Stephan J.

Lawrence
Aventura, FL 33180
(305) xxx xxxx
sjlawrence95@gmail.com

April 14, 2011

Editor,
South Florida Business Journal

Sir:

In searching your website I found several articles on my case that, unfortunately, continue to
pop up during Google searches, which is the reason for this letter.

The key article you published was in December 2007 titled: “20-year fight over millions in
offshore money isn't over yet”

Because I believe there are serious inaccuracies in the article I would like to have published the
following response as either a response to the article or a comment to the article:

“I am the principal, Stephan J. Lawrence, of the article you published titled: “20-year fight over
millions in offshore money isn't over yet”.

I am writing this comment in response to its significant inaccuracies and omissions.

Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to speak with the author before its publication
and have no doubt misinformation was provided to the author, which I seek to correct, as
stated below.

First, for the full history of this bizarre case of the longest civil contempt sanction in US federal
court history please visit my blog [http://acivilcontemptblog.blogspot.com/] . It significantly
differs in scope and tenor than that presented in the article. For a condensed history follow this
link to my Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/18407315/supreme-court-certiorari-petition].

Here are a few brief responses to some of the factual errors or omissions in the article.
— The 1993 and 1995 litigation details with Bear Stearns, omits the key ruling that Federal
District Judge Lawrence King made in his 1996 order
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/22043853/orders-of-federal-district-judge-lawrence-king-and-
magistrate-william-turnoff]: that Bear Stearns could not sue me as a proxy for the trust, since
the trust had to be directly sued under Florida law. After that order, Bear Stearns impleaded
the trust as a defendant in 1997. So, Florida law was already being applied to the trust ... and
that law required the trust be sued directly.

— The trust was represented by Judge Herbert Stettin (the current trustee of the Scott
Rothstein bankruptcy estate) before Judge King.

— Goldberg's position was similar to that of Bear Stearns. His two choices were: he could
take over Bear Stearns' lawsuit or sue under a similar type bankruptcy avoidance provision.
Goldberg did neither. Nowhere in the article is there mention of a judgment ever being entered
for liability by either myself or the trust for the trust settlement. Goldberg had declined to sue
for liability or to intervene. No such judgment ever existed.

— The article does not explain how the 'liability' element — the required precursor to
execution (turn over) — was arrived at. In short, what occurred was a single line was inserted
into a discovery sanction order that was issued in a bankruptcy discharge objection proceeding
under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Liability in a discharge objection proceeding is legally impossible
because the only matter at stake in such proceeding is the denial of a bankruptcy discharge. In
addition, there is no basis to appeal such a line on the theory that liability had been assigned
since liability was never at stake. Indeed, to even attempt to raise such hypothetical future
liability in a discharge appeal could be met with sanctions. A basic tenet of bankruptcy is that
liability for pre-bankruptcy transfers can only come from actions under both 11 U.S.C. § 550 (to
establish who is liability) and under the 'avoidance provisions' of the bankruptcy code (to
establish amounts liable for). Both must occur.

— There was no $20 million margin deficit with Bear Stearns. The margin call given was
substantially less and was also vastly inflated. The final arbitration award was for about $16
million plus interest. There is no relationship between a margin call amount and any ultimate
debt; most margin calls result in no debt owed after liquidation.

2
— The trades Bear Stearns was given credit for, by the NASD arbitration panel, never
existed and were backdated. No explanation was given how an award for non-existent trades,
using what has come to be called 'flash prices,' could occur ... since it couldn't. The SEC did
nothing to prevent this and a fruitful investigation by a single FBI agent, who took and interest,
was quickly shut down. The Options Clearing Corp (OCC) and The Chicago Board Options
Exchange (CBOE), after much litigation, both later admitted the trades never occurred. The
OCC/CBOE admissions are posted here
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/33977082/documentation-of-the-first-of-many-bear-stearns-
derivatives-based-frauds-going-back-to-1987-and-its-coverup].

— Florida was not my “new home state.” I became a Florida resident in the early 1980's,
long before the 1987 crash. Florida's on line database shows that my main company, Pompano-
Windy Partners, Ltd, had myself as its agent along with my home address almost two years
before the 1987 crash. I was a Florida resident for years before that date.

— The statement that Goldberg hired Juval Aviv simply to "track down offshore activities"
completely omits the incredible scope of what really occurred, all in secret and away from sight
of myself, my attorneys, all reviewing courts, and the public. The unsealed documents and
transcripts paint a far different picture. See my 2006 Wiretap and Civil Rights Complaint here
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/18463591/Wiretap-Complaint-Lawrence-v-Bear-Stearns-JP-
Morgan-etc-070530-DE69-0621952CVGOLD]. It is simply impossible, in this short response,
to describe those events but my blog will do so [http://acivilcontemptblog.blogspot.com/]. See
also the Certiorari Petition linked to above.

— I have posted excerpts from some of the astounding transcripts of the few secret
hearings at which a court reporter was present
[http://www.scribd.com/collections/2951457/Bankruptcy-Court-secret-wiretap-and-trial-
hearings].

— The bankruptcy record is devoid, except for a single "application" filed secretly in
January 2000, of any trace of Aviv's billings statements, applications for payments, orders
approving actual payments, or records of payments by Goldberg to Aviv. These are the
minimum prerequisites for Aviv having actually been working for Goldberg. Indeed, even the
secret "application" for employment by Goldberg was never served on the U.S. Trustee's Office.

3
— Your description of my wiretap and civil rights complaint omits the key claims, made
under Title 3 (the "Wiretap Act"), for illegal and extensive wiretapping done by Bear Stearns
through the theft of law enforcement tapes illegally obtained by Goldberg. The article has no
mention of the phone surveillance (fully documented in the sealed record and transcripts), how
it was done, or that it forms the foundation of my complaint.

Lastly, it is unfortunate my former attorney, Robert A. Stok, was interviewed without my

having a chance to respond. The 1997 discovery sanction order — the single line in which was
used to imprison me for over six years and assign an over $40 million dollar liability to me —
was appealed by Mr. Stok at my direction. At the hearing resulting in the Order, all of my
witnesses (including Judge Stettin) were ejected and I was forbidden to present evidence. Mr.
Stok then defaulted my appeal and District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/52962617/District-Judge-Middlebrooks-order-dismissing-
appeal-based-on-Robert-A-Stok-negligence-or-indifference] the default was "at worst, bad
faith ... or at the very least, negligence or indifference." After Mr. Stok defaulted my appeal,
Goldberg's attorney, Berger Singerman, prepared a subordination agreement
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52963550/mortage-subordination-release-drawn-up-by-berger-
singerman-from-creditor-bear-stearns-to-robert-a between Mr. Stok's law firm and Bear
Stearns in which Bear Stearns subordinated their prior lien on my homestead in favor of Stok's
law firm for no identifiable consideration and Stok's law firm immediately attempted to
foreclose on my homestead … using the subordination agreement . There were other serious
matters of dispute between myself and Mr. Stok that are beyond the scope of this limited
comment.”

Stephan J. Lawrence

4