Jason Mercier's Fraud Upon The Court

Background

In 2015 I played OFC against Natasha on the Pineapple App. I beat her for around $23k and several times she gave excuses for her non-payment. We meet in person for the first time in January 2016 for the Pokerstars Caribean Adventure and she said she wanted to play live before settling and so we did. We played Badugi top Deuce middle Pineapple with spades multipliers, none of which I had ever played before, I lost the majority of my winnings. Natasha told Robert Mizrachi that I was using a bot for my online play due to my slow live play and bad handling of cards. Natasha and I kept playing OFC, but only live where I beat her for decent amounts. In 2017 this happens https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/jason-mercier-spreads-unfounded-cheating-accusations-1655081/ where no evidence of cheating was ever presented.

 

Fast forward to 2020, Jaclynn Moskow tells me, via a whatsapp recording, of an incident in 2019 where Jason Mercier referred to me as a known cheater (whether my name was said or not a clear reference was made to me by Mercier). Jaclynn Moskow told me she had a conversation with Zachary Goodman, and as she recalls in 2019 Jason Mercier said to Zachary Goodman in front of other poker players “I don't know if Jaclynn was cheating.  I just know she associates with a known cheater, Fernando.” This recording was served as a production of documents to the Merciers on March 2, 2022. Jaclynn admitted she was not sure whether my name was said or not but that undoubtedly whether Jason said my name or not he was referring to me. Zachary Goodman initially agreed to cooperate with me but later changed his mind as he feared repercussions from Jason Mercier’s mobster acquaintances.  After doing my own investigations I found out Jason Mercier had accused Shaun Deeb, who is one of Jason’s closest friends in poker and one of the best OFC players in the world, of cheating in OFC Poker! This was astonishing to me. Not only did Jason Mercier accused Shaun Deeb of cheating and caused him damage (Deeb was not getting paid a debt by Melissa Burr due to the accusation) but Jason concealed it from Deeb for a long time. From the video it seems like Deeb eventually found out about the accusation via Melissa Burr and thereafter confronted Jason who, after getting caught of his wrongdoing by his friend, quickly apologized and their friendship continued. Watch 20 seconds of the video below starting from minute 5:57

After being informed about the Goodman incident, Deeb incident and other information, I was extremely confident I had been lied  in several representations by both Jason Mercier and Natasha Mercier in 2017. These misrepresentations are the following:

  • (1) The Merciers via Natasha assured me in 2017 that they would stop talking about me to others as a way to have some sort of resolution.
  • (2) The Merciers publicly and personally misrepresented that they were not actively speaking about me, only did so when others specifically asked them about me, and that they had no intention of causing me any harm but only intended to protect their friends from a potential scam.
  • (3) Natasha misrepresented that they  never explicitly said the word cheating to third parties when personally speaking about and that they only would tell others that they thought or strongly suspected I was using a bot. Natasha misrepresented that they  never explicitly never said cheating to third parties in person and only started using that word after I titled the first thread with “cheating accusations”. Obviously these have similar connotations in poker, but the Merciers said to show that they were not using the horrible word cheating as that was a much greater negative connotation and impact than a strong belief or suspicion of a bot.

Jason Mercier's Attorney's  (Jason N. Goldman) History of Blatantly Lying to Both Trial and Appellate Courts

In Briarwood Capital v. Lennar Corp., 125 So. 3d 291 (Fla:3rd 2013) the court sanctioned Keith T. Grumer Jason N. Goldman stated:

  • The Marsch attorneys engaged in the same legerdemain before the trial court... This patently false assertion by Marsch counsel is antithetical to the ethical obligation lawyers with the privilege to pass before the bar to address a court have to the judges before whom they appear. Marsch counsel might as well have cast a dagger into the heart of the rule of law. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(1) ("A lawyer shall not knowingly ... make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal....").

In that case the attorneys Goldman and Grumer astonishingly misrepresented to both the trial and appellate court what was stated the judgment.. It is of utmost importance to keep in mind the history and dishonest tactics of Goldman as these are extrenely relevant to what happened in my lawsuit versus the Merciers.

Snippet of Jason Mercier's & Natasha Mercier's Scammy, Cheating & Dishonest History

The litigation brought to light revealing information about both of the Merciers, which unfortunately was not used in the litigation as they did not get deposed due to their attorney’s bad faith litigation tactics. 

