IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

AQUASOL CONDOMINIUM CASE No. 3D17-352

ASSOCIATION, INC, LT No. 14-29724-CA

Appellant,
vs.

HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION,

Appellee.
_____________________________/

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING, FOR REHEARING EN

BANC AND REQUEST FOR A WRITTEN OPINION

Appellant, AQUASOL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC,

(“Appellant”), pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 and 9.331 files this Motion for an

order granting rehearing or granting re-hearing En Banc, and states:

All judges are sworn to protect and defend the constitution and apply equal

justice under law. No party should admit a false and fictitious document into

evidence. That party should be held in criminal contempt if caught admitting that

same false and fictitious document into evidence again at another trial. Yet, this

Court commended the trial court for having the patience to not hold Aquasol’s

counsel in contempt of court for attempting to cross examine the witness about that

false and fictitious document. This is an egregious violation of the judicial canons.

Aquasol’s counsel should not fear jail for vindicating the integrity of the judiciary.
 Here, HSBC introduced into evidence at the trial of this equitable foreclosure

action a false and fictitious mortgage assignment prepared by the disgraced law

offices of David J. Stern, the infamous “robo-signing king” of Florida. HSBC did

so in disregard of an unclean hands affirmative defense identifying that assignment

as false and fictitious. The assignment was signed by John Kennerty, an employee

identified by two federal judges as a member of the Wells Fargo assignment and

endorsement teams used to create after the fact evidence of standing.

In what has become a pattern in foreclosure appeals before this Honorable

Court, the opinion misstates the facts underlying the legal issues and ignores

controlling Florida Supreme Court precedent. The opinion ignores the actual issue

raised below that this David J. Stern assignment constituted unclean hands, a

separate defense from standing to foreclose. The trial court threatened to hold

undersigned counsel in contempt and jail him for asking about that false and

fictitious assignment, not about ownership of the loan.

The Florida Supreme Court says that a party that introduces a false and

fictitious document into evidence after being condemned by the $25 Billion National

Mortgage Settlement forfeits the right to equitable relief. It is established Florida

Supreme Court law that, “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.”

Bush v. Baker, 83 So. 704 (Fla. 1920). In Bush, the Florida Supreme Court instructed

the “principal or policy of the law in withholding relief from a complaint because of
‘unclean hands’ is punitive in nature.” Id.

The Florida Supreme Court further instructs, “one who comes into equity

must come with clean hands else all relief will be denied him regardless of merit of

his claim, and it is not essential that act be a crime; it is enough that it be condemned

by honest and reasonable men.” Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So.2d 717 (Fla.

1956)(emphasis added). This Court cannot say honest and reasonable men would

ignore the use of false and fictitious evidence so it just ignores the issue entirely. It

should condemn, not commend, the trial court for threatening to jail counsel and

granting HSBC the equitable relief of foreclosure, disregarding its unclean hands.

Similarly, this Court misstates the issue underlying disqualification. The trial

court prejudged the issue of standing before Aquasol even cross-examined the first

witness. Then the trial court threatened Aquasol’s counsel with jail because the

trial court didn’t care “if David J. Stern or Howard Stern” prepared the false and

fictitious document in evidence. This is certainly a reasonable objective basis to

fear the trial court was not impartial, which it clearly wasn’t. Just as this Court is

clearly not impartial in foreclosure cases as evidenced in the Motions to Disqualify.

The opinion is both factually and intellectually dishonest. Most disturbing,

the opinion sends the wolves after Aquasol’s counsel personally by commending

the trial court’s “patience” for not holding him in contempt of court. Truthfully, no

court should dare make the front page of the paper for jailing an attorney for asking
about a false document in evidence. This Court’s opinion intentionally emboldens

judges to abuse their contempt powers. It is a most distressing situation.

