 12Appellees cannot escape the [preventable] irreparable damages they are
responsible to Appellants for, when the Appellees chose to breach their fiduciary
duties to Appellants, selling out their clients’ interests to the other side, to protect
their lives and their livelihoods, and the financial interests of the insurance
companies, as delineated in Exhibit “A.” Appellees breached their fiduciary duties
to their clients; and then violated their duty of candor towards the tribunal, in their
ongoing unconscionable fraud on the court schemes. More deplorable conduct, by
the “middle men,” the Appellees (attorneys), would be hard to envision, and is one
of the main reasons the system is broken.
Til.
THE APPELLEES, WHO ARE ATTORNEYS, AND THEIR COUNSELS
HAVE PERPETRATED FRAUDS ON THE TRIAL COURTS
OBTAINING ERRONEOUS ORDERS FROM THE TRIAL COURTS TO
PREVENT THE MERITORIOUS LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE
CLAIMS FROM BEING PAID TO APPELLANTS =
5 The Court will finally have a glimpse as to what Appellees have been doing when
the Court reads Composite Exhibit “A.” Furthermore, the evidentiary hearing that
must occur in the trial court is a separate issue from the damages that must be paid
to Appellants immediately. The damages owed Appellants, having been owed
Appellants for decades; have already been determined in favor of Appellants, by the
state court, and confirmed by the federal bankruptcy court, and affirmed by both the
U.S. District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellants made
written demands for those damages on November 18, 2014, following an in-person
meeting with the Appellees, Reid and Bernhardt, and their counsel, Frank
Colonnelli. Appellees, and their Counsel ignored the demands, and doubled down
on their fraud on the court path, in the trial court below, which now they have
brought into this court, by continuing to defend what is indubitably indefensible.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 13What shocks the conscience even more is that it has been the Appellees who
were representing Appellants in an underlying legal malpractice case who prevailed
on the underlying Defendants Motion to Dismiss, and it has been the Appellees who
proved Appellants irrefutable damages, which the law entitled/entitles them to. The
amount of documentary evidence is overwhelming and is at the crux of why
Appellants have been denied access to the trial court. One piece of correspondence
written by Appellee tells quite the story: The May 1, 2002 letter (with e-mail cover
letter to Appellant) Appellees sent to the insurance company in the underlying legal
malpractice case, Exhibit “C.” The very last part of that letter...
“Florida Lawyers Mutual is at risk of facing a Judgment in excess of
your insureds’ policy limits and a resultant bad faith claim. This puts
your insureds and the “insurance company” in a precarious position.
My experience has demonstrated that juries are not slow to bring back
awards against attorneys, especially when they had every opportunity
to have filed claims on behalf of Meryl and Norman Lanson.”
explains why Appellants were denied access to the trial court by Appellees and their
counsels who colluded and conspired, using the trial court, as their vehicle, to
make sure a jury never gets to hear the evidence which would have swiftly brought
back awards in favor of Appellants in this case... against Appellees who chose to
sell their clients down the river, destroying their clients’ lives, causing the death of
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 14Appellant, Baron’s Stores, Inc., and the death of Appellant, Norman Lanson, while
protecting themselves and their brethren.
Iv.
In Masztal v. City of Miami, 971 So.2d 803, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007),
CORTINAS, Judge (concurring).
“Plainly and simply, this was a scheme to defraud. It was a case of
unchecked avarice coupled with a total absence of shame on the part of
the original lawyers. The attorneys manipulated the legal system for
their own pecuniary gain and acted against their clients’ interests by
attempting to deprive them of monies to which they might otherwise be
entitled. More unethical and reprehensible behavior by attorneys
against their own clients is difficult to imagine.”
I pray this Honorable Court relay to their former colleague, the Honorable
Angel Cortinas, that he need not find it difficult to imagine more reprehensible
behavior by attorneys against their own clients. For, what Appellees have done to
Appellants here is the reality of more reprehensible behavior by attorneys against
their own clients. Appellees deprived Appellants of the unrefuted legally
cognizable damages the Appellants have been entitled to, as a matter of law. £
£ But the fact is that delusional attorneys believe they have the power to prevent what
the law mandates, and what the court(s) have already determined. It is because
attorneys put fear into the public through “/egal abuse,” that the lawyers (the “Bar)
are in control of everything, even the courts; unfortunately, this case exemplifies that
is a fact which must finally come to an end, and this Honorable Court has the power
to see that it does.
Appellant was even led to believe that to be so by “all attorneys,” until, through her
dogged pursuit for justice, she realized what the courts have already determined,
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 15At least in Masztal v. City of Miami, the parties were given access to the
court, and opportunities to be heard, by an impartial jurist, and after nine (9) years,
which is still a horrendous amount of time for justice to prevail, eventually it did.
Unlike here, where the trial court denied access to the court and denied the
opportunity to be heard, causing this travesty to continue and irreparable damages
to exponentially mount.
Vv.
THE FLORIDA BAR V. TIKD SERVICES LLC
CASE NO.: SC18-149
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE RESPONSIVE LAW
AND CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
Raoul G. Cantero
Counsel for amici curiae
On July 29, 2019, the Honorable Raoul Cantero, former Justice of the
Supreme Court of Florida, 2 as attorney for Responsive Law and Center for Public
Interest Law filed a Brief of Amici Curiae in the Supreme Court of Florida on behalf
of TIKD Services. The following are relevant excerpts from the Amici Curiae Brief.
° IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici curiae submitting this brief (“Amici”) are: (1) Consumers for
a Responsive Legal System (“Responsive Law”) and (2) Center for
through their Orders, the “legally cognizable damages” must be paid to Appellants,
as a matter of law, which is a separate issue from the Court(s) getting to the bottom
of just how pervasive “fraud on the court” by “officers of the court” is.
1 The Opinion in Boca Burger v. Forum was written by Justice Cantero.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 16Public Interest Law (“CPIL”). As organizations focused on
consumer protection, the Amici track anticompetitive and
protectionist behavior among licensed professionals across the
country, study regulatory trends that affect access to justice, and
advocate before all three branches of government to ensure that
decision-makers act in the public’s interest, and not in the interest of
the industries they regulate.
e This Court has made it clear that the Bar’s “single most important
concern” in regulating the legal profession should not be protecting
attorneys’ business and financial well-being, “protect[ing] the public
from incompetent, unethical or irresponsible representation.”
e In 2016, the ABA also found that more than 80% of litigants in
poverty in certain jurisdictions are unrepresented in matters
involving basic life needs, such as evictions, mortgage foreclosures,
child- custody disputes, child-support proceedings, and debt-
collection cases. And the problem is not confined to the indigent.
“{T]he majority of moderate-income individuals do not receive the
legal help they need. . . . Scholars estimate that ‘[o]ver four-fifths of
the legal needs of the poor and a majority of the needs of middle-
income Americans remain unmet.’ Moreover, moderate-income
individuals often have even fewer options than the poor because they
do not meet the qualifications to receive legal aid.”” ABA REPORT
at 11-12.
e As the ABA observed, “large numbers of unrepresented litigants
clog the courts, consume the time of court personnel, increase the
legal fees of opposing parties due to disruptions and delays, increase
the number of cases that advance to litigation, and result in cases
decided on technical errors rather than the merits.” ABA REPORT
at 15. Despite efforts from state bar associations, state supreme
courts, pro bono legal organizations, and prepaid legal plans, the
legal justice gap persists. ABA REPORT at 11.
e In 2016 this Court established the Florida Commission on Access to
Justice “to study the unmet civil legal needs of disadvantaged, low-
income, and moderate income Floridians and to address those needs
with programs, services, and innovative technological solutions that
will create meaningful access to civil justice.” Jn Re: Florida
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 17Commission on Access to Civil Justice, Administrative Order No.
