1

607 Sea Turtle Way

PLANTATION, FL 33324

(P) 954-559-6853

gainsburg@bellsouth.net

December 17, 2015

Mr. Roberto Mendez, Bar Counsel

The Florida Bar

Ft. Lauderdale Branch Office

Lake Shore Plaza II

1300 Concord Terrace, Suite 130

Sunrise, FL 33323

RE: Complaint by Steven Siegel against Barry Robert Gainsburg

The Florida Bar File No. 2016-50,462 (17A)

Dear Mr. Mendez:

I appreciate the opportunity to address Mr. Siegel’s correspondence received on November 17,

2015 by your office. Additionally, I will also address Mr. Siegel’s supplemental

correspondences dated December 8, 2015 and December 9, 2015.

Mr. Siegel alleges in his November 17, 2015 correspondence that I acted unethically,

unprofessionally, and maliciously. Mr. Siegel alleges quite vociferously that I abandoned my

client, Bio-Tech Medical Software, Inc. (“BTMS”) d/b/a BioTrackTHC and spoke to BTMS

clients, investors and board members without authorization. Mr. Siegel also alleges that I

somehow used confidential information concerning some unspecified health issue against him.

I categorically deny these malicious allegations made by Mr. Siegel. I also categorically deny

that the impetus of my actions in filing a Complaint against BTMS and Mr. Siegel revolves

around my “improper” demands for money, rather it is my lawful claim for remedy in the

Broward Circuit Court.

Unfortunately, Mr. Siegel views my seeking of the legal enforcement of the terms of an

executed written agreement between Barry Gainsburg, P.A., and BioTrackTHC as improper.

That is a matter for a jury at the Broward Circuit Court to decide one way or another, when

appropriate.

In full disclosure to Mr. Siegel - Mr. Mendez and I have a prior history regarding a former

2

employer of I. I do not believe that your immediate handling of this issue, Mr. Mendez, is by

accident, chance or mere coincidence. I am fully aware that Mr. David Shiner, Esq., who is

Mr. Siegel’s current counsel, is a member of a Florida Bar Palm Beach County Grievance

Committee. But that shall be a discussion reserved for another time.

And as Mr. Siegel was kind enough to bring up some of my past history in the legal field,

which you, Mr. Mendez, are well acquainted with by this date, I believe that I should return

the favor to Mr. Siegel.

The complainant in this matter, Mr. Siegel, has been convicted on two (2) separate occasions

by the U.S. Government for committing fraud. Fraud is a crime involving the elements of

dishonesty. Mr. Siegel served time in federal prisons, being released first, on October 8, 1993,

and then once again on May 21, 1999. (See Exhibit “1” attached hereto – Federal Bureau of

Prisons Inmate Locator Search for Mr. Steven Siegel). As an ex-felon who was convicted of

committing fraud on two (2) separate occasions, Mr. Siegel continues to engage in similar

deceptive and dishonest activities even today.

Mr. Siegel was very involved in South Florida’s pill mill industry for many years in the 2000s.

Actually, up until very recently, upon information and belief, Mr. Siegel still maintained an

active interest in what is commonly referred to as a “pain management clinic” located in

Orlando, Florida.

Currently, along with Bio-Tech Medical Software, Inc. and Mr. Patrick Vo, Mr. Siegel is being

personally sued by Franwell in a case now pending in the Southern District Federal Court in

Miami. (See Exhibit “2” – Franwell v. Bio-Tech Medical Software, Inc. et. al.). The allegations

against levied against Mr. Siegel involve: (i) False Marketing; (ii) tortious interference with a

business relationship; (iii) false advertising; (iv) misleading advertising; (v) unfair

competition; (vi) deceptive and unfair trade practices; and (vii) defamation.

BioTrackTHC is also involved in an AAA arbitration proceeding brought by NewGate

Partners, LLC (“NewGate”). In that Statement of Claim, NewGate, the claimant, alleges that

BTMS, the respondent, breached an executed contract for which Newgate was entitled to stock

ownership in BTMS. This disputed agreement was executed by Mr. Siegel as CEO of BTMS.

Again, this is a familiar fact pattern, in fact mirroring my own situation involving Mr. Siegel’s

execution of an agreement and then he subsequently seeked to renege on his written, and oral,

promises. (See Composite Exhibit “28” attached hereto – AAA Claim filed by NewGate

Partners against BTMS).

Mr. Siegel effectively told I that he had no defense for executing the agreement in the NewGate

matter. He told I that he was “stupid” to do so and he should have had an attorney review it

prior to executing it. I did not disagree with his analysis.

I, using my securities and compliance background from the financial industry, saw a potential

saving grace for BTMS. The fact that NewGate was raising funds for investment much like a

broker-dealer, but without the required SEC Broker-Dealer registration. Mr. Siegel was

thrilled that there was some potential legal defense to mount on his behalf.

3

In fact, I explained to both, Mr. Siegel and Mr. Peter Kirsch of Greenfield Capital what my

analysis of the case was, “Candidly, our best bet in this matter is to hope that we can win on a

technicality that NewGate was not registered as B-D. Kind of like when someone commits a

crime but wasn’t read their Miranda Rights. However, should that fail, I am unsure how to

counter the fact that you [Steven Siegel] executed the agreement and actually negotiated the

terms of compensation.” (See Composite Exhibit “28” attached hereto – NewGate Partners

Correspondence dated May 27, 2015 at 1:06 a.m.)

Mr. Dale Bergman, Esq., BTMS’ outside securities and corporate counsel, who was involved

directly in the NewGate matter prior to the arbitration being commenced, try to resolve the

dispute on behalf of BTMS by offering a payment of $25,000 to NewGate to settle the matter,

which NewGate did not accept. Mr. Bergman stated specifically, prior to my engagement with

BTMS, “Bio-Tech will be prepared to defend its position in the event Newgate (sic) elects to

pursue any claims against Bio-Tech”. (See Composite Exhibit “28” attached hereto – AAA

Claim filed by NewGate Partners against BTMS and associated correspondence).

Consistent with Mr. Bergman’s promise, and with his and Mr. Siegel’s full consent, after

BTMS was served with the Statement of Claim from the AAA, I drafted the Answer in the

NewGate matter, along with a Motion to Dismiss. (See Composite Exhibit “28” attached

hereto – Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and Answer to NewGate’s Statement of Claim)

I then engaged a colleague of mine, Mr. Gene Carasick, Esq., with a securities background to

provide his expert opinion that this asserted position was a viable unregistered B-D defense

that would in effect void the contract that Mr. Siegel executed in self-admitted regret. Mr.

Siegel, after reviewing the Answer and Motion to Dismiss with Mr. Bergman, both approved

of the filing of those drafts. (See Composite Exhibit “28” attached hereto – AAA Claim filed

by NewGate Partners against BTMS).

In fact, Mr. Siegel and Mr. Vo were on the initial telephone conference with the AAA

Administrator, Ms. Rebecca Stowe on June 2, 2015 along with I to discuss procedural issues

in the matter. (See Composite Exhibit “28” attached hereto – AAA Claim filed by NewGate

Partners against BTMS).

Given that a case is only as strong as its facts, I believe I provided BioTrackTHC with a more

than zealous defense given the totality of what otherwise would be a slam dunk breach of

contract victory for NewGate – regardless of I being a “Litigator” or “Transactional” attorney.

The Bar should consider reaching out to Mr. Bergman for further details regarding Mr. Siegel’s

knowledge of the risks and benefits of asserting this defensive position in the NewGate matter.