  1. Robert Mizrachi, who knows Natasha much better than I do, told me "Natasha is a snake". He has many reasons for this and one of them being that when she lost around $25k to him in OFC she did her common practice of making a greatly reduced offer to settle the debt. Since Natasha was known have unpaid debts, Robert had to accept the $15k she offered as not taking that would put him at a great risk of not getting paid. Natasha has scammed and cheated others the same way he did to Robert.
  2. Had I not lost in live OFC when Natasha requested me to play before settling, I strongly doubt Natasha would have ever paid me the $23k she owed me for months. We first agreed to settle every 6k and when I reached that amount she reneged on the agreement and said she was out of the country and would settle upon her return. Once she returned the debt was over 10k and she once again reneged and said she would settle at the PCA in Bahamas. Once we met in Bahamas she declined to settle and wanted to play live first. Playing a variant I had never played she won around 18k and then tried to get a discount (as she has  done with other players) on the remaining balance left. I refused her proposal and the relatively small balance was paid.
  3. There is a preserved video of a Miami poker player telling a story about Natasha cheating in online poker. This video was preserved in 2020 by the House of Kings (the owners think I’m probably a cheater and were uncooperative) poker room in Texas. This video is only under their control and possession, but I am certain that at the very least it existed as one of the workers confirmed to me that the video was saved in a USB drive, which I paid for. I attempted to contact this player in order to get more information on his stories, but since he knew I was involved in a lawsuit he never replied to any of my communications. Therefore, I only know that there is a video of him saying a story where he witnessed Natasha cheating online and I do now know more. Knowing everything I know about Natasha it would not surprise me if it’s true.
  4. Natasha's known scamming tactics. Although this third fact was already known it is important to not forget it as it reveals the modus operandi Natasha had to scam/cheat others.

Jason Mercier

  1. As evidenced by the first Youtube video, Jason Mercier does not care at all for making obviously false and “emotional” accusations of cheating to close friends much less would he care with someone who is not close.
  2. Since 2016 or before Jason Mercier knew about Natasha’s past incident with Kuhns89 and Natasha falsely accusing him of cheating. During the course of the litigation, Kuhns89 confirmed to me that Jason apologized to him for the situation that happened with Natasha (the false accusation of cheating) and that Jason said he knew Kuhns89 was not a cheater. Jason knowing the scamming modus opperandi of Natasha and his inclination to easily accuse others of cheating, still went out to publicly state that he was just trying to protect the poker community from a potential scam and that he only spoke when others directly asked him about me. 
  3. Jason Mercier in the past years (do not know if he still does) sells significant amounts of bitcoin (from what I was told 5-6 digits) at a markup for profit. One player commented to me that they had agreed to a transaction via an intermediary and Jason Mercier sent less BTC because Jason inexplicably almost doubled the markup.
  4. In my Request for Admissions (R. 671) to Jason Mercier, where he must legally admit, deny, state he cannot deny or admit due to insufficient information, or object, he was requested to admit or deny the following "You have communicated to at least one third party about Plaintiff's OFC play". Instead of admitting or denying he objected and in the end stated:"I DO NOT RECALL ANY COMMUNICATION WHERE I REFERRED  TO ROSAS AS A CHEATER AND DO NOT BELIEVE I EVER DID"  I ask Jason, after all this litigation you still do not recall what happened in 2019 with what you said to Zach Goodman and the rest of the poker players who were sitting at the table or what you said the years before?
  5. Jason Mercier was sued in 2014 by11Media Group LLC, a company that represents poker players, for breach of contract and non-payment of a 15% commission Jason Mercier agreed to pay. 11Media Group LLC alleged that Jason Mercier owed $46,218 .The court had to compel Jason Mercier to produce the main document of that litigation as he did not initially provide it in the request for production of documents. Jason Mercier made an offer of judgment on September 18, 2015 and the case ultimately ended on March 31, 2016 as it seems the parties finally reached an agreed settlement.

  These facts come to show, once again, thatJason Mercier has no honor and is someone who can easily lie to the court or anyone for that matter. falsely accuse others of cheating, and not pay agreed amounts even if in writing and legally binding.

Commencement of the lawsuit

For starters you may find the record on appeal, the briefs, and the motion for rehearing pending in the appellate court here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/158tA6482sTJDE0SbvGck2RiZ4E-_kRqn?usp=sharing

The order is Appellant's Initial Brief - Appellees Answer Brief - Appellant's Reply Brief and then the motion.