AOSC18-27 (2018) (emphasis added). 8
e Finally, although not at issue here, the anticompetitive implications
of the Bar’s arguments cannot be ignored. While the antitrust dispute
between these parties was settled, see TIKD Servs. LLC v. Fla. Bar,
No. 17-24103-CIV, 2019 WL 1112375 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2019),
sustaining the Bar’s Objections risks endorsing anticompetitive
behavior. See Fla. Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So, 2d 1186, 1189 (Fla.
1978) (noting that “the natural tendency of all professions [is]... to
act in their own self interest”); see also N.C. State Bd. of Dental
Exam’rs v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 1101, 1111 (2015)
(highlighting the increased need for supervision “when the State
seeks to delegate its regulatory power to active market participants,
for established ethical standards may blend with private
anticompetitive motives _in_a way difficult even for market
participants to_discern”). 2
8 In the spirit of full disclosure, the trial court record contains documents written by
Pro Se sent to all Members of the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice,
including but not limited to the “Gatekeepers.” The Appellees have been provided
with all documents.
2 Again, in the spirit of full disclosure, the trial court record contains documents
written by Pro Se to, not only all Members of the Florida Commission on Access to
Civil Justice, but to other elected and appointed Florida officials, relevant to this
issue, specifically: “the natural tendency of all professions [is] . . . to act in their
own self interest,” also N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. Fed. Trade Comm’n,
135 S. Ct. 1101, 1111 (2015). The Appellees have been provided with all those
documents.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 18CONCLUSION
Pro Se reminds this Court that Pro Se Appellant is Sixty-Five (65) years of
age; having been Thirty-Nine (39) years of age when this travesty first began, which
should have ended twenty-five years ago, had the Appellants not been betrayed by
those they trusted most, to protect them, their lives, their livelihoods and their
cherished inalienable rights. The history of what Pro Se Appellant and her beloved
late husband, Appellant Norman Lanson, sacrificed and lost is strewn amongst the
thousands of pages of court documents. Pro Se hopes that what she has provided
herein, under the penalties of perjury, piques the interest of this Honorable Court to
read Appellants unimaginable yet very true story of exactly what Appellants have
endured in their long pursuit for justice.
WHEREFORE, as the District Court of Appeal, in the vast majority of cases,
is the court of last resort, and considering precious and scarce judicial resources, it
is incumbent upon this Honorable Court to send the strongest of messages to
Appellees, and their counsels: that the Integrity of the Judiciary, and the Rule of
Law, will not allow the unconscionable abuse of the process that has been delineated
in Pro Se Appellant’s Verified Motion herein, to be tolerated for one more moment.
To that end, Pro Se implores this Honorable Court to issue an Order to Show
Cause to Appellees and their Counsels to Respond, under the penalties of perjury,
to Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson’s Verified Motion for an Order to Show
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 19Cause Why the AppelJees Should Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure to Concede
that the Trial Court Orders Were Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the Legally
Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Appellants From Being Paid, and Appellees
Continuing to Defend What is Indefensible, in violation of Legal Precedent; Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar; Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; Oath of
Admission to the Florida Bar; and the Constitutions of the United States of America :
and the State of Florida.
Dated: August 15, 2019
Respectfully submitted by:
Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se Appellant
905 North Harbor City Blvd., #301
Melbourne, FL 32935
Telephone: 321-622-8592
Facsimile: 321-622-8592
E-mail: mlansonfl: ail.col
By: ZEA
, Meryl M. Lanson
Pro Se Appellant
VERIFICATION
I, MERYL M. LANSON, being duly sworn, state that I am representing
myself, as Pro Se Appellant in this action. Under penalties of perjury, I declare:that
Lhave read the foregoing document and I have knowledge of the facts contained in
the document, which are true of my own knowledge, so help me God.
_ Convrishted Res. #TXut-785-263 20ASA.
Mery] M. Lanson, Pro Se Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
I HEREBY CERTIFY to this Court that Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson
hereby files this Verified Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Appellees Should
Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure to Concede that the Trial Court Orders Were
Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed
Appellants From Being Paid, and Appellees Continuing to Defend What is
Indefensible, and that the statements contained therein are made in good faith, so”
help me God.
Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se Appellant - ~
905 North Harbor City Bivd., #301 :
Melbourne, FL 32935
Telephone: 321-622-8592
Facsimile: 321-622-8592
E-mail: mlensondeisilcem mo
Meryl M. Lanson
Pro Se Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been |
“furnished via Email and the Court’s ¢-filing portal to: Craig J. Shankman, Esq.,”
. Frank Colonnelli, Esq., and Elaine D. Walter, Esq., Boyd Richards Parker: & |:
Colonnelli, P.L., 100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2600 Miami, Florida’
: Convrishted Res. #TX1-785-263 2133131, fcolonnelli@boydlawgroup.com, cshankman@boydlaweroup.com, ewalter
@boydlawgroup.com,mbarberiz@boydlawgroup.com, ServiccoMIA@boydlawgrou
p.com; James Kaplan, Esq., Kaplan Zeena, LLP, 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3050,
Miami, FL 33131, James,Kaplan@kaplanzeena.com, service@kaplazeena.com,
dania.saavedra@kaplanzeena.com; Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq. 817 George Bush
Blvd., Delray Beach, FL 33483,
maryalicegwynn422@pemail.com; jhrogerslaw@gmail.com,
ones [L_, 2019.
et.
MerylM.Lanson M. Lanson
Pro Se Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
THEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document satisfies the font and type
size requirements as prescribed by Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.100(1)
“and 9.210(a)(2).
be
MERYL M. LANSON,
PRO SE APPELLANT
_ Convrishted Res. #TX11-785-263 29.EXHIBIT
AADA-PROTECTED PRO SE PLAINTIFF
MERYL M. LANSON’S
VERIFIED MOTION
DEMANDING DEFENDANTS CONCEDE THAT
THE ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT WERE
ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED BY DEFENDANTS IN
ORDER TO PREVENT THE LEGALLY
COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS
OWED PLAINTIFFS FROM BEING PAID
Filed June 17, 2019Filing # 91174353 E-Filed 06/17/2019 10:00:35 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11™
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN
AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 06-09516 CA 13
MERYL LANSON, and
BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JUSTUS W. REID, JUSTUS W. REID, P.A.
MARK R. OSHEROW, MARK R. OSHEROW, P.A.,
PETER BERNHARDT, and REID, METZGER & BERNHARDT, P.A.,
Defendants.
/
ADA-PROTECTED PRO SE PLAINTIFF MERYL M. LANSON’S
VERIFIED MOTION DEMANDING DEFENDANTS CONCEDE THAT THE
ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT
WERE ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED BY DEFENDANTS
IN ORDER TO PREVENT
THE LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS
OWED PLAINTIFFS FROM BEING PAID
ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson hereby files this Verified Motion
Demanding Defendants Concede that the Orders of the Trial Court were Erroneously Obtained by
Defendants in Order to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Plaintiffs from
Being Paid, and further states:
ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson (“M. Lanson”) hereby adopts, ratifies,
reaffirms, realleges all statements, arguments, and allegations avowed in all M. Lanson’s
“verified” filings in these proceedings.
CONFUCIUS: “It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop.”
Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 1Confucius must have also known that the wheels of justice move slowly, but even he could
never have imagined what has taken place, and for how long, in this travesty of justice by those
who swore an Oath to do what they must, yet violated every aspect of that Oath, bar none; attached
as Exhibit “1” is the Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar.
The litany of negligence and fraud by Defendants, and their Attorneys, continuing to
defend what has always been indefensible, is expounded in the:
October 11, 2017 “Verified” Omnibus Motion for: 1. Relief from Judgments for
Defendants’ Fraud on the Court; and 2. Relief from Void
Judgments Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.540(b)(4); and 3. To Compel State Court’s Compliance with and
Enforcement of Federal Bankruptcy Judge’s Orders;
October 25, 2017 First Supplement to: Omnibus Motion;
November 10, 2017 Second Supplement to: Omnibus Motion;
November 15,2017 Amended Second Supplement to Omnibus Motion; and
IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THE RECORD !