In May 2015, Mr. Siegel as CEO of BioTrackTHC, was accused of sexual harassment by a

former employee, Mr. Blake Johnston, in a complaint submitted to the the Broward County

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Professional Standards, Human Rights Section. I

always informed Mr. Siegel of any communications I had with Mr. Cohen, Esq. from the

Commission. Upon speaking with Mr. Cohen about the matter, I recommended to Mr. Siegel,

orally, that he should seek to undertake separate representation in this matter.

4

Upon my termination of the relationship with BTMS on October 5, 2015, I also informed the

company’s board of directors in writing about the potential for conflict between BTMS and

Mr. Siegel, individually, with respect to potential liability exposure since Mr. Siegel was

hesitant to discuss such issues with BTMS’ full Board of Directors. (See Exhibit “3” attached

hereto.)

Returning to the NewGate matter, on or about September 28, 2015, NewGate Partners filed a

Motion to Compel Production of Documents from the BTMS. On that same date, I was

informed by Mr. Siegel that he had engaged the services of the Shiner Law Group, P.A.

(“SLG”) to become counsel of record in the NewGate matter. This was Mr. Siegel’s own

decision, not mine. Later on that same day I began transferring files over to the Shiner Law

Group as requested by Ms. Lara Shiner.

At all times, Ms. Shiner of SLG was effusive with praise for I, with regards to getting SLG

acquainted with the NewGate file. In fact Ms. Shiner specifically stated about I, “Your great.

Thanks so much!” (See Exhibit “4” attached hereto – Lara Shiner e-mails). This does not seem

like the actions of a disgruntled attorney or of one who abandoned his clients’ case.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, I requested that Mr. David Shiner, prepare a Response to

NewGate’s Motion to Compel. (See Composite Exhibit “5” – email dated September 29, 2015

to David Shiner and Steven Siegel, along with screen shot of Mr. Siegel’s Text to I about

previously hiring Mr. Shiner as counsel on the Franwell matter). Mr. Shiner was previously

provided with NewGate case materials by I to review pursuant to Mr. Siegel’s request. Upon

belief and information, Mr. Shiner never prepared that responsive motion as then requested by

I of him while I was BTMS’ General Counsel.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, SLG entered a Notice of Appearance in the NewGate

matter on behalf of BTMS. See Exhibit “6” – SLG Notice of Appearance dated September 30,

2015) Accordingly, SLG was now representing BTMS, in addition to Barry Gainsburg, P.A.

So, at this juncture BTMS had dual legal representation in this matter, and BTMS never went

unrepresented going forward in this matter thereafter.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015, I was summoned to a meeting called for by Mr. Siegel, who

allegedly was no longer the CEO of BTMS, but now a “Founder”, along with Patrick Vo, the

alleged new CEO. Mr. Vo did not say a word at this meeting.

At that time, Mr. Siegel informed me if I wanted to continue working for BTMS, he would be

reducing my firm’s compensation by FIFTY PERCENT (50%). He also encouraged I to

accept stock options, in lieu of negotiating for more pay when stating he was my friend and he

was looking at for I’s best interests. Mr. Siegel elected to orchestrate this drama four (4) days

prior to the NewGate Arbitration Panel’s Hearing on Claimant’s Motion to Compel. Mr. Siegel

was fully aware of the scheduling of this hearing when he undertook these actions.

Had I, only four (4) days before a material hearing, insisted that BTMS pay me fifty percent

(50%) more in compensation, I can only imagine what a complaint to the Florida Bar would

5

have look like.

However, I tried to work with BTMS to allow them to have continuous representation by my

firm, Barry Gainsburg, P.A. in the NewGate matter. I attempted to have Mr. Siegel or Mr. Vo

execute a new agreement memorializing our new full understanding with the detailed firm

amount of stock options being agreed to in writing as discussed on that Thursday, September

30, 2015 meeting initiated by Mr. Siegel.

Previously, on September 17, 2015, Mr. Siegel made it abundantly clear that I&I relationship

was based as “an independent contractor agreement that can be terminated at any time.”

And I responded “Sure that’s true. However currently I am awaiting my stock options that

I was promised orally and in writing so that will need to be resolved whether you terminate

my services or not.” (See Exhibit “41” – e-mail string between Mr. Siegel and Barry Gainsburg

dated September 17, 2015). For the record, Mr. Siegel never responded to I thereafter.

Even more telling, and what really undermines essentially what serves as the basis of Mr.

Siegel’s correspondence to the Florida Bar, is when he invokes the notion of “legal

abandonment” against I. This is evidenced by Mr. Siegel informing I, during that same

email exchange, that he wants to renegotiate the current deal BTMS and I had in place, to

create a more arm’s length relationship between BTMS and I, and Mr. Siegel was in the

process at this time of bringing “in a more full-time attorney to which we have one

applying.” (See Exhibit “41” – e-mail string between Mr. Siegel and Barry Gainsburg dated

September 17, 2015). Mr. Siegel, must just not understand how the concept of “abandonment”

works – the one who wishes to withdraw from the current agreement is referred to as the

abandoner, and the one who is willing to fulfill its terms as originally negotiated is referred to

as the abandonee.

On Friday, October 2, 2015, I sent an email to Mr. Siegel trying to address the terms of our

January 14, 2015 Agreement, as Mr. Siegel had previously ignored such oral and written

requests. Mr. Siegel stated that the issue would have to be handled by Patrick Vo who was the

new CEO.

I specifically informed Mr. Siegel that I would not continue representing BTMS unless I had

a written agreement in place. In such an event were to occur then I clearly stated “Steve –

please remove me as an agent, officer or director of BTMS, affiliate or NCCC corporate

records and state filings as soon as possible. I will file a notice of withdrawal to AAA

informing them of the separation and I will inform the Broward Commission on HR that I no

longer represent you or BTMS.” (See Exhibit “7” – e-mail string sent between Barry Gainsburg

and Steven Siegel.)

In fact, with respect to my learning curve from the Clarity situation being in the forefront, I

stated to Mr. Siegel, “As you can understand I’ve had oral agreements before but they didn’t

end up well.” I also told Mr. Siegel that I would “await Patrick’s response”. (See Exhibit “7”

– e-mail string sent between Barry Gainsburg, Steven Siegel and not responded to ever by

Patrick Vo.)

6

After not hearing anything from Mr. Vo on Saturday, October 3, 2015, I sent a follow up e-

mail to Mr. Vo on Sunday, October 4, 2015. I stated the high importance, in my opinion, of

BTMS and Barry Gainsburg, P.A. coming to terms. In that letter I informed Mr. Vo what

would need to be done in the event that an agreement in writing could not be achieved between

the two of us.

This information included the disclosure by I of the need to file a Notice of Withdrawal from

the NewGate case, my need to be removed as director, officer and agent of BTMS and its

affiliates, my need to inform NY and IL states that I no longer represent BTMS, my need to

inform the Broward Commission that I no longer represented Mr. Siegel or BTMS. In fact, I

specifically state in the English language to Mr. Vo:

“I appreciate you giving this important matter the attention it requires, especially

in light of tomorrow’s hearing before the AAA. I look forward to moving ahead

with BTMS, but if not, we shall part as friends and I wish you the best in your

recent promotion as BTMS’ CEO. I shall await your response. (See Composite

Exhibit “7” – e-mail string sent between Barry Gainsburg, Steven Siegel and not

ever responded to by Patrick Vo.)

No response was ever received by I from Mr. Vo. Again, this situation was completely within

Mr. Vo’s, Mr. Siegel’s and BTMS’ ability to resolve. They simply elected not to. And that is

a choice they made. That was not my responsibility to respond or force a new agreement upon

BTMS. This is Mr. Siegel’s and Mr. Vo’s responsibility on behalf of BTMS.