Moreover, the opinion ignores the Florida Supreme Court precedent, cited in

the Initial Brief, which directly contradicts this Court’s suggestion that the 2003

amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin 2.330(e) changed the requirement of a written

motion to disqualify mid hearing. In 2008, the Florida Supreme Court instructed

that: “When a motion to disqualify a judge occurs “mid-trial or mid-hearing,” the

trial court must give counsel a “reasonable opportunity” to write and file the motion.

In re Aleman, 995 So. 2d 395, 399 fn. 2, (Fla. 2008), citing Rogers v State, 630

So.2d 513, 516 (Fla. 1993). This Court’s opinion is directly at odds with the Florida

Supreme Court and only emboldens judges to push forward in litigation after their

impartiality is reasonably questioned.

This Court also ignores Florida Supreme Court precedent, passed long after

the adoption of Article 3 dealing with negotiable instruments, that still required a

plaintiff prove it owns and holds the note and mortgage to have standing to

foreclose. Judge Jon Gordon cited established Florida Supreme Court precedent

which instructed that:

“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.” Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 573 (Fla. 2005), as
revised on denial of reh'g (Sept. 29, 2005).

The same holds true that we should not accept the notion that appellate courts

could “suggest” a trial judge into applying a “rule” or “discretion” that they know-

or should know-is contrary to existing law. The Florida Supreme Court instructs:

“[t]o allow a District Court of Appeal to overrule controlling precedent of this Court

would be to create chaos and uncertainty in the judicial forum, particularly at the

trial level.” Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 434 (Fla. 1973). This Court’s

insistence on ignoring established Florida Supreme Court law to benefit bad

corporate citizens is certain to cause chaos.

The Initial Brief advised at page 38 that “Both Tilus and Morcom concede that

Florida Supreme Court precedent from the late 1800’s required a party owns and

holds the note and mortgage to establish standing to foreclose. Id. See also, Smith

v. Kleiser, 107 So. 262 (Fla. 1926); Edason v. Central Farmers Trust Co., 129 So.

698 (Fla. 1930); Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Servidio

v. U.S. Bank N.A., 46 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Lizio v. McCullom, 36 So.

3d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).” Moreover, the Initial Brief advised at page 32 that:

As Judge Gordon correctly noted, this Honorable Court promulgated

the original Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110, and its accompanying Form 1.944 in
1992 and again in 2000. In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure, 604 So. 2d 1110, 1182 (Fla. 1992) (emphasis added); In re
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So. 2d 1098,
1144 (Fla. 2000).
 Both the 1992 and 2000 versions of Florida Supreme Court promulgated Form

1.944 required proof the plaintiff owns and holds the note and mortgage to have

standing to foreclose. It is misleading and untrue to suggest a rule that the 1963

enactment of Article 3 dealing with negotiable instruments, not mortgages or

standing to foreclose, affected that common law rule.

This Court again ignored Florida Supreme Court precedent that expressly

holds, “statutes in derogation of the common law are to be construed strictly,

however. They will not be interpreted to displace the common law further than is

clearly necessary. Rather, the courts will infer that such a statute was not intended

to make any alteration other than was specified and plainly pronounced.” Carlile v.

Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 354 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 1977).

There are many examples of statutes which unequivocally change the

common law. See, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 741.23 (West) (“The common-law rule whereby

a husband is liable for the torts of his wife is hereby abrogated); See also, §794.02,

Fla. Stat. and §689.225, Fla. Stat.

Under Carlile, Fla. Stat. §673.3011 did not change the common law rule that

the plaintiff must “own and hold the note and mortgage” to establish standing to

foreclose. Fla. Stat. §673.3011 controls enforcement of negotiable instruments, not

mortgages. Ownership controls the right to enforce the mortgage. This Court is

acting illegally by instructing the law is otherwise.

 This Court should also be “duty-bound” to cite controlling Florida Supreme

Court precedent before acting in a manner that violates the Judicial Canons and the

U.S. and Florida Constitution. As this Court did in Buset, it ignored Florida Supreme

Court precedent that holds any retroactive change to the law on standing would be

an unconstitutional impairment of the obligations of contract. American Optical

Corporation v. Spiewak, 73 So.3d 120 (Fla. 2011).