AND NOTABLY,
THE “GATEKEEPERS.”
These “Verified” Motions for Relief from Judgments will be the subject of the evidentiary
hearing pursuant to the Third District Court of Appeal’s March 6, 2019 Order, when the Court
granted (Defendants) “Appellees Motion to Dismiss the appeal as untimely without prejudice to
Appellants (Plaintiffs) to seek a ruling from the trial court — if it has not already ruled on their
October 11, 2017 motion to vacate for fraud on the court. See Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. And
Loan Ass’n, 467 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citing Griffin v. Tauber-Manon Assocs., Inc.,
452 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)).”
! This despite Judge Gill Freeman’s announcement that a portion of the record has been destroyed.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 2- It is irrefutable that the trial court never ruled on Appellants (Plaintiffs) Motion;
- It is a matter of law that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted on FRCP
1.540(b)(4) Motions to Vacate for Fraud on the Court;
- It is a matter of law that the court has no discretion but to vacate void judgments;
- It is a matter of law that a void judgment is a legal nullity, deemed never to have
had any legal force and effect, and may be attacked at any time.
Putting all what is contained in the aforementioned aside for a moment, which the Court(s)
must deal with, what Defendants and their Counsels have intentionally withheld from the Courts,
and specifically from the Honorable Thomas Rebull, is the Defendants negligence and extrinsic
fraud which took place in 2004, prior to the filing of this meritorious legal malpractice case against
them. 2 Had Defendants upheld their Oath, and responsibilities to their clients, and not breached
their fiduciary duties, the Plaintiffs. in 2004, would have recovered the legally cognizable damage
claims, as stated on the record by the Honorable Norman Gerstein after Judge Gerstein denied the
underlying legal malpractice Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, in its entirety. Defendants fateful
decision, choosing to sell out their clients’ rights and interests to the other side is their initial
extrinsic fraud, DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 — Fla: Supreme Court 1984:
The Honorable Norman Gerstein was the presiding judge for Six (6) years, from inception
of the filing of the underlying legal malpractice lawsuit in which Defendants herein represented
Plaintiffs, Case No. 99-21062 CA 22, Norman Lanson, Meryl M. Lanson, Baron’s Stores, Inc. v.
Ronald Kopplow, Kopplow & Flynn, Mare Cooper, Cooper & Wolfe, P.A., and Sonya L. Salkin.
Malnik & Salkin, P.A.
2 Defendant Osherow’s negligence predates 2004.
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 3September 7, 1999
October 22, 2002
December 16, 2002
May 12, 2003
Court:
March 15, 2004
April 7, 2004
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263
TIMELINE
Plaintiffs filed legal malpractice case against
Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, etal.
The Honorable Norman Gerstein presiding.
Defendants, Kopplow, Cooper, Salkin and their
firms’ Motions to Dismiss Denied in its entirety by
Judge Norman Gerstein.
Plaintiffs Motion to Special Set Trial Date was filed
by Defendants herein; expedited based on Norman
Lanson’s age (71 at that time) and Florida Statutes,
415.1115.
Hearing before the Honorable Norman Gerstein:
Page 18: Lines 13 — 17 of the Hearing Transcript
Because what the law was in that motion to dismiss is, in
fact, the law. You have cited certain damages that are
personal in nature. And if you can prove the personal
damages, you can get the personal damages.
Plaintiffs proved the legally cognizable damages. “Fiske
Damage Report” was provided to all parties by Defendants
herein. The “Fiske Damage Report” has never been refuted.
Defendants herein withdrew from representing Plaintiffs,
abandoning their clients without securing the legally
cognizable damage claims which the Plaintiffs had proven,
and were entitled to as a matter of law.
The legally cognizable damage claims delineated in the
unrefuted “Fiske Damage Report,” as of December 19, 2003
was: $23,838,365.00.
Defendants abandoned their clients, and corruptly sold out
their clients’ interests to the other side, never securing the
legally cognizable damage claims proven pursuant to the
law, as stated by the Honorable Norman Gerstein. They
chose to do this to protect their livelihoods, and the financial
interests of the Florida Bar’s created/owned/operated
malpractice carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance
Company; and the Florida Bar’s counsel of record,Greenberg Traurig’s client, Great American Insurance
Company. These two insurance companies were responsible
for the totality of the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs
herein, as they were the carriers for Kopplow/Cooper and
Salkin, respectively.
It must be noted that all bad faith claims against the insurance companies, Florida Lawyers
Mutual Insurance Company and Great American Insurance Company, were properly preserved by
the Defendants herein. Thus, it defies logic that any attorney would walk away from more than
Seven Million (7,000,000.00) in fees, for starters, and sell out their clients interests to the other
side when they were the prevailing parties on a Motion to Dismiss, and they already proved the
legally cognizable damages their clients suffered, which their clients, the Plaintiffs, were entitled
to, as stated, on the record, by Judge Norman Gerstein, and the fact that the “Fiske Damage
Report” was never refuted by the other side.
In DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 — Fla; Supreme Court 1984, “where the attorney
regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the other side — shows that there has
never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may
be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and
a fair hearing.” And thus, the reason a meritorious lawsuit was timely filed against the Defendants
herein.
Aside from the totality of Defendants intentionally misrepresenting the facts and the
law to the courts, throughout their defenseless defense of this legal malpractice action against
them, what boggles the mind is the Defendants temerity in the following statement, which
Defendants repeatedly espoused in their pleadings, and elsewhere. The following statement,
which is nothing short of ludicrous, considering it is the very claims against Defendants
herein which Plaintiffs are entitled to as a matter of law, for the Defendants failure to insure
Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 5that the legally cognizable damages which Plaintiffs proved back in 2004 were paid to the
Plaintiffs.
“Plaintiffs and their counsel have ignored the lack of legal authority, evidence,
and facts to support their claims asserted against the Defendants, they have
failed to adequately investigate such claims before filing, and they have
continued to maintain baseless claims against the Defendants knowing that such
claims are meritless.”
It is precisely those legally cognizable damages that the Defendants are responsible to
Plaintiffs for their failure to fulfill their legal, ethical and moral obligations to Plaintiffs before
they chose to sell out their clients’ interests to the other side.
COURT: Because what the law was in that motion to dismiss is, in fact, the law.
You have cited certain damages that are personal in nature. And if you can prove
the personal damages, you can get the personal damages.