After not receiving any reply back from Mr. Vo, or even Mr. Siegel, I voluntarily terminated

Barry Gainsburg, P.A.’s legal services on October 5, 2015 as previously disclosed.

Accordingly, I filed the documents that I had sent as attachments to Mr. Vo on October 4,

2015. (See Exhibit “8” – attachments sent with Gainsburg e-mail dated October 3, 2015 to

Patrick Vo).

Indeed, those documents were sent from my personal email – such e-mail addresses were

obtained from my BioTrackTHC emails that were available on my iPhone at the time. I elected

to use my personal e-mail since I was no longer working for BioTrackTHC because I

voluntarily terminated my employment and therefore I did not want to use BioTrackTHC

property or be exposed to be accused of other potential misdeeds by Mr. Siegel.

Again, by this point, and since September 29, 2015, SLG and David Shiner had already entered

their Notice of Appearance in the NewGate matter, and should therefore have been more than

adequately prepared to handle that hearing on a garden variety “Motion to Compel.” It’s not

rocket science. Or, in the alternative, SLG should have asked for a postponement of the

hearing.

Ms. Storrow of the AAA confirmed receipt of my filed Notice of Withdrawal, and she assumed

that Mr. Shiner would be attending the hearing on the Motion to Compel on behalf of BTMS.

Upon belief and information, Mr. Shiner did in fact attend such hearing as counsel for BTMS.

(See Exhibit “9” – email string between Barry Gainsburg and Rebecca Storrow of the AAA

7

dated October 5, 2015).

At no time was BTMS ever abandoned without counsel in this matter. And again, SLG had

been requested to assist on this matter by I, and it appears that SLG and Mr. Shiner may have

committed legal malpractice by not addressing then BTMS’ General Counsel’s request that

they prepare a responsive motion to Claimant’s Motion to Compel. Again, this was SLG’s

responsibility, not mine.

As to the Shiner Law Group, P.A. and Mr. Shiner, some background and context is necessary.

Originally, BTMS and Mr. Siegel engaged the services of Greenberg Trauig to act as counsel

in the previous mentioned Franwell federal law suit. Greenberg then filed a Motion to Transfer,

that I wrote the original motion for, which was eventually granted to transfer the case from

Middle District to Southern District of Florida.

Upset at their approximately $1000 per hour billing rate, Mr. Siegel terminated Greenberg

Trauig, and brought on the Shiner Law Group with David Shiner in August 2015. (See Exhibit

“40” attached hereto Text Screenshot communication by Barry Gainsburg to Steven Siegel

and Draft Motion to Dismiss and/or Transfer from Barry Gainsburg to Steven Siegel)

On August 13, 2015, I was asked by Mr. Siegel to forward NewGate Case documents to Mr.

Shiner for his review. Approximately a month later, on September 10, 2015, Mr. Shiner

replied to that e-mail by stating “I saw the communications regarding the NewGate case and

agree with your position”. This again does not seem to be a matter of I being the dilatory

party. (See Exhibit “10” – email correspondence string between Barry Gainsburg and David

Shiner)

Mr. Shiner, in the same correspondence to I, goes on to ask regarding the Franwell matter, “If

you have time would you be able to catch up in person?” Mr. Shiner and I were scheduled to

meet and discuss the case on Friday, September 18, 2015 at Renzo’s café in Boca Raton –

close to Mr. Shiner’s office. However, on September 17, 2015, the day before our scheduled

meeting, Mr. Shiner informed I that “Unfortunately, I am going to need to reschedule. I’m

copying Donna so she can reset lunch.”

I was ready, willing and able to have that discussion about Franwell and/or the NewGate

matter, but Mr. Shiner was not. SLG’s office never reached back out to I in order to reset the

lunch meeting. Again, this obviously seems to be Mr. Shiner’s and SLG’s responsibility to

follow up with, and again to the surprise of no one Mr. Shiner did not. (See Exhibit “10” –

email correspondence string between Barry Gainsburg and David Shiner)

Now returning to the history of the my pending litigation against BTMS, Mr. Siegel, SLG and

Mr. Shiner, after informing BTMS that I would now be represented by Mr. Andrew Teschner,

Esq., as of October 6, 2015, Mr. Shiner wrote a letter to him with regards to the situation.

In Mr. Shiner’s letter dated October 6, 2015, which is only one (1) day after my departure from

BTMS, he states in his own words, and again this so really very important for everyone to

commit to remember, “However it appears from Mr. Gainsburg’s several communications

8

to both BioTrackTHC and BioTrackTHC’s client/customers, that Mr. Gainsburg has

unilaterally terminated and attorney/client relationship with BioTrackTHC.” (See Exhibit

“11” – October 6, 2015 correspondence to Andrew Teschner, Esq. to Mr. Shiner) (“Shiner

Statement #1) Further, Mr. Shiner states in the same letter “I trust this is acceptable, especially

given the nature of Mr. Gainsburg’s abrupt and UNILATERAL departure.”

Again, this statement made by Mr. Shiner on behalf of his clients is so important because it

acknowledges the fact that “I” unilaterally terminated the relationship with BTMS, and Mr.

Shiner acknowledges such as a fact. It indicates Mr. Shiner had discussed the matter with his

clients, BTMS and Mr. Siegel, and therefore had a reasonable good faith basis in fact for

communicating such to Mr. Teschner.

As a footnote to that statement, Mr. Shiner then erroneously alleges that “Mr. Barry Gainsburg

filed his Notice of Withdrawal in the “NewGate” matter without advising BioTrackTHC in

advance. As a matter of fact, neither my firm, nor BioTrackTHC was aware (sic) Mr.

Gainsburg’s intent to withdraw until we received his Notice Yesterday.” (See Exhibit “11” –

October 6, 2015 correspondence to Andrew Teschner to David Shiner).

So for whatever self-serving reasons the campaign of deliberate lies was initiated by Mr. Shiner

at this point in time against I. Please see previously mentioned Exhibits 7 & 8, which clearly

demonstrate Mr. Shiner’s assertions are erroneous. In fact, on Friday, October 2, 2015, I

informed Ms. Lara Shiner that I would not be attending Monday’s NewGate Motion to Compel

hearing unless a written agreement had been arrived at between BTMS and I. It is after this

correspondence with Ms. Shiner that Mr. Siegel communicated back to I about the unresolved

new agreement.

On October 5, 2015, Ms. Lara Shiner reached out to I, after I filed my Notice of Withdrawal,

regarding the hearing set for that day. I immediately responded and brought her up to date

regarding the status and the documents that I had already provided her with in the NewGate

matter. In response she states “Thank You!” (See Exhibit “12” – email string between Barry

Gainsburg and Ms. Lara Shiner).

With respect to depositions scheduled in the NewGate arbitration matter, depositions are very

rarely granted in arbitration matters so having the right to take one was quite an achievement

in itself, I being a “litigator” or not.

Previously, on September 29, 2015, I informed Ms. Shiner “I think the case is in good shape.

We have depositions in 2 weeks of Quatrini and Ivey in Orlando. I have the conference room

and reporter booked. If David wants to depose since that is his area of expertise I can help him

focus on areas of importance and interest since I get the securities/b-d/transactional issues.”

(See Exhibit “13” email dated September 29, 2015 between Barry Gainsburg and Ms. Lara

Shiner).

Now, I’m not sure quite how many days Mr. Shiner needed to prepare for taking two (2)

depositions, one a half day starting at 3 p.m. and the other a full day, but I would have to guess

fourteen (14) days should provide adequate preparation time for most attorneys of at least

9

average ability.