It matters not how many district courts attempt to rewrite the law to favor

banks against borrowers, the common law rule that a bank must own and hold the

note and mortgage to have standing to foreclose cannot be abrogated after the

contract, by either legislative or judicial decree. Metropolitan Dade County v. Chase

Federal Housing Corporation, 737 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1999); Pembroke Lakes Mall

Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So.3d 418 (Fla. 2014); Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp.,

488 U.S. 204, 208, 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988); Eastern Enterprises v.

Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 532, 118 S.Ct. 2131, 141 L.Ed.2d 451 (1998); Williams v. Am.

Optical Corp., 985 So. 2d 23, 31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) aff'd sub nom. Am.

Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2011).

CONCLUSION

I have faith that this David vs. Goliath battle will end justly. I deeply reject

that I should be held in contempt for standing up for homeowners against a corrupt

foreclosure system. This is not Russia or North Korea.

 My ancestors on my mother’s side trace back to the tribe of Kohanim, the

priests of the temple in Jerusalem. My father’s ancestors trace back to the tribe of

Levi, who assisted the priests of the temple in Jerusalem. My ancestors were the

first refugees. They have stood up to injustice and abuse throughout history. They

honored the Old Testament and feared no evil, even as they walked through the

valley of the shadow of death.

My own father raised me in an abusive environment. I endured years of

physical, mental, sexual, and spiritual abuse growing up. From that pain I found my

truth. I learned the law. I decided I was not a victim, I was a warrior. I became a

warrior for other victims. I refuse to accept the idea you cannot win when you are

right. This is a biblical, spiritual journey for me. I have faith I will be protected

because I am acting so clearly within the law and this Honorable Court is not.

I am happily married for 16 years with four beautiful children. We live in a

kosher home and celebrate the Jewish traditions. I truly believe my work has come

this far because of my faith in Gd, my integrity, and my resolve to never again be a

victim. I do my work because I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the rule of

law. I believe the judges will see my fight is righteous. People should pay their

mortgages. Banks should follow the law. No one is above the law.

Over the years of doing this work, I’ve provided an inspiring workplace for

young lawyers and the rest of my team. I taught them to fight with integrity and
trust in, not fear of, the judicial system. We’ve worked tirelessly to prepare and file

well researched legal briefs. We’ve followed the rules of civil and appellate

procedure to the best of our abilities. All the while, trying to force banks to give our

clients meaningful settlements. Most clients were offered untenable modifications

or a consent judgment for every penny, with a nominal amount of cash for keys.

They act like there is no risk of litigation. They’ve been right for too long.

In the beginning, it was a lot easier to help people. It was a target rich

environment because all the banks were engaged in fraud. All it took was a good

judge to start asking questions and we could resolve the case. It was like my days

as a prosecutor. A good defense lawyer would show me a serious trial issue and we

would cut a real deal to get the case resolved. That was how our adversarial system

of justice worked. Everyone left something on the table and a deal happened.

Over the past decade, I’ve watched that process shift, like a monolithic glacier,

pushing everyone into foreclosure. The modifications slowed, and then worsened

as HAMP expired. Even if a lender was willing to refinance, the Banks refused to

accept short payoffs. I can’t tell you how many good and decent people just wanted

a reasonable payment on a reasonable mortgage. The dirty secret is that Banks make

more money when they foreclose.

I became a student of this crisis. I travelled the country learning about any

strategy to help. I left my wife with our four young children for too many nights
while I stayed up late working to save the next home. I’ve done countless trials and

appeals. I became a very spiritual person, at peace with the idea that I can only

present my case. It was out of my hands whether the judge was fair and impartial.

Then I came to realize many judges felt powerless to challenge the monopoly.

It’s become clear to me that the “powers that be” support this fraudulent

foreclosure system that took so long to put in place. If only the Courts enforced the

2001 amendments to Article 9 and forced Banks to bring their contracts to prove

their purchase of the debt to prove standing. There would be no MERS sham

complaints, no false lost note counts, no robo-signing, no perjury, no defiance of

court orders, no destruction of evidence, no training witnesses to lie, and on and on.