On February 10 2020, after learning of the falsity of their representations, I filed a lawsuit against Jason Mercier and his wife Natasha Mercier for Slander (Oral Defamation), Tortious Interference with Business and Prospective Business Relationships, Fraudulent Misrepresentations, and Civil Conspiracy to Defame and to Fraudulently Misrepresent in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida located in Broward County . The Complaint was dismissed without prejudice and an Amended Complaint was filed. The Merciers, through their legal representatives Jason N. Goldman and Maidenly Macaluso filed a very similar Motion to Dismiss as well as a Motion to Strike as Sham.

This is One of the Most, if Not the MOST Egregious Slander Lawsuit Amongst All of Florida Case Law

There is no slander case in all of Florida's Appellate Case Law that has had as many separate and distinct causes of action as this lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that Jason Mercier slandered me with at least in 20 different  occasions and Natasha Mercier slandered me various times with many of the poker players she spoke about me. A reasonable estimation (only the Merciers know the exact severe magnitude and exactly how many times they slandered me) is that they slandered my a total of around 25-40 times and most of these incidents occurred with the recipient of the slander being well-known poker player.

False and Nonsense Arguments Filed in the Lower Court:Jason Mercier’s Motion to Strike All of the Amended Complaint as a Sham and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition:

The pleadings Goldman wrote for the Merciers speak for themselves.  The bad faith litigation tactics show through how illogical and simply perplexing the arguments are.

“The Amended Complaint must be stricken as a sham as it is based on inherently false, baseless and inconsistent allegations as:

  • (1) written and video evidence confirms Plaintiff concealed material facts and falsely represents to this Court that he was unaware of the Defendants’ purported “cheating accusations” before August 2020, as his supposed lack of awareness is contradicted in the record (including in the Amended Complaint) which shows Plaintiff had actual knowledge long before August 2020;
  • (2) written and video evidence confirms the purported defamation that Plaintiff accuses Defendants of is of Plaintiff’s own making as Plaintiff inexplicably chose to publicly broadcast the “cheating accusations” to the entire online poker playing community at his own peril, in a failed attempt to gain free publicity and profit off an association with Defendants.

In my memorandum in opposition to the motion to strike the fundamental points stated were

  • (1)Defendants argue that Plaintiff conceals material facts and falsely represents to the Court that he was unaware of the cheating accusations. Yet the Amended Complaint alleges that in 2016 Plaintiff knew Mr. Mercier had told Jon Turner that Plaintiff was using a bot and also alleged that Defendants’ misrepresentations were to hide their malicious intents and conceal the dissemination and explicit content of their slanderous statements made to dozens of poker
  • (2) A clear example of the blatant falsities and frivolous misconstruction of facts are evidenced by Defendants’ following statements: 
    • “the purported defamation that Plaintiff accuses Defendants of is of Plaintiff’s own making ...."

  • Yet Plaintiff’s first post states “As of now, one OFC player has confirmed to me that Jason told him directly that I was using a bot.” If it is exceedingly ludicrous and absurd to argue that Plaintiff made a public post about another professional colleague, who believes Plaintiff is a cheater, as a way to gain free publicity, it is even more ludicrous and absurd to argue that the defamation is of Plaintiff’s own making when Plaintiff, before making any online publication to try to clear his reputation, already had first hand confirmation that Mr. Mercier had published a false statement about him and Mr. Mercier confirmed Plaintiff’s suspicions that he was talking to others regarding Plaintiff’s OFC play!

Jason Goldman and His Paralegal Lie and Purposely Do Not give a Date for Jason Mercier’s Deposition; The Lower Court Does and Says Nothing When Reported of this Situation

See Pages 725-736 of the Record on Appeal. 