So, it would now appear to be specious for Mr. Siegel to argue that the Shiner Law Group, or

Mr. Shiner, were unaware of the pending depositions or the work that needed to be done with

regards to taking those depositions in support of their defense in the NewGate matter. The

evidenced facts just disapprove Messrs. Siegel’s and Shiner’s misguided rants on the matter.

Prior to my departure from BTMS, I even forwarded an index giving a brief description of the

important documents that should be reviewed for the NewGate depositions and I digested the

contents of those documents to facilitate ease in developing questions. (See Exhibit “14”

BTMS Depo Index dated September 29, 2015).

On October 6, 2015, Mr. Teschner, Esq., as my counsel, responded to Mr. Shiner’s letter dated

October 5, 2015. I provided Mr. Teschner with all the information regarding the status of any

case I had been working while serving as BTMS counsel, and in turn Mr. Teschner conveyed

that information to Mr. Shiner. (See Exhibit “15” Letter from Mr. Teschner to Mr. Shiner

dated October 7, 2015). I believe the answers provided therein were fully transparent and self-

explanatory, and as you can see I took great pains to protect privileged information regarding

Mr. Siegel and the Broward County Commission on Sexual Harassment investigation into Mr.

Johnston’s allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Siegel while serving as CEO of

BTMS.

On October 8, 2015, Mr. Shiner expressed in his correspondence to Mr. Teschner that “your

letter fails to convey any substantive information regarding the legal and advisory matters

abandoned by Mr. Gainsburg…” The long standing hearing that Mr. Shiner alludes to

regarding the NewGate Motion to Compel was served on September 28, 2015, and set for

hearing by the AAA arbitration panel on September 29, 2015. I am not sure of what anyone’s

definition is of “long standing” but hopefully one would see it my way that a week is not “long

standing” for the setting of legal hearings. In my opinion this is a self-serving characterization.

(See Exhibit “16” Letter dated October 8, 2015 from Mr. Shiner to Mr. Teschner dated October

7, 2015).

Mr. Shiner goes on to state that “until the Court allows him to withdraw, Mr. Gainsburg is still

counsel of record in the Bio-Tech vs. Blake Johnston case which is still pending in the 17th

Judicial circuit”.

In fact, that wasn’t and isn’t the truth at all. After BTMS refused to facilitate the signing of a

“Substitution of Counsel” form which I prepared on October 5, 2015, I then drafted and set a

hearing on my Motion to Withdraw before the presiding Honorable Judge Bowman. (See

Exhibit “17” Johnston Motion for Withdraw, NOH and Court Orders dated Letter dated

November 4, 2015). I will say that in my humble opinion, Judge Bowman has been the one

shining light of justice and fairness I have had the pleasure to practice before in an otherwise

“unjust” system.

On November 4, 2015, while in front of Judge Bowman, on my Motion to Withdraw, he states

unequivocally during our hearing, even after Mr. Gotti of SLG tries to beseech I,:

MR. GAINSBURG: I had provided – Barry Gainsburg.

10

I was formerly representing Bio-Tech Medical Software in this

case. I'm no longer working for Bio-Tech Medical Software.

I had provided them a stipulation for substitution of

counsel. They didn't sign -- The other side didn't sign it.

I got a notice of appearance [from SLG and Mr. Shiner]on

Monday. I would just like to be off of the case.

THE COURT: I think, technically, you are, but if it

makes you happy.

MR. GAINSBURG: I thank you, sir.

MR. GOTTI: Yes, Your Honor. Ronnie Gotti for the Shiner Law

Group, now representing Bio-Tech Medical Software, for the

plaintiff. We just wanted to -- We didn't sign -- agree to a

stipulation because we wanted to preserve record evidence of

what amounts to be behavior of unethical conduct. For

example, prior counsel, Mr. Gainsburg, has filed a complaint

against Bio-Tech.

THE COURT: This is a substitution. You wanted to withdraw.

MR. GAINSBURG: I'll do a new order.

MR. GOTTI: Has filed a complaint against Bio-Tech Medical

Software before even being withdrawn as --

THE COURT: Perhaps; perhaps that's all true.

It doesn't matter. The case is dismissed. He's

just getting off. He's off. This case was

dismissed on April 21st.

11

The wise and sagacious Judge Bowman recognized it was not necessary to make a Motion for

Withdraw in the Johnston matter since the case had been voluntarily dismissed (per Mr.

Siegel’s direction and authorization, might I add) on April 21, 2015. If SLG want to reinstate

the case, as was there right sine it was dismissed without prejudice, Judge Bowman informs

Mr. Gotti that it may be reassigned to another Judge. However, the wise Mr. Bowman set a

status conference hearing, on the Judge’s own initiative, for BTMS’ counsel SLG, and Mr.

Johnston’s counsel, Mr. Sam Gold, Esq. to address the matter of reinstatement of the case for

December 17, 2015. The Bar may wish to inquire as to the results of said status conference

ordered by Judge Bowman.

In fact, I think it is imperative that you Mr. Mendez, and your colleagues, review the entire

transcript of that hearing which is attached thereto. Judge Bowman saw SLG’s appearance

and arguments for exactly what it was – a sham to create some rouse of an ethical issue of

against I. Mr. Gotti admits so in open court before Judge Bowman, who puts a stop to it (See

Exhibit “18” Johnston Motion for Withdraw Hearing Transcript dated November 4, 2015). At

the end, Mr. Gotti from SLG, seemed fairly embarrassed at the turn of events.

On October 8, 2015, Mr. Teschner responded to Mr. Shiner’s October 7, 2015 correspondence

referenced above. Therein Mr. Teschner addressed Mr. Shiner’s unfounded personal attacks

against I. Mr. Teschner stated to Mr. Shiner:

However your tone and disparaging factual assertions are not proportionate to the

situation. You are talking about a 20+-year lawyer, who I have known for about 30

years. Of course he did not behave at all as you portray. Both you and Lara Shiner,

Esq., of your firm, each attest to this in e-mails effusively thanking and praising

Mr. Gainsburg for being helpful and cooperative in your transition into the case.

The English language is not flexible enough for that to be called “abandonment.”

As you know, in Florida, the client has the ability to terminate its attorney at any

time. Your client chose its time and terms, not Mr. Gainsburg. Your client

instructed him to resolve the issue over the weekend, and you had already been co-

counsel in that case for a week. In fact, Mr. Gainsburg had asked your firm of

litigators to prepare a memorandum for the company in opposition o the motion to

compel. As far as I can tell, that was never done. (See Exhibit “19” Letter dated

October 8, 2015 from Mr. Teschner to Mr. Shiner).

Unfortunately, after further discussions, Mr. Teschner and Mr. Shiner were not able to resolve the

differences that I had with BioTrackTHC regarding stock owed to I under the executed engagement

agreement. At this juncture, I assumed responsibility from Mr. Teschner for pursuing my claims

against the BioTrackTHC and Mr. Siegel.

I also tried to negotiate directly with Mr. Shiner to resolve the dispute, but it was once again to no

avail. Accordingly, on October 30, 2015 I filed a complaint against both BTMS and Mr. Siegel

for Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment with the Broward Circuit court. (See Exhibit “20”

– Complaint filed October 30, 2015).

12

With respect to the underlying claims contained therein concerning Mr. Siegel individually, I

believe that the breach of contract count is fairly self-explanatory. With respect to the unjust

enrichment count against Mr. Siegel, I will put forth only the following since this is not the proper

forum to litigate the full cause of action:

(iii) Represent Defendant Siegel at his request with respect to drafting a pre-nuptial agreement

with respect to his desire to marry another BTMS employee.

