NORMAN LANSON and

MERYL M. LANSON,

CASE NO.: SC01-299

Petitioners,

v.

THE FLORIDA BAR, an arm of

the Supreme Court of Florida

Respondent.

______________________________

Petitioners, NORMAN LANSON and MERYL M. LANSON, hereby move for Proper and Impartial Review, Rehearing and Reconsideration of our Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed on January 16, 2001 in the Supreme Court of Florida, and in support of this meritorious request, state as follows:

1. On January 16, 2001, Petitioners Norman and Meryl M. Lanson filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Respondents, The Florida Bar. This Petition, pursuant to Article V § 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(3) and 9.100, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel and/or require The Florida Bar, or anyone else to whom such Writ should be justly directed, to appoint an independent panel (or the Court’s independent review) of Petitioner’s grievance against attorneys Ronald C.
   
   
2. Kopplow and Marc Cooper. Petitioners Grievance was summarily dismissed at an administrative level, and prior to Grievance Committee referral or intervention, because of undisclosed underlying motivations based upon a severe conflict of interest.
   
   
3. On March 28, 2001, the Court dismissed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus claiming "in accordance with the established precedence for processing disciplinary complaints against members of The Florida Bar as set forth in Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.4(i), the Supreme Court of Florida does not investigate a complaint concerning a determination by The Florida Bar that there is no probable cause for imposing discipline. The Court having determined that it is without jurisdiction, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby dismissed."
   
   
4. The Court dismissed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus based upon conclusions that are contrary to the facts and the law as stated in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
   
   
5. Dignitaries of The Florida Bar provided the Court with false statements and information whereby these dignitaries mislead the Court into believing that a Grievance Committee found no probable cause which is absolutely untrue. The Florida Bar knowing this untruth was the basis for the Court’s dismissal of a valid Petition for Writ of Mandamus maintained silence in hopes that the Court’s dismissal would end Petitioners journey for justice. Such is not the case and will not be the case until Petitioners are granted their due process under the law and that truth and justice prevails above all else.
   
   
6. Petitioners meritorious grievances were dismissed at an administrative level by an Assistant Staff Counsel whereby Petitioners were denied their due process and whereby Petitioners civil rights have been violated.
   
   
7. If the Court would have properly reviewed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as previously submitted, dignitaries of The Florida Bar and others would have been so severely sanctioned or disbarred as is clearly warranted under its power to review the actions of The Florida Bar.
   
   
8. If the Court would have properly reviewed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, such findings would cause so much upheaval within The Florida Bar and the Courts so as to make unpalatable for the Court to comply with its duty to review the actions of The Florida Bar and dignitaries of The Florida Bar based upon its clear conflict of interest in these circumstances.
   
   
9. For the Court to state in its dismissal that it is without jurisdiction is misleading to the citizens of this State as the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V § 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution and Rules 9.030(a)(3) and 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jurisdiction of The Supreme Court of Florida is also invoked based upon the Manual of Internal Operating Procedures, Section II(b) and (d) and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 3-3.1 and Rule 3-7.7.
   
   
10. Specifically, Rule 3-7.7 indicates that "all applications for extraordinary writs that are concerned with disciplinary proceedings, under these rules of discipline, shall be made to the Supreme Court of Florida." Given the conduct at issue herein, by dignitaries of The Florida Bar, the rules must be interpreted liberally to afford jurisdiction as may be necessary for full and impartial review of the at issue concerns.
    
    
11. The severe conflict of interest, created by The Florida Bar’s interest in Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, resulted in The Florida Bar’s intentional dismissal of a meritorious grievance prior to Grievance Committee intervention. Petitioners believe that this stop-gap measure to deprive the citizens of this State their due process rights is further indication of a coverup that exists within The Florida Bar as pertains its relationship with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
    
    
12. Petitioners believe that The Florida Bar and certain dignitaries of The Florida Bar have been interfering with the administration of justice as pertains to grievances brought against insured members of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company whereby such proper review of meritorious grievances would have an impact on the claims brought against the Bar’s created malpractice insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
    
    
13. The Florida Bar and certain dignitaries of The Florida Bar have gone so far as to put the public in jeopardy by knowingly aiding and abetting such egregious, unethical and unlawful conduct by its members all for underlying financial motivations as pertains to its relationship with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
    
    
14. The Florida Bar has been using its autonomous and elitist power and position to control both the disciplinary process and the valid claims brought against its member insured’s of its created malpractice carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. This incestuous relationship has proven to be detrimental to the citizens that The Florida Bar is duty bound to protect, but beneficial to the insured member owners of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
    
    
15. It is ludicrous for the Supreme Court of Florida to claim lack of jurisdiction over this matter. Indeed Justice Anstead’s dissent clearly illustrates that the majority of the Court may well be wrong. Jurisdiction is an absolute matter. Accordingly, the majority of the Court’s determination of lack of jurisdiction must be based upon a misapprehension of the facts or disinclination to address the most serious issues presented in the Petition, that the Court is duty-bound to address.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court comply with its duty under the law and that it accept jurisdiction of this Motion and previously submitted Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners also respectfully request and expect that The Supreme Court of Florida uphold the law under the Constitution of the State of Florida and these United States and grant Petitioners their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners also request that a Writ of Mandamus be Issued by this Court directed to Respondent, THE FLORIDA BAR, for the relief sought above, and for any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________

NORMAN LANSON
_______________________

MERYL M. LANSON

NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se.