This foreclosure crisis was such an interesting phenomenon. Courts kept covering

up for Banks that were intentionally doing it wrong. Training witnesses to lie,

defying and misleading the court, presenting false evidence should mean you lose

your right to a judgment in any litigation.

Banks have all the resources to do it right but made business decisions to do

it fraudulently. It’s as if they knew the Courts would always let them get away with

it. Some out of fear as elected officials. Some out of indifference. Some out of

belief that banks and bad corporate citizens got them to their position and they are

on that team. The banks should always win. I call those judges traitors to the

constitution. They hold position of trust to protect us from bad corporate citizens.
 I eventually understood the depth of Wall Street misconduct in selling trillions

of dollars worth of mortgaged backed securities without backing those securities

with those mortgages. To cover up their securities fraud, they engaged in fraudulent

foreclosures. I had the good faith belief that I could make a difference. I could get

the right judges on the panel. I could make the right argument. I could find the right

scripture or the patriotic quote to instill something. I could move judges to see the

inherent unfairness of it all.

These banks have so much and keep taking more. They don’t care if you are

rich or poor, white or black. They certainly destroyed generational wealth for many

communities of color. It is easy to win when the game is rigged. I have a deep,

visceral problem with that concept. The constitution does not allow the game to be

rigged. There is no rational basis for Appellate Court judges to ignore appellate law.

In the decade that I’ve fought on the trenches of foreclosure court, I’ve been

blessed to help so many clients save their homes. Yet, I’ve had to warn them this

broken system is riddled with fraud and perjury. The judges decide the rule of law,

and whether any rule of law exists. Maybe the rule of law only applies to the rest of

us. Has everyone accepted the idea that the world would be such a disaster without

Bank of America and bad corporate citizens? Look outside the coastline of Naples

to see what that disaster brings.

I submit our world is a disaster because of bad corporate citizens like Bank of
America. Monopolies that pollute our democracy with their unlimited money. Just

like all the birds, manatees, dolphins, sea turtles, and fish dying from Big Sugar’s

pollution that feeds the red tide along hundreds of miles of Florida Coastline,

including Naples. The rising white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism and

xenophobia. A generation left with almost nothing for retirement and the next

generation enslaved with massive, non-dischargeable student loan debt. People

relying on GoFundMe campaigns to pay for healthcare and education. This is the

monopoly. This Court is sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United

States of America, not the foreclosure fraud of Bank of America or HSBC.

We considered spending nearly $100 million to throw a military parade like

they do in Russia and China while our veterans are homeless. We cut $1.5 trillion

in taxes for the monopoly and then froze the salaries of all federal employees because

we couldn’t afford a 2.1% cost of living increase. Why would anyone sworn to

protect and defend the constitution stay silent while domestic enemies destroy our

democracy from within? Is this really the world Americans should live in where

those in power do not do what is right?

I’ve spent my time in prayer. I believe what I am doing is right. I believe this

Court should call balls and strikes. This Court should consider my arguments and if

they are correct, they should say so. If other District Courts disagree with this Court,

they should say so. If so, the Supreme Court should weigh in. That’s the system I
learned about in law school.

I never saw the memo saying that rule of law applies to everyone but banks in

foreclosures. I was a delegate for Senator Bernie Sanders at the 2016 Democratic

National Convention because he was the first to say out loud that banks were

committing fraud on the American people. They sold mortgage backed securities as

AAA rated, knowing the mortgages were garbage. Worse, the securities were not

even backed up by the mortgages. Yet, Bank of America went from $1.2 Trillion in

assets to $2.2 Trillion since 2005. After getting caught in the robo-signing scandal,

Bank of America helped less that 24,000 families out of the millions of underwater

mortgages. It’s a disgrace that no executives went to jail for any of it.