Mr. Siegel informed I that due to his criminal history, it would negatively impact BTMS to have

a convicted felon at its helm. He therefore wanted to marry a current BTMS employee, Mr.

Krochmal, since same sex marriage was now recognized in the State of Florida. The intent, as Mr.

Siegel explained to I, was to have Mr. Siegel change his last name to “Krochmal”, enter into a pre-

nuptial agreement to preserve his stock in BTMS, his home and other assets from distribution upon

dissolution, and then to obtain a divorce to maintain the change in last name to “Steven Krochmal”

without suffering any economic exposure.

Mr. Siegel strongly implied if I did not assist him with this matter that he would terminate me as I

was an independent contractor, as he like to assert on occasion as previously discussed. In order

to appease Mr. Siegel, I provided him with a draft pre-nuptial agreement that we could discuss and

he could use as a template. (See Exhibit “21” –Email dated October 14, 2015 between Barry

Gainsburg and Mr. Siegel, along with Pre-Nuptial Agreement Draft).

(iv) Represent Defendant Siegel’s long time former domestic partner and current BTMS

shareholder, with respect to his non-payment of rent, per Defendant Siegel’s request;

Mr. Siegel informed me in April 2015 that his prior same sex husband, Brian McClintock, who is

also a shareholder in BTMS, needed legal help regarding the non-payment of rent to his landlord,

Mr. McNerney. Again, Mr. Siegel strongly implied that if I did not assist Mr. McClintock he

would terminate me as I was an independent contractor, as he like to frequently assert.

Accordingly, I tried to negotiate terms with Mr. McNerney on behalf of Mr. McClintock. Please

see these email exchanges with Mr. McNerney, which were forwarded to Mr. Siegel. (See Exhibit

“22” –Composite emails, correspondences and texts (accidentally sent to Mr. Siegel as explained

later on) regarding Brian McClintock Lease payment dispute.)

I had previously asked BTMS, and then through Mr. Teschner’s communications with Mr. Shiner,

to remove me as an officer, director and/or agent of BTMS and BTMS affiliates. BTMS failed to

do so for almost a month thereafter, even after repeated requests. Again, I don’t believe that BTMS

or Mr. Shiner were acting in any good faith. (See Exhibit “23” – correspondence from I to Patrick

VO via counsel dated October 17, 2015).

On October 30, 2015 I directly provided a copy of complaint against BTMS and Mr. Siegel to

Marijuana Business Daily (“MBD”) through Mr. John Schroyer. Again, this complaint was a

public record court filed document. I did not comment on the contents of such public court filing.

Mr. Schroyer, correctly reached out to BioTrackTHC and Mr. Siegel to fact check and see if they

had any comment.

13

Now, I want you to keep in mind that previously Mr. Shiner stated, “However it appears from Mr.

Gainsburg’s several communications to both BioTrackTHC and BioTrackTHC’s

client./customers, that Mr. Gainsburg has unilaterally terminated and attorney/client

relationship with BioTrackTHC.” (See Exhibit “11” – October 6, 2015 correspondence to

Andrew Teschner to David Shiner) (“Shiner Statement #1).

However, rather than stating “No Comment” as many in his stead would have done, Mr. Shiner

elected to publish the following statement to MBD which was and will be viewed by many

cannabis industry participants “Shiner said, ‘He’s a disgruntled attorney who got fired for not

doing his job.’” (See Exhibit 23- MBD article entitled ‘BioTrackTHC Sued By its Former

Attorney” dated October 30, 2015. (Shiner Statement #2).

As you might be able to determine, this Shiner Statement #2, directly contradicts Shiner Statement

#1, which he knew to be the truth, as admitted by Mr. Shiner on October 6, 2015, at the time of

making Shiner Statement #2. Not only was such statement false when made by Mr. Shiner as

attorney for BTMS, but it was also intentionally malicious published by him, since he knew or

should have known better.

I would certainly think that that type of activity, especially by a Florida Bar Grievance Committee

Member would not be tolerated by the Florida Bar. But I could be wrong. I sometimes find that I

am.

It would seem that Mr. Shiner’s statement is not only defamatory against I, but it is certainly

unprofessional, and violates Florida Bar rules and ethical requirements of speaking the truth as an

officer of the court. I would ask that The Florida Bar conduct a thorough investigation regarding

Mr. Shiner’s Statements Number 1 and 2, and I you will find an attached ACAP complaint form

officially requesting that such investigation be commenced by the Florida Bar.

On November 19, 2015, Mr. Shiner on behalf of BTMS, served a 57.105 Motion upon I regarding

the case. In that 57.105 Motion, Mr. Shiner states, again in his own words not mine that “On or

about October 2, 2015, Mr. Gainsburg VOLUNTARILY TERMINATED HIS

REPRESENTATION AS BIO-TECH’s LEGAL COUNSEL”. (See Exhibit “24” – 57.105

Motion prepared by Mr. Shiner dated November 19, 2015) (Shiner Statement #3). Again we have

flipped-flopped-flipped by Mr. Shiner.

After Mr. Shiner’s third statement, I did research on defamation per se in the state of Florida. I

discovered that based on my understanding of Florida Law, Mr. Shiner is fairly likely to be held

liable by a jury for Defamation Per Se. Here is what I found:

What is Defamatory Per Se? Traditionally, damages in a defamatory per se

case are simply assumed to exist and the court will not require any evidence

to be provided before a money award can be given in certain, specific

situations. Defamatory per se statements include those that:

Hurt someone’s profession or business or trade;

14

Falsely state a person has a socially unacceptable illness or disease (for

example, a sexually transmitted disease (STD) or in some instances, a

mental illness); or Falsely state a person has been involved in some kind of

criminal activity.

(See Exhibit “25” - Defamation Per Se: When Libel or Slander Is So Bad, Do You Need Evidence

of Damages Before Punitive Damages Can Be Awarded?)

I did post a link to this information on my Linkedin page, and if Mr. Shiner, who spends an

extraordinary amount of time trolling about on my Linkedin page wants to infer it applies to him,

then he is welcome to such. I will address Mr. Shiner’s constant appearances on my Linkedin

home page later in this response.

Thereafter, I amended my complaint on November 23, 2015 to add a count of Defamation Per Se

against Mr. Shiner and the Shiner Law Group, since the defamatory statement relates to the same

common nucleus of operative facts involving the filing of the original complaint. I also added a

count of fraud against Mr. Siegel and BioTrackTHC, after consulting with a colleague. (See

Exhibit “26” – Amended Complaint filed November 23, 2015).

I do not believe that this is the appropriate forum to discuss the underlying merits of my cause of

action filed in the Amended Complaint against Mr. Shiner and his law firm. Once I was ready to

file the Amended Complaint with the Court, I did. Once the Summons were issued I had Mr.

Shiner served by a process server the next day. No threat.

I did make a settlement demand to Mr. Shiner. He did not want to discuss, nor negotiate, nor put

me in touch with his malpractice insurance carrier to attempt to resolve. Therefore, as previously

disclosed I filed suit. The Broward County Court, by the wisdom of Hon. Judge Cynthia Imperato

shall decide this matter on the merits, along with a Jury. In fact, with respect to my claims against

Defendant Shiner and his law firm, I believe that at the least a Summary Judgment may eventually

be in order. But, time shall tell. As the song goes by the Who, “It’s a legal matter now”. However,

I believe if punitive damages are warranted and granted as prayed for, the result will be devastating

to Mr. Shiner on a personal and business level.