 

Two Hearings, One Biased Judge, and Many Lies and Misrepresentations Made to the Court by Jason Goldman

Fast forward to the hearing were it was apparent that Judge Keathan B. Frink had either not read or merely glimpsed at the memorandum in opposition as he was completely unaware of the arguments I made and mentioned to me that “We're here for fraud on the court, so this is an evidentiary hearing. You've got to present some evidence to refute -- to -- to create an issue here.” showing he was not at all cognizant of my arguments stating that it was the Defendants who were acting in bad faith by purposely misconstruing facts. To make matters worse, Judge Keathan B. Frink gave Defendants about 4 times as much time to present their side, explicitly disallowed me from making legal or logical arguments and only wanted to see evidence from me. A Motion for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc or for Issuance of a Written Opinion is pending in the 4th DCA and has a footnote stating:

  • A word count of the record shows that the trial judge, before stopping Rosas’ cross-examination and prejudging the main issue against him, had heard about 5045 words from all of the Merciers’ evidence (R.1691-1727) and 2201 words from all of the Merciers’ argument (R. 1738-1751) while Rosas had merely spoken 287 words from the beginning of his response (R. 1751-1753) to when the court stopped Rosas and asked him where he got the statement quoted in ¶59 of the Complaint from. Shortly after, the judge asked Rosas to testify. Rosas accepted the direct-examination of the court and cross-examinatino of the Merciers (R. 1754-1755). Before the judge stopped the cross-examination, Rosas had spoken a total of 233 words during both of the examinations (R. 1755-1759), which were not part of Rosas’ argument in response. Stated another way, before the judge made such an improper and conclusive statement, he heard about 25 words from the Merciers' full argument and evidence for every 1 word he heard from Rosas’ short-lived initial response.

The Defendants were able to fully present their side uninterrupted for over 7000 words and finally when it was my time to respond, the Judge quickly interrupted and pressured me to testify, which I considered it unfair as I had no chance to question the Merciers as only their representatives were present,. After I gave a brief testimony as to how I learned about the allegation in paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Jason N. Goldman began his cross-examination:

Q.   Can you read out loud the first sentence-and-a-half, the sentence that ends with the quote in paragraph 59?

A.   The last sentence of paragraph 59?

Q.   The -- the part that ends with the quote.So the beginning of the sentence -- the beginning of the section or the paragraph until the quote is over.

    A. I don't know if Jaclynn was cheating. I just know she associates with a known cheater, Fernando.

    Q. Okay. Who typed that up?

    A. I typed that up.

    Q. Did your finger slip when you put the comma and then the word Fernando there before the end of the quote?

    A. Nope.

    Q. Why didn't you just paraphrase? Why did you put it in quotes?

    A. Because that's what I believe happened. Q. That's what you believe happened; is that correct? You believe it?

    A. Yes. Q. Did you know it?

    A. I didn't know it with absolute knowledge. No.

    Q. Do you see --

    THE COURT: Okay. Let me stop. Let me stop. Let me stop. The days of filing complaints based on belief, you know, based on speculation, based on a whim of -- of possible evidence is done. You can't -- you have to file a complaint based on evidence that you can prove in a court of law. You don't file a complaint and then hope to obtain evidence, hope that the evidence is going to be out there. You hired an investigator, you know, to -- to try and prove it up and you couldn't even prove it up.

    MR. ROSAS: The investigator stated an instance where there was a defamatory statement via innuendo.

    THE COURT: That's not enough. That's not enough.

    MR. ROSAS: Well --

    THE COURT: Furthermore, the evidence the -- the allegations that you have is that Mercier said it's his opinion. An opinion is not defamation.

    MR. ROSAS: That's not the allegation, Your Honor. That's not the allegation.

    THE COURT: That's -- that's what you said time and time again.

     

    The judge completely misunderstood the Complaint and did not realize that what I stated in the 2017 videos relied on the misrepresentations made by the Merciers, which is consistent with the allegations. Worst yet, the judge prejudged the case against me in violation of my constitutional right to an impartial tribunal

     

    Similar cases explaining bias  and prejudging statements made by judges.

    • After affording both parties an opportunity to address the relevant issues and after both parties had presented arguments and evidence, the judge's negative comments made on the issues do not require disqualification. Eugene J. Strasser, M.D., P.A. v. Bose Yalamanchi, M.D., P.A., 783 So. 2d 1087, 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
    • A judge may form mental impressions and opinions during the course of presentation of evidence, as long as she does not prejudge the case. Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So.2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). 
    • For a trial court to strike a pleading as a sham the “falsity thereof [must] clearly and indisputably appear[ ].... [I]t must evidently be a mere pretense set up in bad faith and without color of fact. Bornstein v. Marcus, 169 So. 3d 1239, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

       

    The Merciers’ repeated argument at both of the trial and appellate court  that “Mr. Rafael Torres’ testimony further confirmed that paragraph 59 of the [Complaint] was fabricated” was incorrect and given in bad faith. Torres confirmed in his deposition that

    • “Goodman said yeah, I was talking to [Mr. Mercier] and he was referring about a cheater and he [Goodman] said it's not Jacqueline. [Mr. Mercier] never said it was Fernando, but you know, I [Goodman] kind of suspected it was. So that was what Mr. Goodman said.”(R. 1249). 