I sued the Florida Democratic Party when it cheated to elect a billionaire as

the State Party Chair in 2017. I later apologized to that billionaire after I realized he

was actually fighting the lobbyists and consultants undermining our democracy. I

have taken my foreclosure fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, twice. When

this is over, I am going to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020. I

believe my fight is just and that is why I refuse to stand down. I’m fighting the

modern-day monopoly. I am calling all the patriots who swore the oath to protect

and defend the Constitution to join me. Any Court that protects the monopoly over

the rule of law is a traitor to the constitution and should be tried for treason.

My ethical obligation is to tell the Court all the reasons the law does not permit
this foreclosure. I do it respectfully and professionally. It’s all I can do. I do it so

my children can grow up in the country I swore an oath to protect. I see all the

protests and rage and it reminds me of President John F. Kennedy. “Those who

make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” If we

let these banks destroy all hope, it will destroy the fabric that holds this country

together. I am doing my part in the only way I know how. Fighting for the rule of

law in foreclosures is fighting to make sure regular people have a reason for hope

and to believe.

This has been a difficult position to be in with this Court for the last few years.

It has instilled a sense of urgency. I fear we have already lost our government to the

monopoly. This modern-day monarchy pollutes our diet and our natural resources

with sugar. HSBC and Bank of America are the kings of that monopoly. I refuse to

lay down the American flag at the feet of the Bank of America or any bank. I will

not surrender. I will fight.

I swore and oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

of America and the Florida Constitution. I have faith that judges will realize their

critical importance at this moment in history. The monopolies want us all to believe

there is no rule of law. It’s better for them to just win. Gd forbid anyone gets a free

house. Yet, the Maine Supreme Court has upheld the concepts of res judicata,

collateral estoppel and statute of limitations. There are lots of free houses in Maine
as a result. Yet, the state of Maine did not implode. The system worked. Banks got

the same treatment under the law the rest of us. This is how it’s supposed to work.

Somewhere we lost our way as Americans. As we watch our country descend

into the final battle for democracy, the monopoly has spent decades driving towards

an Article 5 Constitutional Convention. One more statehouse and they will rewrite

the U.S. Constitution. The end result will be a country more like Russia or North

Korea with a ruling class that can act with brutal oppression against the rest of us. I

swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution. Too many died to win World

War I and World War II to let traitors and domestic enemies surrender our flag to

the modern-day monarchy. It lets Vladimir Putin win World War III without firing

a shot. This Court should not be on the wrong side of history.

“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” is etched across the front of the U.S.

Supreme Court. The latin phrase “Sat Cito Si Recte” found on the seal of the Florida

Supreme Court Seal and the Florida District Courts of Appeal means, “soon enough

if done correctly.” This foreclosure is not done correctly. There is no integrity to

this process if a Plaintiff presents fraudulent evidence at trial and the defense lawyer

is threatened with contempt and jail. The Florida Supreme Court instructs “a large

word like justice… compels an appellate court to concern itself not alone with a

particular result but also with the very integrity of the judicial process.” Special v.

W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251, 1257 (Fla. 2014).

 Due Process protects against the arbitrary deprivation of property and reflects

the value our constitutional and political history places on the right to enjoy

prosperity, free of governmental interference. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-1,

92 S.Ct. 1983, 1996 (1972). Under the Magna Carta, the Due Process Clause limits

the powers of all branches of government, including the judiciary. Truax v.

Corrigan, 257, U.S. 312, 333, (1921). Chief Justice Taft wrote:

“Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental

principle of equality of application of the law. ‘All men are equal before
the law,’ ‘This is a government of laws and not of men,’ ‘No man is
above the law,’ are all maxims showing the spirit in which Legislatures,
executives and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws.” Id.
The guaranty of due process “was aimed at undue favor and individual
or class privilege….” Id.