Please note that Defamation per se presumes the element of “malice”. As you may now be aware

Mr. Mendez, malice makes certain debts non-discharegeable in Bankruptcy. Should Defendant

Shiner be found liable for Defamation Per Se, should he not have adequate, or any insurance in

place, he would be unable to discharge, on a personal basis any judgement that may be handed

down from the Court regarding punitive damages. I would like to make sure that my interests are

protected by Defendant Shiner informing his insurance company, as required by my filing of a

Request for Insurance Information pursuant to Florida Statues section §627.4137 on November

24, 2015, one (1) day after filing the Amended complaint with the Court. I have never been in this

situation so I asked opposing counsel if he would still be counsel for Defendants Siegel and BTMS.

This was not a lawsuit of extortion, Defendants Shiner and SLG spoke there words, now they must

take legal responsibility and economic accountability for such.

As a quick aside, in response to Mr. Siegel’s December 9, 2015 correspondence to the Bar, I had

15

previously tried to have Mr. Alexander Krochmal served with a subpoena at BTMS’ corporate

offices to provide oral testimony in the underlying case by the same process server who perfected

service on Defendants Shiner and SLG. On December 7, 2015, the process server reports that Mr.

Krochmal “Subject was in but refused to come out. He sent secretary who informed me to serve

his attorney who is David Shiner, Esq. 95 S. Federal Highway 2nd Floor in Boca Raton. Please

advise if you would like us to serve in Boca Raton.” (See Composite Exhibit “42” – email from

Process server dated December 7, 2015). I replied yes please do.

On December 9, 2015, the same process server, after perfecting service for Defendants Shiner and

SLG, asked Defendant Shiner to accept service for his client, Mr. Krochmal. “Attempted the

address of 95 S. Federal Hwy., 2nd Floor (David shiner, esq.), Boca Raton, FL Alexander Krochmal

does not work here and Shiner Law Group, does not represent him.” Please advise” (See

Composite Exhibit “42” – email from Process server dated December 9, 2015)

Simply, these folks are playing games. You can’t state that you are represented by counsel and

then have a process server go there to serve him on your request and then have that Attorney, deny

representing you. When bluntly asked with the question of whether the attorney represents, Mr.

Krochmal or not, there is no response. In such a case I believe I am entitled to reach out to try and

him Mr. Krochmal served without embarrassment, or promise him that will process server will

eventually serve him pursuant to the rules set forth under the Florida Statutes. In fact I clearly

stated to Mr. Krochmal, “Please confirm if Defendant Shiner is your counsel and I will cease

contacting you.Thank you. Jah Bless.” (See Composite Exhibit “45” – Text of December 10, 2015

between Barry Gainsburg and Alexander Krochmal)

Truth doesn’t run. Truth doesn’t hide. Truth is always willing to speak. Mr. Krochmal, Defendant

Siegel and Defendant. Shiner are not willing to speak. That should tell us all something, should

it?

Turning quick focus to another important matter, Mr. Shiner on November 19, 2015, filed a

Request for Documents. In such request he asked for what I would consider to be privileged

attorney client communication and work product. I asked Mr. Shiner, if he would have his client

either waive this privilege or assert it so that I may comply with my ethical obligations under

Florida Rules. In return, Mr. Shiner keeps asserting a - you can share with me, but my client still

asserts his privilege stance. I do not believe that to be the case. My understanding is that privilege

is for a client to assert in whole. It is like being pregnant – you either are or you are not. One

cannot be a little pregnant. Nor provide a “little waiver”.

Would you, Mr. Mendez, please advise I of what the Florida Bar’s advisory opinion would be on

this issue so that I comply with both the Defendants’ Request for Production, as well as my ethical

responsibilities regarding attorney-client privilege as it applies in the current litigation. I am doing

my best to protect my former clients’ confidences accordingly. (See Exhibit “27” – emails and

correspondences between Mr. Gainsburg and David Shiner).

With respect to Mr. Siegel’s claim that my asking for the value of stock was unwarranted and

improper, I totally disagree. That will be an issue for a court of law to determine. I would ask Mr.

Siegel to re-read the engagement agreement he executed with Barry Gainsburg, P.A., as well as to

16

carefully read the allegations as set forth in the amended complaint.

With respect to Defendant Siegel’s allegation that I failed to comply with Rule 4-1.8, I deny such.

At all times Mr. Siegal was and should have been aware of the engagement letter that he negotiated

and executed in January 2015 between BTMS and BGPA. The issue of stock had been discussed

orally several between Mr. Siegel and I to negotiate the billing rate of $250 per hour, when Mr.

Siegel was paying Mr. Bergman $500 per hour, and he would go on to later pay Greenberg Trauig

approximately $1,000 per hour. It is apparent I was working for a low non-market rate.. The fact

that I am an attorney, does not prohibit I from receiving stock compensation as negotiated and

promised in a written contract to provide compensation for having a lower billing rate.

The fact that Mr. Siegel is a two time ex-con who is unwilling to live up to his written agreements,

is on him, not I. My attorney forwarded a Settlement Demand that was rejected by Mr. Siegel.

What prompted I to file the lawsuit is that the parties could not come to a negotiated settlement of

my claim, and therefore I filed my complaint with the Court. Unfortunately for Mr. Siegel, he

views it as something else. (See Exhibit “29” attached hereto – Composite correspondence

between Teschner and David Shiner dated October 19, 2015 and October 20, 2015.)

Interestingly enough, on December 2, 2015, after the filing of Mr. Siegel’s correspondence with

the Florida Bar, Defendants made a $5,000 settlement offer to I, which I rejected immediately.

(See Exhibit “30” – December 1, 2015 Settlement Offer from BioTrackTHC and Gainsburg

Response.) Therefore, it is difficult to argue that Defendants’ see no merit at all to my claims as

he has argued to the Bar.

As to Mr. Siegel’s concerns with regards to I speaking with Mr. Liam Molloy and Mr. Peter Kirsch,

who are BTMS Board Members, Mr. Siegel had a habit of hiding or not disclosing relevant

information to them when they invested into BTMS through Greenfield Capital in the amount of

$5 million. Mr. Kirsch and Mr. Molloy both expressed concerns to I, as well as to Mr. Siegel

regarding disclosures concerning the NewGate matter and a Franwell Cease and Desist letter sent

to BTMS prior to investment, and the eventual lawsuit. With respect to Broward Human Rights

investigation, I had to direct Mr. Siegel to disclose that to the BTMS Board Members or otherwise

he may not have. (See Exhibit “31” – Composite Greenfield Related E-mails.).

In fact, The Greenfield Principals have utter contempt and dislike for Mr. Siegel. And vice versa.

Each has threatened to sue one another on multiple occasions. The Greenfield Principals expressed

their concern over the many different litigations that BTMS was engaged in, as well as the costs

of being involved therein. In fact, while trying to serve as a peacemaker in this dispute between

the BTMS board members, Liam Molloy acknowledged:

“Jeff [Greenfield’s attorney], Barry glad you guys connected as I think with

frustrations on both sides you guys are the right people to navigate (plus my

incredibly low regard for Dale [Bergman, Mr. Siegel’s personal attorney] is

already on the record.

Barry, sometimes Billy Martin is the most level headed in the room. Thanks

guys and hope you guys find each other as enjoyable to deal with as I have

17

found you to be.” (See Exhibit “31” – Composite Greenfield Related E-

mails.)

Now to put the statement by Mr. Molloy in context, my wife had compared the exchanges Mr.

Siegel and I would engage in as tantamount to being a Billy Martin (I) and George Steinbrenner

(Mr. Siegel) relationship. So in effect, Mr. Molloy is saying that I was the reasonable person in

the room, not Mr. Siegel. Although as you can see, and I readily admit, that is not a very high

hurdle to exceed.