     

    Even If Mr. Mercier did not state Rosas’ name verbatim, Torres’ testimony supports the allegation in ¶59 of the Complaint.

    The defamed person need not be named in the defamatory words if the communication as a whole contains sufficient facts or references from which the injured person may be determined by the persons receiving the communication.” Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

    Investigative Report of Rafael Torres filed in Motion For Rehearing-Denied by Judge Frink

    Image of Text Message Between Zach Goodman and Jaclynn MoskowI Mentioned During my Testimony  

    Judge Keathan B. Frink Grants Merciers' Motion to Strike as Sham and Motion to Dismiss

    The judge stated in his ruling:

    • "The parties in this action are all members of an online poker community. In this case, Plaintiff claims he was harmed when Defendants allegedly called him a cheater, however the evidence shows he became his own worst enemy by using YouTube to publicize the alleged defamatory words and hiring an investigator who undermined his case."

    This is absolutely ludicrous and shows that the judge did not properly read the counts.

    • First, almost all counts for slander are alleged to have occurred BEFORE ANYTHING WAS PUBLISHED ONLINE.
    • Second, Count I is slander (oral defamation to third parties in person) and there is no count for libel (written defamation).
    • Third, the investigator did not undermine the case. To the contrary, he provided testimony and a report that supports the case.

    Moreover, the law is clear on the standards for a motion to strike as sham. This burden was not met.

    • For a trial court to justify the striking of a pleading for being sham or false it must be so undoubtedly false as not to be subject to a genuine issue of fact. For a trial court to strike a pleading as a sham the “falsity thereof [must] clearly and indisputably appear[ ].... [I]t must evidently be a mere pretense set up in bad faith and without color of fact. Bornstein v. Marcus, 169 So. 3d 1239, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
    • In reviewing a motion to strike a pleading as sham all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the pleading. A court should not strike a pleading based on factual inconstancies that are not irreconcilable or inexcusable. Furst v. Blackman, 819 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

    Before and after the trial court's orders, the judge denied various Motions to Disqualify based on the prejudging and other objective facts alleged. Three days after the hearing I filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition to Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals. Months later they declined to exercise their discretionary jurisdiction and ruled that they motions to disqualify may be reviewed on appeal. This is a crucial issue as the U.S. Supreme Court only grants review for Petitions of Writ of Certiorari to federal or constitutional issues. Moreover, the judge Frink, continuing to exercise illegal jurisdiction after having denied the legally sufficient motions, granted the Defendants their motion to entitlement to attorney’s fees. At the time Goldman estimated Defendant’s fees would be around $150k. This is a critical issue and violation of the constitutional rights.

     

    Portions of  the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

    "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

    "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

     

     Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 2 and 3

    Canon 2: A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.

    Canon 3: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.

    Some of the Critical Lies on the Main Issues Made by Jason Mercier's Attorney, Jason Goldman

    Goldman lied and misconstrued the facts ad nauseam (it evidently has worked wonders for him in his carreer) and made it seem as if the investigator found nothing and these misrepresentations are what the judge heard repeatedly before he prejudged the case without affording me a full opportunity to respond.  Three examples of the many lies and misconstructions said by Goldman are:

    • So there is zero evidence in the record to refute the fact this is a fraud suit. This is a sham lawsuit. There is nothing that took

      place in 2019 involving Mr. Rosas -- Mr. Rosas being implicated as a fraud or a known cheater, by Mr. Mercier, that could ever be used, however incorrectly from a legal standpoint, to revive this barred claim or create a new claim. (R. 1740)

    • Zack Goodman didn't say that in August 2019 Mr. Mercier implicated Mr. Rosas as a known cheater. In fact, he didn't say anything close to that. (R. 1739)

    • Now, the problem is, Judge, he's admitting that he has no personal knowledge, that any basis to form this lawsuit, and that when we actually, again, and we'll get to that in a minute, the investigator who actually did talk to Mr. Goodman, Mr. Goodman denies it. He didn't say that Mr. Mercier ever said this about Mr. Rosas in 2019 or ever. (R. 1743)

    You can read more false statements and misconstructions contained in the record:

    (R.1620; 1-11),

    (R.1625; 1- 5)

    (R. 1626; 17-23)

    (R.1744, 6-10)

    (R. 1745; 13-24)

    As the 3th DCA told Goldman before:

    • R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3(a)(1) ("A lawyer shall not knowingly ... make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal....")