“Whether acting through its judiciary or through its legislature, a State may not

deprive a person of all existing remedies for the enforcement of a right, which the

State has no power to destroy, unless there is, or was, afforded to him some real

opportunity to protect it.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Sav. Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673,

50 S. Ct. 451, 74 L. Ed. 1107 (1930). at 681-682, 50 S. Ct., at 454-455. There is no

basis to take Aquasol’s property when HSBC is engaged in systemic unclean hands

that affects so many homeowners in Florida.

The basis for the judicial power, which is referenced in Article V, Section 1

of the Florida Constitution, is found in Federalist Number 78, written by Alexander

Hamilton as Publius. The Federalist Society warns that:

 The Constitution’s promise of due process of law is, among other
things, a promise of impartial adjudication in the courts—a promise that
people challenging assertions of government power will have access to
a neutral tribunal that is not only free from actual bias but free even
from the appearance of bias. To the extent that private citizens cannot
reasonably be confident that they will receive justice through litigation,
they will be tempted to seek extra-legal recourse.

Almost two centuries ago, the U.S. Supreme Court pronounced: "equitable powers

can never be exerted in behalf of one who has acted fraudulently, or who, by deceit

or any unfair means, has gained an advantage." Bein v. Heath, 47 U.S. 228, 6 How.

228, 1848 WL 6464 (U.S.La.), 12 L.Ed. 416 (1848)(emphasis added). This Court

“has consistently held that the giving of perjured testimony obstructs the proper

administration of justice and, thus, is subject to a criminal contempt proceeding.”

Sauls v. State, 354 So. 2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978).

No party “has a right to trifle with the courts.” Ramey v. Haverty Furniture

Companies, Inc., 993 So. 2d 1014, 1018 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008). The Ramey Court

cited this Court’s holding by Justice Black that:

[T]ampering with the administration of justice in the manner

indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single
litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and
safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently
be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Id. at 1020-21,
citing, Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238,
246, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250 (1944), receded from on other
grounds by Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97
S.Ct. 31, 50 L. Ed.2d 21 (1976).

It is axiomatic that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due
process.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876, 129 S. Ct. 2252,

2259, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1208 (2009). Because fraud on the courts pollutes the process

society relies on for dispute-resolution, subsequent courts reason that “a decision

produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes

final. Judgments … obtained by fraud or collusion are void, and confer no vested

title.” League v. De Young, 52 U.S. 185, 203, 13 L. Ed. 657 (1850). Due process

does not permit fraud on the court to deprive any person of life, liberty or property.

The U.S. Supreme Court noted that “as long ago as Mooney v. Holohan, 294

U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 342, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935), this Court made clear that

deliberate deception of a court … by the presentation of known false evidence is

incompatible with ‘rudimentary demands of justice’ … the same result obtains when

the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it

appears.’” Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766, 31 L. Ed.

2d 104 (1972). In Mooney, this Court held due process:

is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice

and hearing if a state has contrived a conviction through the pretense of
a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of
liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the
presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance …
is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the
obtaining of a like result by intimidation. And the action … may
constitute state action within the purview of the Fourteenth
Amendment. That amendment governs any action of a state, ‘whether
through its legislature, through its courts, or through its executive or
administrative officers… Upon the state courts, equally with the courts
of the Union, rests the obligation to guard and enforce every right
 secured by that Constitution. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 113,
55 S. Ct. 340, 342, 79 L. Ed. 791 (1935).
The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed that Judges need "to
avoid any appearance of vindictiveness if the defendant chooses to exercise certain

rights, such as his right to go to trial or to appeal." Pierce v. State, 873 So.2d 618
(Fla. 2d DCA 2004); quoting Wilson v. State, 845 So.2d 142, 151 (Fla. 2003); See,
State v. Warner, 762 So.2d 507, 513 (Fla. 2000); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S.
711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).

This Honorable Court has long ago created a reasonable fear that foreclosure
defendants are not on a level playing field. Yet, “It is axiomatic that the Due Process
Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in … civil … cases.
This requirement of neutrality … preserves both the appearance and reality of
fairness, … by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence
of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is
not predisposed to find against him. Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242
(1980).

