What Do Gloria Allred & A Florida Judge Busted In A Prostitution Sting Have In Common?
What do attorney Gloria Allred and a Florida judge who was busted in a prostitution sting in 2018 have in common? They both have apparently put a victim of rape in a very dangerous position.
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
I’ve been telling you the story of Deanna Williams, a single mother with multiple sclerosis who was the victim of rape in 2009. Without going into all the details in this piece, I will simply post links to the previous articles on what has been an ongoing case in which she has lost virtually everything after settling with the man she accused in 2012.
- Florida: Buying & Selling for Profit The Right to Sue a Rape Victim – The Deanna Williams Story
- Judge Tossed Right To Sue Rape Victim – Florida Attorneys Still Pursue Her, Threaten Arrest
- Rape Victim Pursued By Attorney, Who Bought Right To Sue Her, Threatened With Arrest Within 24 Hours – Here’s Why
- Rape Victim Claims Gloria Allred Failed To Honor Agreement – Now She Faces Threats Of Arrest & Judgments Of Over $1 Million
- Why Did The Florida Judicial System Render A Final Judgment Against A Rape Victim Without Giving Her Time To Defend Herself?
For more on Williams’ allegations, along with the text of the agreement between Allred and Williams in a retainer agreement, please see “Rape Victim Claims Gloria Allred Failed To Honor Agreement – Now She Faces Threats Of Arrest & Judgments Of Over $1 Million.”
That will present the information of the situation that Williams is involved in currently where she is no longer under threat of arrest, but is actively being pursued by the Lee County Sheriff’s Office due to something that the judge earlier in the case presided over.
That judge was Judge Jay B. Rosman. Rosman became part of the case in mid to late 2015. Less than a year later, he would have an order of his overturned as those pursuing Ms. Williams for what is now over $1 million were found to be without any evidence to preserve her assets, and the trial court had made several legal errors in its order to do so.
As I pointed out previously, Florida Second District Court of Appeals Judge Edward C. LaRose ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had no standing and that there was no evidence provided to substantiate their claims against Ms. Williams.
Appellees did not file a charging lien in the personal injury lawsuit.3 Instead, they instituted a new action against appellants. Pursuing a quantum meruit theory of recovery, they claim entitlement to some portion of the settlement proceeds for their efforts on Ms. Williams’ behalf. To forestall the further disbursement of settlement funds held by the Heller law firm, appellees filed a motion to preserve assets. They submitted no verified pleadings or affidavits in support of the motion. The trial court referred the motion to a magistrate who heard argument on the motion. No party presented evidence. Appellees feared that, absent a freeze of the funds, they might be unable to secure any meaningful relief if they succeeded on their quantum meruit claim. Appellees argued that appellants had a duty to disgorge any fees and to return any disbursed funds because they had been on notice of a charging lien. Appellants noted that appellees never filed a charging lien. Appellants also maintained that appellees were asking for the entry of a temporary injunction without an evidentiary hearing or bond.
The magistrate recommended that the trial court grant the motion to preserve assets, finding that:
Any assets presently in the custody of Law Offices of Jonathan A. Heller, P.A., derived from, or related to, their representation of Deanna Williams should be frozen, withheld and not distributed or spent. An order protecting the assets is designed not to allow wasting of assets nor permit harm to any party. The final determination of whether or not the frozen funds should be released should be made after the trial of the cause.
The trial court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation and entered the order now before us.
Though Judge LaRose acknowledged the plaintiffs pursuing Ms. Williams did seek relief, he clearly points out above that they provided zero evidence for why that relief should be granted.
Then, Judge LaRose wrote a reversal of the order citing utterly embarrassing actions of Judge Rosman’s court.
“Neither the order nor the magistrate’s report and recommendation recite sufficient factual findings to show us that appellees satisfied each element needed for entry of a temporary injunction,” the judge stated. “On this basis, alone, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Randolph, 903 So.2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). It appears to us that there were disputed issues of fact between the parties. Yet, to our knowledge, neither the magistrate nor the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Thus, substantial, competent evidence was not provided to establish entitlement to a temporary injunction.”
“We must also note that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) requires that a bond be set for the issuance of a temporary injunction,” the judge added. “The trial court did not require a bond. This, too, was error. Because the trial court committed legal error in granting the motion to preserve assets, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Now, this really should have made things come to a halt. In fact, they should have come to a halt before it began. According to documents in the case, which the public can view at LeeClerk.org, which the plaintiffs in the case filed well over a year after Ms. Williams reached a settlement with attorney Allred, they admit that they never filed any charged attorney liens.
The plaintiffs in the case claim that they served notices of charging liens for attorneys’ fees and costs related to Ms. Williams civil rape case, but they admit, “These notices were not filed with the Court.”
Understand, that plaintiffs did have communication with Williams’ attorneys regarding fees, but they never filed those liens with the court and that is an admission they made in the court record that was filed on 11/19/2013.