    The Appeal: Panel of 3 Judges Perplexingly Issue a Per Curiam Affirm "PCA" Without a Written Opinion

    By speaking to many attorneys experienced on appeals, I realized that having an attorney represent me would be the better decision. Thus, I asked my family and friends to help me again to pay for the attorney as surely the appellate court would see how wrong the case had gone at the trial level. You may find all the briefs and motions filed here:

    The appellate court's panel of 3 judges,  comprised of Judge Melanie G. May, Judge Dorian K. Damoorgian and. Judge Alan O. Forst, denied oral argument and on December 3th, the panel lamentably issued a PCA. A PCA means that, in their judicial determination all the issued raised by the appellant are well-settled law and that the three judges of the appellate panel agree that there were no errors mandating any reversal in the lower court’s rulings.. Furthermore, a PCA makes it impossible for the Supreme Court of Florida to review as their discretionary jurisdiction only applies to DCA decisions with a written opinion or citation. Barring the miracle of the U.S. Supreme Court granting review (only granted 3% in 2022) a PCA is usually the end of a case. 

     

    Two Examples of Clear and Evident Errors Done by the Appellate Panel

    1) Affirming the order ruling to strike the Complaint as a Sham. The evidence does not show that the allegation in paragraph 59 is undoubtedly false and without any color of fact. The trial judge clearly abused his discretion.

     

    2) Affirming the order ruling to dismiss the Complaint. In order to grant a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint must conclusively negate any ability on the part of the plaintiff to allege facts in avoidance of the applicable statute of limitations by way of replySaltponds Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. McCoy, 972 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Saltponds Condominium Ass'n explained:

    • "We reject the architect's argument that it was the Association's burden to include in the amended complaint all facts which might constitute an avoidance of the statute of limitations. As the Second District has explained, in this situation the appropriate procedure is to deny the motion to dismiss, thus leaving it to the defendant to assert the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Levine, 734 So.2d at 1195. The Association would then have an opportunity to file a reply in which it would plead facts in avoidance. Id."

     

    Receive Part of Potential $3-$14 Million Dollar Giveaway!

    Help me Fight for Justice and be Greatly Rewarded if Justice is Served

    At this juncture, I doubt the 4th DCA will correct their evident mistakes or even issue a written opinion. At the very least, an issuance of a written opinion is almost mandatory in this case where the panel of judges deviated from various established principles of law and overlooked crucial facts presented in the briefs. If this motion is granted, the probability of eventually attaining reversal increases as different avenues would open for reversal.

    I have spent about $80k (including help from family and friends) dedicated over 650 hours of research, writing, litigating, and fighting for my reputation, career and justice. Although it is more than evident that the odds are against me to the point where I know the expected legal outcome is that the appellate court will deny the motion, I will not give up on this fight. All I am asking is for the judges to do their judicial duty correctly. I do not want anything else. There are many critics to the judicial system in Florida as they have one of the worst judicial systems in the country. Hubscore ranks Florida as the 4th most corrupt state and in 2019 U.S.. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform via a lawsuit climate survey ranked Florida's  State Liability System as the fifth worst in the country. 

    Perhaps, justice might only arrive with the help of the public and exposing everything that has gone very wrong. If not, at the very least the story will be exposed.

    The Many Different Ways to Receive Equity and Thereby Help Me

    Note that all of these amounts given are contingent upon an unlikely successful resolution of the case and collection the damages. However, if the case does go back to the trial court I will not settle and will take the case all the way to trial. If the motion for punitive damages is granted the total damages will very likely exceed $10 million. Considering I am giving 70% of the equity, then the amounts below are doable. If the equity owed gets to exceed the 70% of the damages then all the equities given will just be reduced proportionally.