Mr. Molloy and I had a relationship on Linkedin that predated Greenfield’s $5 million investment

in BioTrackTHC. During my employment with BioTrackTHC, the Greenfield Principals

expressed how they valued my involvement and they would be interested about learning about

new cannabis related investment opportunities from I when the occasion arose. And I did so, as

requested. (See Exhibit “31” – Composite Greenfield Related E-mails.)

After I terminated my employment with BioTrackTHC, I informed the BioTrackTHC Board of

Directors that they should consider engaging separate counsel from Mr. Siegel in the Broward

Commission Blake Johnston Sexual Harassment Investigation, since there may be a conflict of

interest therein. I believed that was my ethical obligation. (See Exhibit “31” – Composite

Greenfield Related E-mails.)

Mr. Kirsch reached out to I upon my leaving BTMS. Not I to him. He asked me what happened

and I told Mr. Kirsch what occurred. He discussed his concerns about both Mr. Steven Siegel and

Patrick Vo running the company. He expressed to I that Mr. Vo was beholden to Mr. Siegel

direction because of the promise of stock in BTMS. He also asked I if Mr. Siegel was a very bad

man, and I did not deny Mr. Kirsch’s statement. He asked I to continue keeping him and Mr.

Molloy informed about developments, and they expressed that they hoped that they could find a

way to resolve the matter.

Again, I continued updating Mr. Molloy and Mr. Kirsch as requested. In fact, at no time did either

Greenfield Principal ask I to stop communicating directly with them or I would I have complied

immediately.

I did tell the Greenfield Partners that it was getting “heavy”, as Mr. Siegel quotes. I believe that

the filing of a lawsuit is a “heavy” and in fact big deal, and accordingly it should be taken very

seriously. Not to be taken “lightly”.

I did tell the Greenfield Partners that “I am sorry that your investment has to be spent on matters

like these” as Mr. Siegel quotes. That is a true statement. I continue to remain sorry.

Unfortunately, Mr. Siegel’s past and current immoral, and illegal actions, have caused the

Greenfield Investment in BMTS to be utilized for other purposes (especially involving litigation)

than was the intended solicited use of proceeds for growing BTMS’ business.

I did bring investment opportunities to Greenfield Partners for investment evaluation. In a

Greenfield Capital press release it states, “Greenfield Capital Partners is a Maryland based private

equity fund that is a thought leader and value driver in the legal cannabis industry. Greenfield’s

18

team has decades operational, direct investment and strategy formation experience that is unrivaled

in the legal cannabis industry. Greenfield will use this experience along with its cannabis industry

expertise to guide strategy and accelerate growth in all of its portfolio companies. For more

information please visit http://www.greenfieldcapitallp.com [This site is now password protected,

perhaps Mr. Siegel or Greenfield Capital could provide the Florida Bar with the required

password so that the Florida Bar, and the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission could also

diligently review said site for proper regulatory compliance](See Exhibit “31” – Composite

Greenfield Related E-mails.) Or, in other words, Greenfield was in the business of funding

cannabis related businesses, which included, but was not limited to interests in BioTrackTHC.

The release further discloses that “Greenfield Capital is making investments across the entire

value-chain of the legal cannabis industry with a focus on the infrastructure supporting the market.

BioTrack’s industry leading position is expected to provide Greenfield with valuable information

that will inform its investment process and help to drive value for other portfolio companies.”

There was no expectation or agreement of exclusivity between Barry Gainsburg, P.A. and

BioTrackTHC, or any agreed prohibition preventing introductions from being made by Barry

Gainsburg, P.A. to Greenfield Capital at any time.

In fact, Mr. Michael Devlin, who is a Greenfield Principal, reached out to me after knowing of my

past relationship with BioTrackTHC on or about November 23, 2015. This is several days after

the filing of Mr. Siegel’s correspondence with the Florida Bar. Again, the call was initiated by

Mr. Devlin. When I realized that Greenfield, essentially Mr. Molloy in effect, was acting

duplicitous by sharing our correspondences with BioTrackTHC management I terminated the

relationship by informing them we were disconnecting on Linkedin and I would no longer be

forwarding any correspondence or updates as previously requested. (See Exhibit “31” –

Composite Greenfield Related E-mails.). I also told Mr. Molloy that I was very disappointed in

him. Mr. Wasserman, Esq., Greenfield’s attorney, never instructed I not to speak with his clients,

nor with him for that matter.

Mr. Siegel cites that I did not provide appropriate legal advice regarding the Johnston lawsuit or

the implications of filing the BTMS v. Johnston matter in Broward Circuit Court action. This is a

complete fabrication.

Prior to I providing legal representation to BTMS, Mr. Siegel sought to use Tucker Byrd, Esq. to

pursue this action and Mr. Siegel was fully informed of the risks and benefits thereof by Mr. Byrd,

Esq.and Mr. Bergman, Esq. (See Exhibit “32” – Composite E-mail strings authorizing filing).

Thereafter, By I as well.

On September 12, 2014, Mr. Siegel gave I explicit permission to file said lawsuit against Mr.

Johnston. Mr. Siegel had reviewed the draft filings and some of his comments were even

incorporated into the final draft since I was not present during the time the underlying cause of

action arose. (See Exhibit “32” – Composite E-mail strings authorizing filing).

Mr. Siegel claims that he was never made aware of Defendant’s Motion for Fees in the Johnston

matter. However, that not true. Had Mr. Siegel or Mr. Vo simply looked in their inbox, that would

have known as I had sent them an email dated April 17, 2015 stating “Johnston filed a motion for

19

attorney fees. Now he claims we had a contract. Go figure. Also states bad faith. Just ridiculous.

Hate attorneys. I have also attached the reply.” (See Exhibit “33” – E-mail dated April 17, 2015

regarding Defendant’s Motion for attorney Fees.) As the saying goes, “I can send it to you, but I

can’t make you read it. I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you understand it.”

Furthermore, I was specifically authorized by Mr. Siegel to voluntarily dismiss the Johnston civil

lawsuit, which I made sure was done without prejudice, since Mr. Siegel did not want to give a

court deposition where he might be forced to disclose his past criminal history. His desire to

voluntarily dismiss derived in the following context - I filed a protective order at Mr. Siegel’s

request and insistence, to attempt to prevent Defendant Johnston’s counsel, Mr. Sam Gold, Esq.,

from taking a noticed deposition of Mr. Siegel. However the Court, with Judge Bowman presiding

wisely denied that Motion for Protective Order after a hearing was held on such request. (See

Exhibit “34” – Draft of order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order).

Mr. Siegel cites my quote from Pulp fiction as a threat. In fact, if Mr. Siegel took the time to really

think about the statement it means just the opposite of how he infers. The quote states that nobody

real wants to litigate or fight, so let’s see what we can do so that doesn’t occur. In fact, at the end

of this scene in Pulp Fiction everyone there is still alive and walks away unharmed (at least

physically so) because they communicated and reached an understanding. I don’t see how asking

to communicate is a threat, unless someone knows they are just in the wrong and they simply just

don’t want to have to face the truth.

Mr. Siegel cites my referencing to his “ignorant, arrogant or hav[ing] sociopathic tendencies.” In

fact “sociopath” was the term Mr. Siegel used, not I, to describe his own, and his father’s behavior

as well. When he asked me if I thought he was a sociopath, I didn’t ever disagree with him. I never

took it to be a fully diagnosed medical condition by a qualified doctor.