“Due process guarantees the right to a neutral, detached judiciary in order “to
convey to the individual a feeling that the government has dealt with him fairly, as
well as to minimize the risk of mistaken deprivations of protected interests.” Carey
v. Piphus, 425 U.S. 247, 262 (1978); Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501 (1974).

It is axiomatic that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of

due process.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876, 129 S. Ct.
2252, 2259, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1208 (2009). Because fraud on the courts pollutes the
process society relies on for dispute-resolution, subsequent courts reason that “a
decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never
becomes final. Judgments … obtained by fraud or collusion are void, and confer no
vested title.” League v. De Young, 52 U.S. 185, 203, 13 L. Ed. 657 (1850). Due
process does not permit fraud on the court to deprive any person of life, liberty or
property. A biased court also violates constitutional due process guarantees by
tolerating that fraud.

This Honorable Court has a final chance to correct this egregious miscarriage
of justice. The power to sanction is powerful. Judges must give a detailed account
to support such sanctions to protect against the inherent risk that some might abuse
their power. The trial court should not be commended for threatening contempt and
refusing to grant a continuance to file a motion to disqualify him. This Court should
not ignore Florida Supreme Court precedent and the actual facts of the dispute to
reach a pre-determined result of blow the dogwhistle for judges to attack Aquasol’s
counsel with contempt and jail for doing his job.

We are about to enter the high holiday season for the Jewish people. It is a
period of deep reflection. We stand before Gd and ask forgiveness for our sins. We
pray that we are inscribed for a good year. We fast and atone for our sins. We
celebrate that we received the Torah and the Ten Commandments which form the
foundation of our rule of law and our democracy.

This Honorable Court should not destroy my firm, my reputation or my career

for refusing to stand up for my clients and vindicate the integrity of the judiciary. It
will not only hurt me and this defendant. It will hurt the families of my employees
and the families I defend from being homeless. It will hurt the integrity of the
Judiciary. It will denigrate the public’s faith in the rule of law and the judiciary’s
ability to render meaningful justice against the modern-day monarchy.

There is integrity in the work that I do. There is a spirituality to it. This Court
decided to protect and defend the monopoly rather than fight against it. It should
not abuse the Court’s powers to destroy an adversary of the monopoly. The 58th and
82nd Psalms speak clearly about the dangers of such an abuse of judicial power. This
is no way to end an otherwise distinguished legal career.

The Honorable Judge Sheppard instructs that a case is of exceptional

importance to be considered en banc if the result “may reasonably and negatively
influence the public's perception of the judiciary's ability to render meaningful
justice.” University of Miami v. Wilson, 948 So.2d 774, 791 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006).
As set forth above, this Honorable Court’s ruling conflicts with decisions of the
Florida Supreme Court, this Honorable Court, and other District Courts of Appeal.

Counsel for Appellant expresses a belief, based on reasoned and studied

professional judgment, that the panel decision is contrary to the decisions of this
Honorable Court and would negatively impact the public’s perception of this
Honorable Court’s ability to render meaningful justice. A consideration by the full
court is necessary to maintain uniformity of decisions in this court and protect the
integrity of the public’s perception. These points of law raised are so well settled in
Florida. The law favors the Appellant, not the Appellee.

WHEREFORE, Appellants request this Honorable Court grant rehearing, or

rehearing En Banc, and any further relief deemed mete and just.
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
emailed service@delucalawgroup.com; staylor@delucalawgroup.com to Shawn
Taylor, DeLuca Law Group, 1700 NW 64th St Ste 550, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-
1846 this 30th day of August, 2018.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the type style utilized in this brief is fourteen (14)
point Times New Roman proportionally spaced.
/s/ Bruce Jacobs
Bruce Jacobs

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY FLA. R. APP. P. 9.331

I express a belief, based on a reasoned and studied professional judgment, that

the case or issue is of exceptional importance as it “may reasonably and negatively
influence the public's perception of the judiciary's ability to render meaningful
justice.”

/s/ Bruce Jacobs

Bruce Jacobs