     

    Since I am very open to doing interviews to speak more detailly about this case. Then any channel that interviews me receives the following:

    $2k - 0-999 subscribers

    $4k - 1k-5k

    $8k - 5k-25k

    $16k - 25k-100k

    $32k - 100k-350k

    $60k - 350k-1000k

    $100k - 1000k+

     

    Any channel that has a focus on poker, judicial system, journalism, news, or Florida receives 50% more.

     

    I enjoy watching  or esteem the following channels in alphabetical order:

    Davidvillareal

    DougPolkPoker

    Joeingram1

    Rampage

    Solveforwhy

     

    These channels receive 2x-2.5x the corresponding equity based on their subscribers.

    Make a Social Media Publication of the following site 0justice.com: and receive the following amount depending on your social media’s following

     

    $250 - 0-999 followers/friends

    $500 1k-5k

    $1k 5k-25k

    $2k 25k-100k

    $4k 100k-350k

    $8k 350k-1000k

    $16k 1000k+

    Verified accounts, poker media, attorneys (pr anyone who has passed any bar exam), journalists, critics of the legal system, and any Florida resident receive 2x-5x times the amounts above depending on their reputation and prestige.

     

    Youtube channels that post a 5+ minute video (even if against me in a critical manner and not being too biased or nonsensical) about the situation receives the following based on their subscribers

    $1k- 0-999 subscribers

    $2k 1k-5k

    $4k 5k-25k

    $8k 25k-100k

    $16k 100k-350k

    $30k 350k-1000k

    $50k 1000k+

     

    Note if the video gets less views than the midpoint of their subscriber category then the amount would be only one fourth. For example, to receive the $8k in equity the video must have at least (25k+100k)/2=62.5k views.

     

    CHALLENGE TO JASON MERCIER

    Challenge to Jason Mercier to Publicly Deny That He Referred to me as a Known Cheater in 2019

    You already said in your response to RFA's that "I DO NOT RECALL ANY COMMUNICATION WHERE I REFERRED  TO ROSAS AS A CHEATER AND DO NOT BELIEVE I EVER DID". Jason you just need the courage to say the same thing publicly. Be aware Jason, a reference does not require a name to be stated before you say you never said anything about me.

    Although the trial court and appellate court were persuaded by the lies and misconstructions of Jason Goldman and both courts ignored established principles of law and justice, clearly, to anyone reasonably prudent, the evidence indicates Jason Mercier, whether he said my name or not, almost certainly referred to me as a known cheater in 2019. If Jason Mercier has any type of honor left and wants to come forward by telling the truth, then I challenge Jason Mercier to publicly deny this issue. Jason Mercier and his attorney both know that Jason Mercier did refer to me as a cheater and they both committed fraud on the courts. Of course Jason Mercier won't deny it publicly and his silence regarding this specific issue will just be more of an indication that such incident did occur. Also, if Jason, Natasha, or any of their representatives make a generic public statement stating something along the lines of:

    • "“Due to the litigation not having reached its final course our clients, Jason and Natasha, are instructed to not say anything as this might serve against their interest or interfere with the proper course of the judicial process. However, we can confidently and unquestionably say that both the trial court and the appellate court applied the law correctly and due process was given to all the parties. Fernando made pleadings in bad faith and other inappropriate actions. Fernando has serious trouble accepting the fact that he has lost this litigation. We have no doubt the courts made the correct rulings , appropriately struck the complaint as a sham, and we have no interest in discussing this issues further outside the courts. As a gesture of good faith and sympathy to Fernando, the Merciers will be giving up on their entitlement for attorney’s fees, which has already been granted by both of the courts and will be around $200k. The Merciers never acted in bad faith and the relinquishing of their entitlement of attorney’s fees, which Fernando would owe otherwise, serves as concrete proof of their good faith. The Merciers wish Fernando the best in his future endeavors.”

    Rest assured that such statement would be absolute bullshit and the epitome of cynicism and only those who look at the details and evidence contained in the record and briefs will be able to comprehend this. Yes, they might be truthful in giving up on their entitlement to attorney’s fees, yet with the benefit of knowing that they have succeeded  in ruining a man’s career via many lies and deceit not once, but twice. Moreover, they know that having paid close to $200k in attorney's fees is literally a steal for them had the litigation not taken the murky and obscure path they themselves created.