And those proven legally cognizable damages are just for starters as to the liability of
the Defendants herein. 3
As stated above, the Court(s) must get to the bottom of how deep the fraud goes in this
case, and the magnitude of Defendants’ counsels’ frauds on the courts, as outlined in specificity in
Plaintiff's Verified Motions to Vacate, et al. These Defendants, are not ordinary defendants, are
not lay people — they are attorneys who sat silent allowing their defense counsels to perpetrate
frauds on the courts knowing that their counsels were securing erroneous orders to prevent the
legally co
Preview
Filing # 94239480 E-Filed 08/15/2019 02:54:30 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 117 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 06-09516 CA 13 MERYL LANSON, and BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. JUSTUS W. REID, JUSTUS W. REID, P.A., MARK R. OSHEROW, MARK R. OSHEROW, PA., PETER BERNHARDT, & REID, METZGER & BERNHARDT, P.A. Defendants. NOTICE OF FILING COPY OF PRO SE APPELLANT MERYL M. LANSON’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPELLEES SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO CONCEDE THAT THE TRIAL COURT ORDERS WERE ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED TO PREVENT THE LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS OWED APPELLANTS FROM BEING PAID AND APPELLEES CONTINUING TO DEFEND WHAT IS INDEFENSIBLE COMES NOW, ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson, hereby files the attached copy of ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson’s Verified Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Appellees Should Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure to Concede that the Trial Court Orders Were Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Appellants From Being Paid, and Appellees Continuing to Defend What Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 1is Indefensible, filed in Meryl M. Lanson. et al. v. Jusus W. Reid. et al., Case Number: 3D18- 2616, on August 15, 2019. Meryl M. Lanson, pro se 905 North Harbor City Blvd., #301 Melbourne, FL 32935 Telephone: 321-622-8592 Facsimile: 321-622-8593 E-mail: mlansonfla@gmail.com By: /s/ Meryl M. Lanson Meryl M. Lanson, pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE J HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished by electronic mail via the Florida Courts e-filing portal and via e-mail to all parties listed on the below Service List on this 15" day of August, 2019. James Kaplan, Esq. and Counsel for Defendants Mark R. Osherow and Mark R. Osherow, P.A. Kaplan Zeena LLP 2 South Biscayne Blvd. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3050 Miami, Florida 33131 james.kaplan@kaplanzeena.com, susan.clark@kaplanzeena.com, dania.saavedra@kaplanzeena.com carmen.stewart@kaplanzeena.com Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 /s/ Meryl M. Lanson Meryl M. Lanson, pro se SERVICE LIST Frank Colonnelli, Jr., Esq. Laura C. Douglas, Esq. Jeremiah Richard Jones, Esq. Marisa Eve Wiggins, Esq. Craig J. Shankman, Esq. Elaine D. Walter, Esq. Counsel for Defendants Justus W. Reid, Justus W. Reid, P.A., Peter M. Bernhardt, and Reid, Metzger & Bernhardt, P.A. Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli 100 S.E. 2" Street, 36 Floor Miami, Florida 33131 ldouglas@boydlawgroup.com, fcolonnelli@boydlawgroup.com, 2Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq. servicemia@boydlawgroup.com Attorney for Baron’s Stores, Inc. mwiggins@boydlawgroup.com 817 George Bush Boulevard cshankman@boydlawgroup.com Delray Beach, FL 33483 tboyd@boydlawgroup.com maryalicegwynn422@gmail.com ewalter@boydlawgroup.com jhrogerslaw@gmail.com Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 3Filing # 94221564 E-Filed 08/15/2019 12:20:15 PM RECEIVED, 08/15/2019 12:21:42 PM, Clerk, Third District Court of Appeal IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA MERYL M. LANSON, et al., CASE NO.: 3D18-2616 L.T. No. 06-9516 Appellants, v. JUSTUS W. REID, et al., Appellees. / PRO SE APPELLANT MERYL M. LANSON’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPELLEES SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO CONCEDE THAT THE TRIAL COURT ORDERS WERE ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED TO PREVENT THE LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS OWED APPELLANTS FROM BEING PAID AND APPELLEES CONTINUING TO DEFEND WHAT IS INDEFENSIBLE Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson, hereby files her Verified Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Appellees Should Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure to Concede that the Trial Court Orders Were Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Appellants From Being Paid, and Appellees Continuing to Defend What is Indefensible, and in support, further states the following: Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 1ADA-Protected Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson (“Pro Se”) hereby adopts, ratifies, reaffirms, realleges all statements, arguments, and allegations avowed in all Appellant’s “verified” filings in these proceedings, and in the proceedings below. Rule 1.130(b), provides that “[a]ny exhibit attached to a pleading shall be considered a part thereof for all purposes.” See Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So.2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). L LEGAL PRECEDENT DEMANDS COUNSEL CONCEDE ERROR For many years, Pro Se, in a plethora of her written filings in the courts, has been begging, pleading, urging Appellees to mea culpa their transgressions to the courts, to no avail. Appellees have ignored those pleas, violating the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and their Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar. And, the trial court, having denied Appellants access to the court; and having denied Appellants due process of law, throughout the entire time the trial court presided, as further explained hereinbelow; and, as explained ad nauseam in the record below; and in the record in this Court since the Notice of Appeal was filed on December 21, 2018, Pro Se was left to her own volition to figure this all out, and to get to the bottom of how what happened to her and the Appellants could have happened if the integrity of the judicial process was truly beyond reproach. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 2Unbeknownst to Pro Se during all the years that she was begging, pleading, urging Appellees to mea culpa their wrongdoings to the court(s) because it was the right thing to do, eventually learned that it was not only the right thing it is the LAW. Pro Se, in her unwavering faith in the Lord, knew that whatever time it would take for her to obtain the justice that has thus far eluded her and the Appellants for decades is already provided for in the statutes, as there is no time limitation to vacate VOID orders obtained by fraud on the court; and VOID orders obtained by the courts’ denial of Guaranteed Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law. Ironically, it was this Court’s late Chief Judge Alan Schwartz, whose concurring opinion in Rapid Credit Corp. v. Sunset Park Centre, Ltd., 566 So.2d 810, 812 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) opened the door for Pro Se when she found Rapid in February, 2019, on her own, and not with the assistance of nor help of any member of the Florida Bar. Another reason to laud the courage and integrity of the late Chief Judge Schwartz, when he “believe it my duty, imposed by Florida Bar Rule of Discipline 3-7.7(h), to inform the Bar of these events so as to permit it to make its own decision. This opinion will serve that purpose, (specially concurring) in Rapid Credit. After reading what Judge Schwartz wrote, and the lengths he went to in exposing such abhorrent misconduct on the part of officers of the court, Pro Se’s protestations about the Appellees and their attorneys, which Pro Se memorialized Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 3in hundreds, if not thousands of pages, of documents came full circle to absolute confirmation. The egregious and violative misconduct of Appellees and their counsels have been ongoing throughout the entirety of the lower court proceedings. And, the fact that during all that time not one Florida Bar member brought Rapid Credit, nor subsequent cases standing for the same proposition, to the attention of Pro Se; nor did any Florida Bar member alert the Bar to the violations attorneys were committing pursuant to Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically 4-3.3, which requires “candor toward the tribunal;” and 4-3.4, which concerns “fairness of opposing party and counsel;” nor 4-8.3 “reporting professional misconduct of other lawyers.” Comment Reporting Professional Misconduct of Other Lawyers: “Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.” Unbeknownst to Pro Se during all that time was the fact that legal precedent mandates attorneys concede when they know they have obtained erroneous orders from the courts. Pro Se respectfully requests this Honorable Court to place substance over form in the way Pro Se has outlined the following excerpts, as such excerpts are Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 4extremely germane to what has been going on in this case; a case which should have settled a long time ago, as a matter of law, but for the unconscionable fraudulent schemes Appellees and their counsels have been perpetrating on the court(s). Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 573 (Fla. 2005) “Petitioner warns that adopting a rule allowing sanctions against appellees will require “the extreme, indeed unprofessional, act of ‘throwing in the towel’ when there is any chance that an order may be reversed on appeal.” This argument overlooks counsel’s professional responsibilities as officers of the court. We do not hold that appellate counsel should concede error in all or even many cases. And whether counsel should concede error does not depend on the statistical chances for reversal. In (we hope) rare cases, however, the trial court, whether because of its own misconceptions or counsel’s misrepresentations, may incorrectly assume the relevant facts or apply the wrong law. In such circumstances, appellate counsel has a duty to recognize and apprise the appellate court of that fact. Contrary to petitioner’s arguments, allowing sanctions against appellees or their counsel for defending indefensible orders requires the quintessentially professional act of admitting defeat when there is no chance of victory, or when victory will have been obtained at the price of integrity and truth.” The Florida Supreme Court instructs: “We do not accept the notion that outcomes should depend on who is the most powerful, most eloquent, best dressed, most devious and most persistent with the last word-or, for that matter, who is able to misdirect a judge. American civil justice ... is surely defective, however, if it is acceptable for lawyers to “suggest” a trial judge into applying a “rule” or a “discretion” that they know-or should know-is contrary to existing law.” In addition to Rapid Credit and Boca Burger, Pro Se then came upon Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Florida, 65 So0.3d 22 (2011): Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 5A vast amount of what transpired in the trial court in Santini is “mirrored” in what happened, in this case, in the trial court.1 Again, Pro Se respectfully requests this Honorable Court to place substance over form, as just a few, of many excerpts from Santini, which are relevant, are stated hereinbelow: AWARD OF APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES TO APPELLANTS “Despite being given multiple opportunities to ethically concede error including a spirited oral argument session scheduled by this court on its own motion, Miller has callously proceeded in blatant bad faith. As such, we have determined that this is one of those “rare circumstances” in which we should impose sanctions against an appellee and sua sponte award appellate attorney’s fees to the appellants in this case. See Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561, 570 (Fla.2005). In Boca Burger, the Florida Supreme Court held that “an appellate court may, in appropriate circumstances, impose sanctions on an appellee or its lawyer for its frivolous defense of a patently erroneous trial court order.” The supreme court warned that although an appellee may be defending an order of a trial court, “an appellee cannot hide behind the ‘presumption of correctness’ of an order that the appellee itself procured by misrepresenting the law or the facts. The presumption of correctness is necessarily based on another presumption: that the appellee correctly informed the trial court of the facts and applicable law.” In explaining that appellate counsel must sometimes concede error on appeal, the supreme court wrote: 1 The difference is that it was Pro Se (and not the trial court, reiterating: the trial court never saw the face, nor heard the voice of Pro Se or the Appellants, having denied Appellants access to the court and due process rights to be heard at every conceivable turn) who, through her written verified documents, including but not limited to the Verified Motions to Vacate Orders pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(4) as Void, which has never been heard nor ruled upon, gave the Appellees every opportunity to mea culpa their transgressions to the trial court, even, as late as June 17, 2019, as shown below. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 6[A]ppellate counsel ... has an independent ethical obligation to present both the facts and the applicable law accurately and forthrightly. This will sometimes require appellate counsel to concede error where, although trial counsel obtained a favorable result, either the facts were not as represented to the trial court or the law is clearly contrary to the appellee’s position and no good-faith basis exists to argue that it should be changed. (emphasis added). Appellants have correctly raised at least fifteen reversible errors that are strewn over the trial court’s three orders. Yet, Miller and his counsel have not conceded even a single one. To add flagrant insult to injury, not only has Miller not conceded a single error, but, in almost surreal fashion, has actually filed a motion for sanctions in this court against Dr. Santini and McCoy alleging that all of their “arguments on appeal are completely unsupported by the material facts necessary to establish the defenses asserted and have no support in the law.” To the contrary, there are a good number of “patently erroneous” errors contained in the lower court’s final orders, at least some of which Miller and his attorney had an ethical duty to concede both below and now before us.” 2 IL. PRO SE APPELLANT DEMANDED THAT APPELLEES CONCEDE AT THE TRIAL COURT AND HERE IN THE APPELLATE COURT On June 17, 2019, Pro Se filed in the Trial Court: 2 Tn the spirit of full disclosure, the parts which Pro Se “bolded” are not bolded in the Santini opinion of record. The reason Pro Se feels it necessary to emphasize that portion is because the Notice of Appeal that Appellants filed is because Appellees, full well knowing that the Appellants were denied access to the trial court, and were denied their Guaranteed Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law, and that the trial courts’ orders are void, still had the chutzpah to proceed with its sanctions for fees and costs against Appellants, which the trial court granted for only the reasons that the trial court and Almighty God knows. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 7“ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson’s Verified Motion Demanding Defendants Concede that the Orders of the Trial Court were Erroneously Obtained by Defendants in Order to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Plaintiffs from Being Paid,” Attached as Exhibit “A.” The Motion is Verified, under the penalties of perjury, and the veracity of every word contained in that Motion cannot be disputed or refuted by the Appellees, or anyone. It has now been more than eight weeks since that Verified Motion Demanding Defendants Concede... was filed in the trial court, and not a “peep” whatsoever from the Appellees/Defendants. 3 “At any time in any civil proceeding or action in which the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that any action taken by the opposing party, including, but not limited to, the filing of any pleading or part thereof, the assertion of or response to any discovery demand, the assertion of any claim or defense, or the response to any request by any other party, was taken primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay, the court shall award damages to the moving party for its reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, which may include attorney’s fees, and other loss resulting from the improper delay,” Boca Burger. 3 Having not heard from Appellees, as stated above, in more than eight weeks, as Pro Se was putting finishing touches on this Motion last night, she received at 5:27 P.M. Appellees Notice of Filing and Request for the Court-Clerk to Take Notice of the Third District Court of Appeal's 4.22.19 Order Granting Defendants'-Appellees' Motion to Supplement the Records on Appeal. This is further proof that Appellees continue their violative misconduct in proceeding with defending this indefensible appeal. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 8It is impossible for Appellees to ever prevail in this Appeal, as it is the Appellees who obtained the erroneously begotten trial court orders by perpetrating numerous frauds on the court(s), and now, through its Appellate Counsel is attempting to keep their scheme alive, by doing the same thing in the Appellate Court. It is extremely important this Court take notice of the Court’s Docket from the time Appellants filed its Notice of Appeal up until this moment, Exhibit “B.” As the Court will see from the Docket, after this Court issued its March 6, 2019 Order, Appellees, on March 22, 2019, filed a Notice to Supplement the Record with 133 record items from the trial court.4 Appellees supplementing the Record at ail, and even more incredible with a voluminous amount of documents is just yet another stall tactic by the Appellees, as the Appellees know, without question, that Appellants were denied access to the trial court, both in-person and via Court Call; and that the trial court entered the Order of Dismissal of Appellants’ meritorious claims, prematurely, and also in violation of Appellants Guaranteed Constitutional + Almost five months have passed, and the Record is still not complete. What is even more preposterous is the fact that Appellees know that they will be facing an evidentiary hearing on Appellees’ Fraud on the Court pursuant to Pro Se’s Verified Motions to Vacate Judgments for Fraud on the Court and Due Process violations, which Pro Se filed on October 11, 2017 (with subsequent supplements) and which this Court, in its March 6, 2019 Order said is: “without prejudice to the Appellants to seek a ruling from the trial court — if it has not already ruled — on their October 11, 2017 motion to vacate for fraud on the court.” Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 9Rights to Due Process of Law, rendering the Orders/Judgments of the trial court Void, as a matter of law. Respectfully, Pro Se, reminds this Court, once again, that the trial court has never seen the face, nor heard the voice of Pro Se, during the entire time the trial court presided, even going as far as scheduling hearings, and then cancelling them just prior to, and even proceeding with hearings, ex parte, while keeping Pro Se, Pro Se’s ADA Advocate, and Appellant’s counsel, waiting on hold for inordinate amount of time via Court Call, but never connecting Pro Se to the court proceedings. These facts are sworn to in Affidavits of Pro Se, Representatives of Court Call, Pro Se’s ADA Advocate, and Appellant, Baron’s, counsel, and are part of the trial court record; and are reflected in the hearing transcript. These are facts that cannot be refuted, not even by the Appellees, who are attorneys, nor their counsels, and sadly, not even by the trial court. Only the Appellees, and their counsels, and the trial court, and God, know the reason why Appellants were denied access to the court and were denied their Guaranteed Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law. Pro Se would like nothing more than to believe that the trial court judge relied on the Appellees, who are attorneys, and their counsels, with blind faith, that they would never perpetrate a fraud on the trial court, as well as perpetrating frauds on the preceding trial court. But that is exactly what they did, and the evidence is incontestable. The problem Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 10has always been that Appellants, being denied access to the trial court, and an opportunity to be heard, prevented the Appellants from the evidentiary hearings that were mandated to have taken place, but never did. And, if that is the case, and the trial court “blindly” relied on Bar members to be truthful, it still does not change anything other than the trial court being /ed astray by those he trusted more than he should have. Boca Burger v. Forum. “Busy judges managing overloaded motion calendars often depend on the attorneys appearing before them to provide them with accurate information about the issues involved, the facts relevant to those issues, and the law applicable to those facts. When it becomes apparent that counsel misrepresented this information, counsel cannot later hide behind the presumption of correctness to avoid sanctions. Appellate courts, too, must manage heavy caseloads. They depend on counsel to accurately state both the facts and the applicable law. Therefore, regardless of trial counsel’s conduct or representations, appellate counsel (who often is separate from trial counsel) has an independent ethical obligation to present both the facts and the applicable law accurately and forthrightly. This will sometimes require appellate counsel to concede error where, although trial counsel obtained a favorable result, either the facts were not as represented to the trial court or the law is clearly contrary to the appellee’s position and no good-faith basis exists to argue that it should be changed.” The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As set forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998): The requisite fraud on the court occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 11system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). Fraud on the court is an “intentional deflecting of the Court from knowing all the facts necessary to make an appropriate judicial decision on the matter before it.” Pearson v. First NH Mortgage Corp., 200 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 1999). Appellees have known since as early as 2002 that Appellants were entitled to the damages that they suffered, as a matter of law. No one was in better position to know those facts than the Appellees, for they were the attorneys who represented the Appellants in the underlying legal malpractice case, and they were the attorneys who prevailed on behalf of the Appellants, as a matter of law. It has been the Appellees, and their counsels, who have intentionally deflected the trial court from knowing all the facts to make an appropriate judicial decision on the matter before it. And the reason has always been about denying the Appellants the substantial damages Appellants have been entitled to for decades, as a matter of law. What Appellees are now attempting to do is delay the inevitable, in perpetuity, depriving the damages Appellants have legally been entitled to for at least the past seventeen (17) years, pursuant to state court orders, and for at least the past twelve (12) years, pursuant to federal court orders. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 12Appellees cannot escape the [preventable] irreparable damages they are responsible to Appellants for, when the Appellees chose to breach their fiduciary duties to Appellants, selling out their clients’ interests to the other side, to protect their lives and their livelihoods, and the financial interests of the insurance companies, as delineated in Exhibit “A.” Appellees breached their fiduciary duties to their clients; and then violated their duty of candor towards the tribunal, in their ongoing unconscionable fraud on the court schemes. More deplorable conduct, by the “middle men,” the Appellees (attorneys), would be hard to envision, and is one of the main reasons the system is broken. Til. THE APPELLEES, WHO ARE ATTORNEYS, AND THEIR COUNSELS HAVE PERPETRATED FRAUDS ON THE TRIAL COURTS OBTAINING ERRONEOUS ORDERS FROM THE TRIAL COURTS TO PREVENT THE MERITORIOUS LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS FROM BEING PAID TO APPELLANTS = 5 The Court will finally have a glimpse as to what Appellees have been doing when the Court reads Composite Exhibit “A.” Furthermore, the evidentiary hearing that must occur in the trial court is a separate issue from the damages that must be paid to Appellants immediately. The damages owed Appellants, having been owed Appellants for decades; have already been determined in favor of Appellants, by the state court, and confirmed by the federal bankruptcy court, and affirmed by both the U.S. District Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellants made written demands for those damages on November 18, 2014, following an in-person meeting with the Appellees, Reid and Bernhardt, and their counsel, Frank Colonnelli. Appellees, and their Counsel ignored the demands, and doubled down on their fraud on the court path, in the trial court below, which now they have brought into this court, by continuing to defend what is indubitably indefensible. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 13What shocks the conscience even more is that it has been the Appellees who were representing Appellants in an underlying legal malpractice case who prevailed on the underlying Defendants Motion to Dismiss, and it has been the Appellees who proved Appellants irrefutable damages, which the law entitled/entitles them to. The amount of documentary evidence is overwhelming and is at the crux of why Appellants have been denied access to the trial court. One piece of correspondence written by Appellee tells quite the story: The May 1, 2002 letter (with e-mail cover letter to Appellant) Appellees sent to the insurance company in the underlying legal malpractice case, Exhibit “C.” The very last part of that letter... “Florida Lawyers Mutual is at risk of facing a Judgment in excess of your insureds’ policy limits and a resultant bad faith claim. This puts your insureds and the “insurance company” in a precarious position. My experience has demonstrated that juries are not slow to bring back awards against attorneys, especially when they had every opportunity to have filed claims on behalf of Meryl and Norman Lanson.” explains why Appellants were denied access to the trial court by Appellees and their counsels who colluded and conspired, using the trial court, as their vehicle, to make sure a jury never gets to hear the evidence which would have swiftly brought back awards in favor of Appellants in this case... against Appellees who chose to sell their clients down the river, destroying their clients’ lives, causing the death of Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 14Appellant, Baron’s Stores, Inc., and the death of Appellant, Norman Lanson, while protecting themselves and their brethren. Iv. In Masztal v. City of Miami, 971 So.2d 803, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), CORTINAS, Judge (concurring). “Plainly and simply, this was a scheme to defraud. It was a case of unchecked avarice coupled with a total absence of shame on the part of the original lawyers. The attorneys manipulated the legal system for their own pecuniary gain and acted against their clients’ interests by attempting to deprive them of monies to which they might otherwise be entitled. More unethical and reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients is difficult to imagine.” I pray this Honorable Court relay to their former colleague, the Honorable Angel Cortinas, that he need not find it difficult to imagine more reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients. For, what Appellees have done to Appellants here is the reality of more reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients. Appellees deprived Appellants of the unrefuted legally cognizable damages the Appellants have been entitled to, as a matter of law. £ £ But the fact is that delusional attorneys believe they have the power to prevent what the law mandates, and what the court(s) have already determined. It is because attorneys put fear into the public through “/egal abuse,” that the lawyers (the “Bar) are in control of everything, even the courts; unfortunately, this case exemplifies that is a fact which must finally come to an end, and this Honorable Court has the power to see that it does. Appellant was even led to believe that to be so by “all attorneys,” until, through her dogged pursuit for justice, she realized what the courts have already determined, Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 15At least in Masztal v. City of Miami, the parties were given access to the court, and opportunities to be heard, by an impartial jurist, and after nine (9) years, which is still a horrendous amount of time for justice to prevail, eventually it did. Unlike here, where the trial court denied access to the court and denied the opportunity to be heard, causing this travesty to continue and irreparable damages to exponentially mount. Vv. THE FLORIDA BAR V. TIKD SERVICES LLC CASE NO.: SC18-149 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE RESPONSIVE LAW AND CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW Raoul G. Cantero Counsel for amici curiae On July 29, 2019, the Honorable Raoul Cantero, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida, 2 as attorney for Responsive Law and Center for Public Interest Law filed a Brief of Amici Curiae in the Supreme Court of Florida on behalf of TIKD Services. The following are relevant excerpts from the Amici Curiae Brief. ° IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amici curiae submitting this brief (“Amici”) are: (1) Consumers for a Responsive Legal System (“Responsive Law”) and (2) Center for through their Orders, the “legally cognizable damages” must be paid to Appellants, as a matter of law, which is a separate issue from the Court(s) getting to the bottom of just how pervasive “fraud on the court” by “officers of the court” is. 1 The Opinion in Boca Burger v. Forum was written by Justice Cantero. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 16Public Interest Law (“CPIL”). As organizations focused on consumer protection, the Amici track anticompetitive and protectionist behavior among licensed professionals across the country, study regulatory trends that affect access to justice, and advocate before all three branches of government to ensure that decision-makers act in the public’s interest, and not in the interest of the industries they regulate. e This Court has made it clear that the Bar’s “single most important concern” in regulating the legal profession should not be protecting attorneys’ business and financial well-being, “protect[ing] the public from incompetent, unethical or irresponsible representation.” e In 2016, the ABA also found that more than 80% of litigants in poverty in certain jurisdictions are unrepresented in matters involving basic life needs, such as evictions, mortgage foreclosures, child- custody disputes, child-support proceedings, and debt- collection cases. And the problem is not confined to the indigent. “{T]he majority of moderate-income individuals do not receive the legal help they need. . . . Scholars estimate that ‘[o]ver four-fifths of the legal needs of the poor and a majority of the needs of middle- income Americans remain unmet.’ Moreover, moderate-income individuals often have even fewer options than the poor because they do not meet the qualifications to receive legal aid.”” ABA REPORT at 11-12. e As the ABA observed, “large numbers of unrepresented litigants clog the courts, consume the time of court personnel, increase the legal fees of opposing parties due to disruptions and delays, increase the number of cases that advance to litigation, and result in cases decided on technical errors rather than the merits.” ABA REPORT at 15. Despite efforts from state bar associations, state supreme courts, pro bono legal organizations, and prepaid legal plans, the legal justice gap persists. ABA REPORT at 11. e In 2016 this Court established the Florida Commission on Access to Justice “to study the unmet civil legal needs of disadvantaged, low- income, and moderate income Floridians and to address those needs with programs, services, and innovative technological solutions that will create meaningful access to civil justice.” Jn Re: Florida Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 17Commission on Access to Civil Justice, Administrative Order No. AOSC18-27 (2018) (emphasis added). 8 e Finally, although not at issue here, the anticompetitive implications of the Bar’s arguments cannot be ignored. While the antitrust dispute between these parties was settled, see TIKD Servs. LLC v. Fla. Bar, No. 17-24103-CIV, 2019 WL 1112375 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2019), sustaining the Bar’s Objections risks endorsing anticompetitive behavior. See Fla. Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So, 2d 1186, 1189 (Fla. 1978) (noting that “the natural tendency of all professions [is]... to act in their own self interest”); see also N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 1101, 1111 (2015) (highlighting the increased need for supervision “when the State seeks to delegate its regulatory power to active market participants, for established ethical standards may blend with private anticompetitive motives _in_a way difficult even for market participants to_discern”). 2 8 In the spirit of full disclosure, the trial court record contains documents written by Pro Se sent to all Members of the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice, including but not limited to the “Gatekeepers.” The Appellees have been provided with all documents. 2 Again, in the spirit of full disclosure, the trial court record contains documents written by Pro Se to, not only all Members of the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice, but to other elected and appointed Florida officials, relevant to this issue, specifically: “the natural tendency of all professions [is] . . . to act in their own self interest,” also N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 1101, 1111 (2015). The Appellees have been provided with all those documents. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 18CONCLUSION Pro Se reminds this Court that Pro Se Appellant is Sixty-Five (65) years of age; having been Thirty-Nine (39) years of age when this travesty first began, which should have ended twenty-five years ago, had the Appellants not been betrayed by those they trusted most, to protect them, their lives, their livelihoods and their cherished inalienable rights. The history of what Pro Se Appellant and her beloved late husband, Appellant Norman Lanson, sacrificed and lost is strewn amongst the thousands of pages of court documents. Pro Se hopes that what she has provided herein, under the penalties of perjury, piques the interest of this Honorable Court to read Appellants unimaginable yet very true story of exactly what Appellants have endured in their long pursuit for justice. WHEREFORE, as the District Court of Appeal, in the vast majority of cases, is the court of last resort, and considering precious and scarce judicial resources, it is incumbent upon this Honorable Court to send the strongest of messages to Appellees, and their counsels: that the Integrity of the Judiciary, and the Rule of Law, will not allow the unconscionable abuse of the process that has been delineated in Pro Se Appellant’s Verified Motion herein, to be tolerated for one more moment. To that end, Pro Se implores this Honorable Court to issue an Order to Show Cause to Appellees and their Counsels to Respond, under the penalties of perjury, to Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson’s Verified Motion for an Order to Show Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 19Cause Why the AppelJees Should Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure to Concede that the Trial Court Orders Were Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Appellants From Being Paid, and Appellees Continuing to Defend What is Indefensible, in violation of Legal Precedent; Rules Regulating the Florida Bar; Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar; and the Constitutions of the United States of America : and the State of Florida. Dated: August 15, 2019 Respectfully submitted by: Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se Appellant 905 North Harbor City Blvd., #301 Melbourne, FL 32935 Telephone: 321-622-8592 Facsimile: 321-622-8592 E-mail: mlansonfl: ail.col By: ZEA , Meryl M. Lanson Pro Se Appellant VERIFICATION I, MERYL M. LANSON, being duly sworn, state that I am representing myself, as Pro Se Appellant in this action. Under penalties of perjury, I declare:that Lhave read the foregoing document and I have knowledge of the facts contained in the document, which are true of my own knowledge, so help me God. _ Convrishted Res. #TXut-785-263 20ASA. Mery] M. Lanson, Pro Se Appellant CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH I HEREBY CERTIFY to this Court that Pro Se Appellant, Meryl M. Lanson hereby files this Verified Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Appellees Should Not Be Sanctioned for Their Failure to Concede that the Trial Court Orders Were Erroneously Obtained to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Appellants From Being Paid, and Appellees Continuing to Defend What is Indefensible, and that the statements contained therein are made in good faith, so” help me God. Meryl M. Lanson, Pro Se Appellant - ~ 905 North Harbor City Bivd., #301 : Melbourne, FL 32935 Telephone: 321-622-8592 Facsimile: 321-622-8592 E-mail: mlensondeisilcem mo Meryl M. Lanson Pro Se Appellant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been | “furnished via Email and the Court’s ¢-filing portal to: Craig J. Shankman, Esq.,” . Frank Colonnelli, Esq., and Elaine D. Walter, Esq., Boyd Richards Parker: & |: Colonnelli, P.L., 100 Southeast 2nd Street, Suite 2600 Miami, Florida’ : Convrishted Res. #TX1-785-263 2133131, fcolonnelli@boydlawgroup.com, cshankman@boydlaweroup.com, ewalter @boydlawgroup.com,mbarberiz@boydlawgroup.com, ServiccoMIA@boydlawgrou p.com; James Kaplan, Esq., Kaplan Zeena, LLP, 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3050, Miami, FL 33131, James,Kaplan@kaplanzeena.com, service@kaplazeena.com, dania.saavedra@kaplanzeena.com; Mary Alice Gwynn, Esq. 817 George Bush Blvd., Delray Beach, FL 33483, maryalicegwynn422@pemail.com; jhrogerslaw@gmail.com, ones [L_, 2019. et. MerylM.Lanson M. Lanson Pro Se Appellant CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE THEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing document satisfies the font and type size requirements as prescribed by Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.100(1) “and 9.210(a)(2). be MERYL M. LANSON, PRO SE APPELLANT _ Convrishted Res. #TX11-785-263 29.EXHIBIT AADA-PROTECTED PRO SE PLAINTIFF MERYL M. LANSON’S VERIFIED MOTION DEMANDING DEFENDANTS CONCEDE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT WERE ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED BY DEFENDANTS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS OWED PLAINTIFFS FROM BEING PAID Filed June 17, 2019Filing # 91174353 E-Filed 06/17/2019 10:00:35 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION NORMAN LANSON, CASE NO.: 06-09516 CA 13 MERYL LANSON, and BARON’S STORES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. JUSTUS W. REID, JUSTUS W. REID, P.A. MARK R. OSHEROW, MARK R. OSHEROW, P.A., PETER BERNHARDT, and REID, METZGER & BERNHARDT, P.A., Defendants. / ADA-PROTECTED PRO SE PLAINTIFF MERYL M. LANSON’S VERIFIED MOTION DEMANDING DEFENDANTS CONCEDE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT WERE ERRONEOUSLY OBTAINED BY DEFENDANTS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE LEGALLY COGNIZABLE DAMAGE CLAIMS OWED PLAINTIFFS FROM BEING PAID ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson hereby files this Verified Motion Demanding Defendants Concede that the Orders of the Trial Court were Erroneously Obtained by Defendants in Order to Prevent the Legally Cognizable Damage Claims Owed Plaintiffs from Being Paid, and further states: ADA-Protected Pro Se Plaintiff, Meryl M. Lanson (“M. Lanson”) hereby adopts, ratifies, reaffirms, realleges all statements, arguments, and allegations avowed in all M. Lanson’s “verified” filings in these proceedings. CONFUCIUS: “It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop.” Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 1Confucius must have also known that the wheels of justice move slowly, but even he could never have imagined what has taken place, and for how long, in this travesty of justice by those who swore an Oath to do what they must, yet violated every aspect of that Oath, bar none; attached as Exhibit “1” is the Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar. The litany of negligence and fraud by Defendants, and their Attorneys, continuing to defend what has always been indefensible, is expounded in the: October 11, 2017 “Verified” Omnibus Motion for: 1. Relief from Judgments for Defendants’ Fraud on the Court; and 2. Relief from Void Judgments Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4); and 3. To Compel State Court’s Compliance with and Enforcement of Federal Bankruptcy Judge’s Orders; October 25, 2017 First Supplement to: Omnibus Motion; November 10, 2017 Second Supplement to: Omnibus Motion; November 15,2017 Amended Second Supplement to Omnibus Motion; and IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THE RECORD ! AND NOTABLY, THE “GATEKEEPERS.” These “Verified” Motions for Relief from Judgments will be the subject of the evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Third District Court of Appeal’s March 6, 2019 Order, when the Court granted (Defendants) “Appellees Motion to Dismiss the appeal as untimely without prejudice to Appellants (Plaintiffs) to seek a ruling from the trial court — if it has not already ruled on their October 11, 2017 motion to vacate for fraud on the court. See Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. And Loan Ass’n, 467 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citing Griffin v. Tauber-Manon Assocs., Inc., 452 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)).” ! This despite Judge Gill Freeman’s announcement that a portion of the record has been destroyed. Copyrighted Reg. #TXul-785-263 2- It is irrefutable that the trial court never ruled on Appellants (Plaintiffs) Motion; - It is a matter of law that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted on FRCP 1.540(b)(4) Motions to Vacate for Fraud on the Court; - It is a matter of law that the court has no discretion but to vacate void judgments; - It is a matter of law that a void judgment is a legal nullity, deemed never to have had any legal force and effect, and may be attacked at any time. Putting all what is contained in the aforementioned aside for a moment, which the Court(s) must deal with, what Defendants and their Counsels have intentionally withheld from the Courts, and specifically from the Honorable Thomas Rebull, is the Defendants negligence and extrinsic fraud which took place in 2004, prior to the filing of this meritorious legal malpractice case against them. 2 Had Defendants upheld their Oath, and responsibilities to their clients, and not breached their fiduciary duties, the Plaintiffs. in 2004, would have recovered the legally cognizable damage claims, as stated on the record by the Honorable Norman Gerstein after Judge Gerstein denied the underlying legal malpractice Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, in its entirety. Defendants fateful decision, choosing to sell out their clients’ rights and interests to the other side is their initial extrinsic fraud, DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 — Fla: Supreme Court 1984: The Honorable Norman Gerstein was the presiding judge for Six (6) years, from inception of the filing of the underlying legal malpractice lawsuit in which Defendants herein represented Plaintiffs, Case No. 99-21062 CA 22, Norman Lanson, Meryl M. Lanson, Baron’s Stores, Inc. v. Ronald Kopplow, Kopplow & Flynn, Mare Cooper, Cooper & Wolfe, P.A., and Sonya L. Salkin. Malnik & Salkin, P.A. 2 Defendant Osherow’s negligence predates 2004. Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 3September 7, 1999 October 22, 2002 December 16, 2002 May 12, 2003 Court: March 15, 2004 April 7, 2004 Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 TIMELINE Plaintiffs filed legal malpractice case against Kopplow, Cooper and Salkin, etal. The Honorable Norman Gerstein presiding. Defendants, Kopplow, Cooper, Salkin and their firms’ Motions to Dismiss Denied in its entirety by Judge Norman Gerstein. Plaintiffs Motion to Special Set Trial Date was filed by Defendants herein; expedited based on Norman Lanson’s age (71 at that time) and Florida Statutes, 415.1115. Hearing before the Honorable Norman Gerstein: Page 18: Lines 13 — 17 of the Hearing Transcript Because what the law was in that motion to dismiss is, in fact, the law. You have cited certain damages that are personal in nature. And if you can prove the personal damages, you can get the personal damages. Plaintiffs proved the legally cognizable damages. “Fiske Damage Report” was provided to all parties by Defendants herein. The “Fiske Damage Report” has never been refuted. Defendants herein withdrew from representing Plaintiffs, abandoning their clients without securing the legally cognizable damage claims which the Plaintiffs had proven, and were entitled to as a matter of law. The legally cognizable damage claims delineated in the unrefuted “Fiske Damage Report,” as of December 19, 2003 was: $23,838,365.00. Defendants abandoned their clients, and corruptly sold out their clients’ interests to the other side, never securing the legally cognizable damage claims proven pursuant to the law, as stated by the Honorable Norman Gerstein. They chose to do this to protect their livelihoods, and the financial interests of the Florida Bar’s created/owned/operated malpractice carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company; and the Florida Bar’s counsel of record,Greenberg Traurig’s client, Great American Insurance Company. These two insurance companies were responsible for the totality of the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs herein, as they were the carriers for Kopplow/Cooper and Salkin, respectively. It must be noted that all bad faith claims against the insurance companies, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company and Great American Insurance Company, were properly preserved by the Defendants herein. Thus, it defies logic that any attorney would walk away from more than Seven Million (7,000,000.00) in fees, for starters, and sell out their clients interests to the other side when they were the prevailing parties on a Motion to Dismiss, and they already proved the legally cognizable damages their clients suffered, which their clients, the Plaintiffs, were entitled to, as stated, on the record, by Judge Norman Gerstein, and the fact that the “Fiske Damage Report” was never refuted by the other side. In DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 — Fla; Supreme Court 1984, “where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the other side — shows that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and a fair hearing.” And thus, the reason a meritorious lawsuit was timely filed against the Defendants herein. Aside from the totality of Defendants intentionally misrepresenting the facts and the law to the courts, throughout their defenseless defense of this legal malpractice action against them, what boggles the mind is the Defendants temerity in the following statement, which Defendants repeatedly espoused in their pleadings, and elsewhere. The following statement, which is nothing short of ludicrous, considering it is the very claims against Defendants herein which Plaintiffs are entitled to as a matter of law, for the Defendants failure to insure Copyrighted Reg. #TXu1-785-263 5that the legally cognizable damages which Plaintiffs proved back in 2004 were paid to the Plaintiffs. “Plaintiffs and their counsel have ignored the lack of legal authority, evidence, and facts to support their claims asserted against the Defendants, they have failed to adequately investigate such claims before filing, and they have continued to maintain baseless claims against the Defendants knowing that such claims are meritless.” It is precisely those legally cognizable damages that the Defendants are responsible to Plaintiffs for their failure to fulfill their legal, ethical and moral obligations to Plaintiffs before they chose to sell out their clients’ interests to the other side. COURT: Because what the law was in that motion to dismiss is, in fact, the law. You have cited certain damages that are personal in nature. And if you can prove the personal damages, you can get the personal damages. And those proven legally cognizable damages are just for starters as to the liability of the Defendants herein. 3 As stated above, the Court(s) must get to the bottom of how deep the fraud goes in this case, and the magnitude of Defendants’ counsels’ frauds on the courts, as outlined in specificity in Plaintiff's Verified Motions to Vacate, et al. These Defendants, are not ordinary defendants, are not lay people — they are attorneys who sat silent allowing their defense counsels to perpetrate frauds on the courts knowing that their counsels were securing erroneous orders to prevent the legally co