With that said, Judge Rosman enters the picture in 2015, just about a year before Judge LaRose’s ruling. It’s clear from reports that Judge Rosman was engaging in unlawful activity with prostitutes and yet, presiding over many cases, including this case, which was the result of a sex crime. Does anyone think this is a conflict of interest?
News-Press.com reported in February 2018:
Rosman and five other men were arrested Friday following a Naples Police Department prostitution operation.
Rosman pleaded not guilty, waived his arraignment and asked for a jury trial.
Chief Judge Michael T. McHugh will preside over Rosman’s docket, Miles said.
Rosman, 64, is also accused of resisting arrest.
Naples police say Rosman allegedly made contact with an undercover officer via phone and arranged to meet at a hotel. He agreed to pay $300 for a sexual act but instead was placed under arrest. He began to resist but officers were able to gain control and handcuffed Rosman.
In March 2018, it was reported that he agreed to deferred prosecution in the charges against him in the prostitution ring sting. What happened to Rosman? He didn’t even get a slap on the wrist, more like a tickle and a wink.
Rosman agreed to the following program:
– six months supervision with early termination when all conditions are met
– pay $1,000 fine with half going to the drug court program and that other half to a DCF trust fund
– pay $50 for cost of prosecution
– attend an AIDs workshop/STD screening
– complete the ‘More to Life Restorative Justice Program’ about the negative effects of prostitution/human trafficking
This came just months after he used the court overseeing the interception of $200,000 of Ms. Williams money by her attorney and then only giving Ms. Williams 50% of it back while giving the other $100,000 to the man Judge Rosman allowed to be substituted in place of plaintiff Michael Dolce, Scott Mager. Though the substitution of Mager Paruas cited Florida Law (Schmidt v Mueller), as best I can tell, that case cited involved a man who had an interest in a case and because he started his own company, he merely substituted the company, which was his, for his name as a plaintiff. Mager of Mager and Paruas was never a part of the original rape case. So, how he or Mager Paruas had any interest in this ongoing lawsuit is beyond me. The only connection was Dolce and Dolce didn’t begin working for Mager Paruas until after this case had begun.
Calls to Mager Paruas for comment have gone unreturned, something that Ms. Williams also faced as a court deadline approached last month.
Other cases were put under scrutiny immediately following Judge Rosman’s arrest. Keep in mind, this judge has been on the bench for three decades!
I ask you, why is there no scrutiny in this case of every single one of Judge Rosman’s rulings that has deprived Ms. Williams of time, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention she is now being sought for arrest? Again, where is Governor Ron DeSantis? Where is Attorney General Ashley Moody? Where is the Florida Bar besides simply assigning a Bar investigator to Ms. Williams for a complaint?
Williams is in physical danger due to complication she had with a pregnancy and the stress has only piled onto that, and she can find no attorney to help her without a huge retainer, which she would gladly pay if her money had not been taken from her.
This brings us right back to Ms. Allred. As I pointed out, The Washington Standard reached out to Ms. Allred for comment. Though we have the text of her retainer agreement that agrees to pay all previous attorney fees, which would have resulted in this years-long case even beginning, they apparently weren’t, and now Ms. Williams has been judged, wrongly I might add, for over $1 million to the plaintiffs under another Flordia judge. Ms. Allred has written to The Washington Standard to state nothing more than, “Any legal problems that Ms. Williams faces has nothing to do with our representation of her and there is no factual basis for the assertions set forth in your email.”
Read for yourself the retainer agreement and the history here and you see if you don’t think it has everything to do with all the legal problems that Ms. Williams faces today.
Ms. Williams is in need of medical care, but cannot seek it. She has no money. She is in need of an attorney to represent her, but a good attorney in a civil matter like this requires a $15,000 retainer fee, which she does not possess. If you read my first report, you will see that Ms. Williams had criminal actions against her by one of her attorneys who also failed to represent her which resulted in a judgment against her and negligence or purposed fraud committed against her by another attorney she acquired.
When is someone going to step forward, put the brakes on all of this and settle this matter fairly and justly in the light of day with proper representation for Ms. Williams? Furthermore, when will someone come forward from the Florida Bar and actually begin the investigation into the allegations of malpractice, fraud and theft in the matter?
We can’t make America great again if we don’t stand up for the weak against injustice. Who knows when you will need someone to stand up for you!
You can contact Governor DeSantis on behalf of Ms. Williams below:
Executive Office of Governor Ron DeSantis
400 S Monroe St
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Additionally, you can contact Attorney General Ashley Moody on behalf of Ms. Williams below:
Office of Attorney General
State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Finally, it may even help to contact the Florida Bar on Ms. Williams’ behalf to see if they will begin to investigate ethics violations, negligence and corruption that appears to have taken place with regards to Ms. Williams’ representation, legal agreements and rulings by judges in the cases.
The Florida Bar contact information:
The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300