MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

City Attorneys Raul Aguila & Aleksander Boksner, Developer Rod Eisenberg

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ATTORNEYS SEEK A POUND OF FLESH

Rod EisenbergMay Sue His Attorneys As Usual
3 March 2015
By David Arthur Walters
MIAMI MIRROR
In hearing litigations, I am like anyone else. I differ, in wishing to prevent these litigations.
Confucius
Again and again Rod Eisenberg fought the law, and the law won again and again. There is
nothing better the law likes to do than kick a dog when he is down, especially when he is a sore
loser and gets back up time and time again. Sure, we admire perseverance in a man of principle
unless he is a self-righteous fool, in which case we may enjoy seeing him humiliated.
Right or wrong, Miami Beach is the last place a man of principle should be if he would pick a
fight with its government, for he is sure to lose even if he is right unless he is one of the Good
Old Boys that Eisenberg could by now himself be if only he would have laid down for them
without whining a dozen years ago instead of exposing the truth and bearing a grudge to this
very day.
What is the truth? a government official famously asked of a man of principle long ago. Have
a glass of vodka and view the depressing movie Leviathan filmed in Russia for an answer. A
powerful corrupt official causes a good mans home to be seized and destroyed for what he
believes is a good i.e. a public cause. The victims lawyer, his brother from Moscow, seduces his
wife, but he takes her back because she is a good woman because he loves her. The lawyer tries
to blackmail the government official with scandalous truths about his past in Moscow, so the
Page 1 of 6

MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

official and his thugs run him out of town. The good wife is ashamed of her indiscretion, gets
out of the innocent mans bed as he sleeps, walks away from the soon to be demolished house,
and throws herself off a bluff into the raging ocean. He is arrested when her body is found,
convicted of her murder, sent off to prison. Of course his son must be adopted. A preacher
compares him to Job, as if he would be happily reconciled with the world in his old age despite
his travail. The government official and his sort celebrate the survival of the Russian Orthodox
Church, cursing other denominations, and he speaks of the truth. What is the truth? Truth is
god.
Let Eisenberg beware of the truth before he is utterly ruined. His most recent suit against the
city was ruinous, and the proverbial fat lady has not sung her aria yet. In 2006 officials claimed
his state-licensed Sadigo Courtyard Apartment Hotel in South Beach was a transient hotel and
not a transient apartment building. Therefore, they said he would have to get it certified as a
hotel, which he attempted to do. But then the officials said it was a new hotel, and demanded
that he install fire sprinklers. He refused because he believed the fire standards provided for an
unspecified protection method that would be equivalentto fire sprinklers, and that they were
using the fire protection code as a pretext for retaliating against him for exposing the truth
about Good Old Boys back in 1993, suing the city over and over, and raising a more recent stink
about a blighted building.
He held the government hounds at bay at the Sadigo for around five years, until the hotel
apartment building was finally raided in 2011. His guests were tossed onto the street with their
luggage, and he was arrested and charged with resisting without violence.
He sued in state court, and in 2013 brought a federal civil rights case under the Ku Klux Klan Act
of 1871 for damages and legal fees in federal court. Installation of fire sprinklers would have
cost him upwards of $100,000. Now his exposure is around $4,000,000 all told, including his
damages for closure of the building and refinancing, federal court costs taxed at $70,000, and
$800,000 in legal fees the city wants from him and his lawyers on the grounds that his suit
against the city was frivolous.
His own lawyers fees in this case alone are estimated at $600,000. Hopefully they have been
paid in full, because Eisenberg, a proven sore loser, is in the habit of suing his lawyers when
they lose, as they always seem to do when taking his cases. He is a virtual ATM for lawyers. He
does seem to have a winnable case. The lawyers are no slouches. He seems to have been born
to lose winnable cases.
He is probably right about retaliation. This is not really about fire sprinklers. City officials are
nice when you roll over and beg, thuggish when you growl and bark at them with bared teeth.
Old timers will tell you that you can be sure of selective enforcement of the laws in the city,
Page 2 of 6

MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

where the principle of retaliation, the primitive foundation of law, is the rule. The officials are
usually tolerant if not downright negligent unless they have to enforce the law because
someone nags them or the breach is so glaring that mainstream media takes noticebloggers
are simply denounced as delusional terrorists. Otherwise officials snag someone at random
here and there to create an appearance of propriety and justify their paychecks.
Listen up: just lick your wounds and move on for there will be more opportunities to make a
killing down the line and get away with it because no one is the wiser. Do not be a sore loser if
you want to win in this town.
Eisenberg was vexed by the so-called Good Old Boys back in 1993 when his bid for space at the
old city hall to run an Art Deco Welcome Center was submitted too late. He found out that the
sole bidder remaining was already getting space in the building rent free.He brought suit
against the city. The discovery process brought to light apparent hanky panky between city
officials and an officer of IRAMCO, the broker involved in City of Miami Beach Redevelopment
Agency's purchase of land for the development of the citys first convention hotel, now Loews
Hotel at 1601 Collins Avenue.
The discovery of unseemly relationships are not that surprising in this relatively small city with a
long history of corruption, as something slimy can be found under almost every rock
overturned, not to mention the scum that rises to the top in the war of all against all.
As for Eisenbergs October 1, 1993, suit on the particular issue, his late bid for space to do
business at the old city hall, it was a complete flop. Case No. 93-18659 on the complaint
brought against the city and IRAMCO was dismissed on Oct. 10, 1994:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Rod Eisenberg and/orTricia Touring Company of South
Beach, Inc. were late bidders for City of Miami Beach RFP No. 82-92/97, and therefore lack
standing in order to maintain this action; and Plaintiffs have failed to produce any credible
evidence substantiating a finding of fraud or conspiracy on the city of Miami Beach's part.
Accordingly,Defendant City of Miami Beach's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Amended
Complaint is granted and Final Judgment is entered for Defendant City of Miami Beach.
Eisenbergs allegations in that suit caused Joe Centorino, the state attorney, to beg askance of
City Attorney Feingold and City Manager Carlton. He found no grounds for criminal charges, the
city paid their legal fees, yet he referred the allegations that a city commissioners son had
received commissions on the deal to the state licensing agency. It imposed fines for
misconduct.
Eisenberg would not walk away with a loss to pursue a win somewhere else. He just had to sue
his own attorneys, city attorneys, and other officials public and private for the conspiracy
Page 3 of 6

MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

against himsometimes paranoia is justified. State circuit court Case 95-00364 was filed on
January 9, 1995, versus his lawyers, Holtzman, Krinzman, Equels, Sigars & Furia, P.A.. and
Seymour Gelber, Individually and in his official capacity; Lawrence Feingold, individually and
inhis official capacity; Raul Aguila, individually and in his official capacity; Abe Resnick,
individually and in his official capacity; Niesen Kasdin, individually and in his official capacity;
Martine Shapiro, individually and in his official capacity; Sy Eisenberg, individually and in his
official capacity; Susan Gottlieb, individually and in her official capacity, Roger Carlton; IRAMCO,
INC., a Florida corporation; Myron Greenberg and James Resnick.
Eisenberg would eventually drop the racketeering count from his complaint that the defendants
had conspired to prevent him from successfully bidding for the lease of city premises, and
dropped the officials as defendants. The case finally became a dead horse on July 1, 1998, when
the court dismissed the case against his former lawyers.
Eisenberg would not lie down. He appealed in respect to the city and Iramco. The judgment
against him was affirmed on July 7, 1998, Case 97-3659 (714 So.2d 613):
Rod Eisenberg appeals an adverse summary judgment in his independent action for relief
from judgment. He sought to reopen a 1994 judgment in which he protested the award of a
lease by appellee City of Miami Beach to appellee Iramco, Inc. Iramco submitted the only
timely, responsive bid.We entirely agree with the trial court that the matters Eisenberg
attempts to raise in his current action for relief from judgment, see generally DeClaire v.
Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.1984), are substantially identical to matters raised and adjudicated
in previous proceedings against the City and Iramco, including an earlier motion for relief from
the 1994 judgment, and another lawsuit by Eisenberg against the City, Iramco, and Eisenberg's
former attorneys. Eisenberg also appeals the order denying his motion for disqualification. This
motion was made after the court entered summary judgment in favor of the City and Iramco in
this proceeding. The trial court properly denied the motion. A claim that a trial judge has made
an error of law is not a basis for disqualification. In the course of delivering his ruling, the trial
judge told Eisenberg in essence that the lawsuit was without merit and that if he felt there was
wrongdoing by the City or Iramco, he should file complaints with the appropriate authorities.
Those statements were entirely appropriate and not a basis for disqualification.
We notice that Eisenberg from time to time has appeared pro se i.e. represented himself in one
case or another. He trained to become a lawyer,and is apparently a frustrated lawyer. Perhaps
he would be a successful lawyer if he could find the clients; if not, he could go to work for the
city if he played his cards right. If he had handled his losing vindictive suits without legal counsel
he may have been adjudged a vexatious litigant and barred from filing any more suits without
advance approval. With a law license, he could file as many suits as he wants and lose them,
although risking stiff financial sanctions, which does not seem to stop him without a law license.
Page 4 of 6

MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Well, he seems to have learned his lesson, confining himself to complaining about official
negligence in respect to a blighted building owned by a fellow hotel developer. Official
negligence is rather common in the City of Miami Beach. Again, if you are nice, especially if you
are a Good Old Boy or a member of the favored clique at the time, then do not worry too much
about the violations unless you make an enemy of someone, and even then the fines and liens
can be fixed after the case becomes so old nobody is watching.
But then city inspectors nosed around his Sadigo apartment hotel and played hard ball with
him. He hired lawyers Jeffrey Bercow & Company after receiving Fire Marshals Notice of
Violation to assist him in resolving that issue. The Firms representation was later expanded to
include the change of use that the Notice of Violation ordered Eisenberg to obtain from the
Building Department.
An engineer and an architect were retained by Eisenberg via the law firm; they believed fire
sprinklers were required, the architect saying he would not risk losing his license by testifying
otherwise, causing Eisenberg to disavow any relationship with them and describe them as shills
for the city in his suit against his former attorneys. The state court noted that an appeal to the
Miami-Dade County Board of Appeals with the assistance of fire engineers was rejected. The
fact that he pursued his cause and lost all along the way seemed to prove him wrong to begin
with. His case, filed on July 7, 2011,in circuit court against Jeffrey Bercow and Bercow Radell &
Fernandez,was dismissed as a sham, and his appeal was dismissed on January 26, 2015, with
some lengthy findings and conclusions, such as:
Plaintiffs entire pleading is predicated upon the notion that the City would have voluntarily
acquiesced to the Sadigo Courts operation without sprinklers if the defendant attorneys had
simply advanced the correct arguments. The court finds that this contention is demonstrably
false. The very same arguments Plaintiff has advanced before the court in this proceeding have
been raised unsuccessfully on numerous prior occasions. In each instance, the City was given an
opportunity to accept the arguments Eisenberg claims would have provided a solution to his
problems. Instead, the City summarily rejected these exact positions. Indeed, Eisenbergs own
attempts to avail himself of his supposedly winning strategy resulted in the precise type of
extended litigation he now claims could have been avoided.. Eisenberg claims that the Citys
intransigence was due to its personal vendetta. That allegation alone completely refutes
Eisenbergs claims in this case. The degree of direct contradiction between Eisenbergs
pleadings in this suit and the record of the underlying administrative and trial court proceedings
provide a sufficient factual basis to justify striking this complaint as a sham pleading. The
Court also finds that the Plaintiffs central allegation, i.e., that his losses were proximately
caused by the negligence of the Defendants, is demonstrably false. This case therefore meets
the admittedly high burden set forth in Rhea v. Hackney and other cases cited by the Defendant
Page 5 of 6

MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

in support of the summary disposition of frivolous cases. The Court notes that a thorough
review of the underlying record reflects that many of the contentions pled in the Plaintiffs
complaint are simply too illogical to support any inferences in their favor.
The federal court had dismissed the crucial or most likely provable civil rights counts of his
complaints on March 23, 2014. The rest of the case was forever laid to rest on December 16,
2014. That is, if Eisenberg does not attempt to have it reopened, asserting some new facts
and/or fraud on the court by conspiring city attorneys and their shills. He decided not to appeal
the summary dismissal to the Supreme Court.
That appeal would not have been in accord with his personal vendetta but may have been of
national importance because the dismissal was based on specious judicial legislation that a
municipality should not be liable for the damaging and injurious misdeeds of its employees if
some higher agency can be appealed to. The courts themselves have condoned and sponsored
some of the worst human rights violations the nation has ever witnessed. However, the law
does evolve against the prejudices of regressives.
This is not to say that personal vendettas pursued to the end, as Eisenberg promised to do with
this case in the beginning, do not have good results for the community. They certainly do, and
he may still be our David against Goliath in that respect if he is right. Otherwise people will
respond to He is right with So what?
Now the City of Miami Beach wants hundreds of thousands of dollars for its attorney fees from
Eisenberg and his now dismissed law firm, Smolker, Bartlett, Schlossler, Loeb & Hinds, PA., and
Jacob Cremer, its lead attorney on the case, on the grounds that the suit against it was
frivolous. The case is stayed until the end of March. If that motion is filed it may itself be a
frivolity since any lawyer not paid to think otherwise would see that Eisenberg had reasonable
cause to suspect that his civil rights had been violated, and that there was a fair chance of
obtaining a remedy for the deprivation in federal court. But who knows for sure how any court
will rule nowadays given the topsy-turvy history of judicial legislation? The court may afford the
city with a right to a punitive pound of flesh.
In any case, we will not be surprised If Eisenberg turns around and sues his latest attorneys. No
holds are barred in this dirty business. We will undoubtedly have more litigation. Sometimes I
have little respect for the human race, and would have even less if I were not human.
##

Page 6 of 6