    Jason Mercier Will be a Coward and He Will not Deny;

    If I Receive a Massive Stake I Challenge Him to a Nosebleeds OFC Match 

    I know Jason Mercier is dishonest, shady and someone who does not have the valor or courage to speak on the truth regarding what he said in 2019. However, he might have a chance to defend his name by doing what he does best, playing poker. Jason Mercier has always been inclined to play OFC against me for nosebleed stakes. With neutral luck, I would certainly crush him in regular pineapple, low in the middle, two on the button and I would almost certainly crush him in progressive pineapple, progressive+ pineapple, jokers+ pineapple. If there is a person or group or persons interested in making a very profitable and massive 6-7 digit stake with a low markup (1.075) and Jason Mercier is willing to play nosebleeds for at least 4000 hands in any of the above OFC variants, then this match will occur. If Jason is willing to play and the match does not happen, have no doubt that it will be for the simple reason that no one offered a massive stake to me. The main point remains; Jason Mercier won’t say what happened in 2019 even though he obviously knows the truth.

    I Happily Would Accept Poker Staking Deals

    I'm not just extremely good at OFC, but also any Omaha variants such as PLO4, PLO5, PLO6, PLO High/Low, etc. I am very good at NLH, MataAses (Popular Mexican Poker Variant of Texas Hold Em and 5 Card Stud), and I learn virtually any game very fast. If there is a medium to high stakes poker game you would be interested in staking me, then contact me directly to discuss this in detail. I would very much appreciate it.

    Equity Giveaway to Help Others in Dire Need

    Over a year ago I had commented to my ex attorney that I would be donating around 30% of my recovery to charity. I am a U.S. Citizen and a Mexican Citizen and in both countries, especially Mexico I see and know of many injustices that are truly atrocious. My story is insignificant compared to hundreds of thousands of  much worse injustices people all over the world suffer. These people obviously deserve more help. I must admit that I am not a philanthropic person and that is not exactly something I aspire to be as I believe finding solutions to problems that work in the long term is something more logical and beneficial. Many times I have questioned the current paradigm and thought

    “How irrational are humans as a species that we let tons of food go to waste instead of having people suffering of hunger eat it?”

    I see this happen daily where I live. Countless fruits and vegetables are thrown away by the markets because they are not sold while many people suffer hunger. For this reason $100k-$200k, contingent on justice being served, will be used to create and run a local organization in Merida Yucatan that creates a system that incentivizes markets and people in extreme poverty. Markets will make food donations to people who have proven their poverty condition and all these donations will be accounted for. As a result, the food will be given to the needy and markets will have proof of a potentially tax deductive donation.

    GoFundMe: Paying Specialized U.S. Supreme Court Attorney

    There are specialized attorneys who have a significantly higher chance of success in obtaining certiorari review from the U.S. Supreme Court. A GoFundMe where I am seeking to raise $40,000 has been opened. Of course if no attorney is hired, then the donations will be given back. If the donations are used and eventually I win, people who donated will receive ten times their donation contingent upon a successful resolution of the litigation. Various specialized attorneys do have a success rate of 10% or more, which is the minimum threshold for the donation to be neutral EV. If you make this donation with a potential 10x return keep in mind it is unlikely for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant discretionary review.

    https://gofund.me/fdcb75a3

     

    Some Might Suggest to File a Complaint Against Judge Keathan B. Frink to Florida's Judicial Qualifications Commission, but that  Would Probably be Futile

    Judge Frink, who was appointed by Governor Rick Scott in 2016, is a proponent of Florida's Judicial Qualifications Commission, which is an agency "vested with jurisdiction to investigate and recommend to the Supreme Court of Florida the removal from office of any judge whose conduct demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office and to investigate and recommend the reprimand of a judge whose conduct warrants such a reprimand." and it's comprised of six judges, five laypersons selected by the Governor, and four Florida Bar members.. This Commission sounds like a fantastic tool to report misconduct of judges, however,  "Each year, the JQC gets approximately 700 judicial complaints, with the JQC filing formal charges on only about 1% (5-9) of the complaints received. Only this 1% of judicial complaints will eventually become open for public inspection - and ONLY after formal charges are filed." The irony speaks for itself. A biased judge appointed by a governor is a devoted proponent of a seemingly uncaring commission that rarely files formal charges and thereby keeps about 99% of complaints against judges confidential.  Lastly, even if a complaint was filed and the commission were to file formal charges, against Judge Frink, this would have no legal effect on my case.