the_worm06: Mr. Robert H. Cooper - "The Unethical Attorney"

Friday, June 23, 2006

Mr. Robert H. Cooper - "The Unethical Attorney"

.
.
The following is a small example of the unbelievable unethical behavior exhibited by Miami Attorney Robert H. Cooper in the UCSY v. Dembovich, Villasenor lawsuit:

https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dc2Oe

Part I in a series

_________________________________________

1 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Hi Worm, I left the following complements under another posting, but somehow I think they might be appropriate here. Hope you don't mind the double post, but if you do then go ahead and delete the one on the post where you announced your victory.

I've been reading some documents in UCSY v. Lycos (Case 1:05-cv-11172-REK in the District Court of Massachusettes). There is one document in particular that sheds some light on the lawsuit you just won. Anyone interested should go to PACER and download the Memorandum In Support Of Defendant Lycos' Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiffs and Attorney John Faro. (Document 91-1) I am quoting from pages 3 - 4 of that document:

There is more. In another case filed by the Plaintiffs, Florida Circuit Court Judge Marc Schumacher excoriated Plaintiffs and their attorneys--including Attorney Faro--after the judge discovered that Plaintiffs' attorneys had tried to obtain an injunction against Lycos by trickery. Stymied by their inability to obtain an injunction in several lawsuits pending directly against Lycos, on December 28, 2004, Plaintiffs filed suit in Florida state court--not against Lycos--but against "John Doe" defendants who had allegedly made defamatory postings about the Plaintiffs on the Lycos Raging Bull message board. See Universal Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. Pedro Dembovich, Roberto Villasenor AKA worm_06, scri852, worm_06A, no_insiders, quondo1, 65175RBlacksheep9110, ovenjanegra(), Blacksheepdip, doggonebad911, pinherring, ovanegra(), busholini, sivesterca, and wolfblitzzer(), Case No. 04-27383CA01 (11th Jud. Cir. Fla. 2004)(Schumacher, J.)

Predictably, the "John Doe" defendants defaulted. At a hearing on March 7, 2005, the Plaintiffs presented Florida Circuit Court Judge Marc Schumacher with an ex parte motion to enter an injunction by default against the "John Doe" defendants. After Judge Schumacher agreed to enter the injunction, he asked Plaintiffs' Counsel to submit a proposed form of order for him to sign. Deceitfully, Plaintiff's Counsel drafted and submitted (ex parte) an order for the Judge's signature that permanently enjoined the John Doe defendants and all Internet providers from publishing statements about the Plaintiffs. Se id. (Hearing Tr. of May 11, 2005, Ex. B hereto.) The injunction, as worded, required Lycos to constantly police its website and investigate the identities of any posters submitting commentary about Plaintiffs or otherwise be in contempt.

As a result of Plaintiff's bait and switch tactics, the Judge mistakenly signed a permanent injunction which far exceeded the scope of his prior ruling. Judge Schumacher soon discovered he had been duped. The transcript of Judge Schumacher's lecture to the Plaintiffs' counsel at a hearing on May 11, 2005 speaks for itself:

"I never made any findings or rulings concerning a portion of this order as it relates at the bottom of page 2; and it was never brought to my attention, and for that, I think Mr. Cooper, you were here at the time.

I never intended to enter an order and I'll tell you right now with the words, 'anyone or any entity . . .' I mean that was never the court's intention and I can tell you when an order is given to the court ex parte after notice, you have an obligation really to just track what the court did, not put words in the court's mouth especially that it is published in an order.

I can tell you that had this been brought to my attention, and its my fault for signing it, and I'll tell you I shouldn't have signed it; but it's also incumbent on counsel to let the court know if, in fact, anything that's going to be contained in an order goes beyond the issue that was placed before the court that the Court ruled upon on that day."

(Ex. B, hereto.); 4:56 PM