Mr. Siegel cites my salutatory use of the term “Jah Bless”. This was never raised as an issue during

my employment with BTMS where I would constantly use that salutation as a practicing Rasta. It

is no different than using the term “God Bless” or “Have a Blessed day”. I am unaware of any

violation of using this salutation under the Florida Bar Rules, or any rules, laws, statutes, or

ordinances for that matter. In fact the Court’s common refer to the Good Book.

In fact, in his correspondence of December 8, 2015, Mr. Siegel complains of an e-mail that was

sent to his counsel, Mr. Shiner, after I had viewed Mr. Shiner trolling around on my Linkedin

Home page. That e-mail did reference a sanctifying ceremony held on the top of Pinnacle in

Jamaica with water from the Jordan River, Israel. I don’t think my religious beliefs in any way

have any effect on Mr. Siegel’s “life, faith, sexual orientations and beliefs. I did state as quoted

that “I asked that Jah should guide him to do the just and righteous things. And she he not than

Jah should curse his name and never let it be blessed.”. I stand by that statement. And it seems to

I that it should still apply based on Mr. Siegel’s malicious and false allegations as set forth in both

his correspondences. This is not a threat, nor is it discriminatory, unethical and beyond

professional. It speaks to my faith and my prayers to Jah, not Mr. Siegel’s. I asked Jah to curse

Mr. Siegel’s name if he did not do righteous things, I don’t have any such power, nor would I ever

imagine I did. I know that Jah owns that, not I. However, I do believe in the power of prayer,

and perhaps that is what Mr. Siegel is feeling as well, just not in a blessed manner

20

Also as a practicing Rasta, I believe that Mr. Siegel is, and has discriminated against I because of

my beliefs. This constitutes an attempt to abridge my First Amendment right to freely practice my

religion, as well as state and city rules protecting my religious freedoms. Mr. Siegel would belittle

my Rasta beliefs. Perhaps more religion might keep Mr. Siegel from habitually bearing false

witness in violation of the universally accepted Biblical Ten Commandments.

Mr. Siegel further rails somehow I am attempting to use religion as a tool of harassment against

him. No, Mr. Siegel I use my Religion as a tool of empowerment for I&I all. I don’t even know

what your religion is, nor do you state so in your correspondences to the Bar. I don’t believe you

believe in Religion. The term “Come to Jesus” meeting is defined as “A meeting where someone

close to you (e.g. friend, family, etc.) are confronted over behavior that's causing consternation

that's negatively effecting your relationship.” Indeed, I requested Mr. Shiner to have one such

meeting with Mr. Siegel, his client, regarding stating the truth and not to bear false witness.

In fact, after previously expressing it was a good idea to take I along with him and his contingent,

including Mr. Vo’s wife, Mr. Siegel refused to bring I on an important BioTrackTHC business trip

to Jamaica in May 2015 because of my Rasta beliefs. As a practicing Rasta, to us a man’s (or

woman’s) word is his covenant. One is to fulfill their given word, oral or written, and speak the

truth. Obviously, as evidenced, Mr. Siegel does not share a similar philosophy on life, nor does he

conduct himself in a Rasta recommended type manner.

Please note, if Mr. Siegel is offended at the advice and guidance of the scriptures, than he and his

attorney are going to be very unhappy to see how the Florida Courts have addressed the nature of

claims involving “Defamation Per Se”:

…[W]hen the claim is defamation per se, liability itself creates a conclusive

legal presumption of loss or damage and is alone sufficient for the jury to

consider punitive damages. […] To sum up, Florida's unusually high

protection of personal reputation derives from the common consent of

humankind and has ancient. It is highly valued by civilized people. Our state

constitution and common law powerfully support it. This is a value as

old as the Pentateuch and the Book of Exodus, and its

command as clear as the Decalogue: “Thou shall not

bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The personal interest

in one's own good name and reputation surpasses economics, business

practices or money. It is a fundamental part of personhood, of individual

standing and one's sense of worth. In short, the wrongdoing underlying the

punitive damages in this case has Florida law's most severe condemnation,

its highest blameworthiness, its most deserving culpability. For slander per

se, reprehensibility is at its highest.

Lawnwood, 43 So. 3d at 727-29, review denied, 36 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 2010), and cert. denied, 131 S.

Ct. 905 (U.S. 2011) (footnotes omitted).

I have essentially provided the same guidance to Mr. Siegel, and his counsel, Mr. Shiner, provided

21

by the Lawnwood Court, as was provided in the Biblical Books of Moses, by the words carried

forward by the most esteemed Prophet and Law Giver of the Hebrews from the words of the

Almighty, himself. These religious inspired words and idea “Do Not Lie” are intricately woven

with the Florida law as stated above in Lawnwood.

I did tell Mr. Shiner to tell his client “do the right thing before its too late”. This was not a threat.

There was no consequence or harm proposed for non-compliance. If Mr. Siegel had a moral fiber

in his being he would do the right thing before his eternal soul is condemned for the way he lies..

I had already filed my lawsuit against Mr. Siegel so he was apprised of the compelling nature why

he should do the right thing.

Mr. Siegel and BTMS utilized my litigation skills when they realized that I would not cost them

the same amount as the approximately $1,000 per hour representation fee invoiced by Greenberg

Trauig in the Franwell matter. Especially with the Greenfield Partners’ concern about litigation

costs and Mr. Siegel’s dilatory review habits, I provided a very economically attractive choice to

handle such matters. In addition, Mr. Bergman, Esq. was copied on the majority of filings, and

was asked for guidance on legal strategy at all times in the Johnston and NewGate litigation

matters, which Mr. Bergman did so provide.

Furthermore, with respect to the NewGate matter, Mr. Siegel and Mr. Vo were on the initial

conference call with the AAA arbitration administer on June 2, 2015, they had a chance to review

the response and provide guidance in its finalization, and I had even been asked to have the Answer

reviewed by Greenberg Trauig, who had no comments to add to my draft. (See Exhibit “28” –

NewGate Filing Documents). Mr. Siegel’s assertions in his correspondence are self-serving,

specious, irrational, unsupportable, disingenuous, malicious and untruthful.

Mr. Siegel claims that I violated several BTMS company policies and procedures. The Florida

Bar should inquire of Mr. Siegel to provide any BTMS company handbook(s) along with a signed

receipt of acknowledgment by I? Mr. Siegel cannot ever produce such. There was no company

policy and procedure Handbook in effect while Barry Gainsburg, P.A. was contracted with BTMS.

I only communicated with clients - mainly other lawyers and government officials to inform them

of my departure so they would not inadvertently send documents to my attention which would be

ignored, or be under the impression that I still represented BioTrackTHC. Mr. Vo was clearly made

aware of these activities, before and after. Although, Mr. Vo never responded to I, as was often

the case to no one’s surprise.

As described in greater detail above, I never abandoned my client, BTMS or even Mr. Siegel,

individually. Rather it was BTMS and Mr. Siegel who abandoned I. They asked I to take a 50%

compensation cut and continue working for them. Had I tried to ask for 50% more or threatened

not show up to a material hearing unless such request was complied with, than that could be

considered constructively abandoning the client. This situation in specific was of Mr. Siegel’s

own orchestrating, as well as Patrick Vo’s lack of communication. It was nobody else’s making,

especially I’s.

Mr. Siegel states that I was not authorized to communicate with the government clients. That is

patently false. I was involved in discussions with Illinois regarding the terms of the contract for

22

the government seed-to-sale implementation and had direct known contact with their governmental

department heads. In fact. Most Government Seed-To sale contract agreements contained a clause

where they could terminate the contract for convenience.

Essentially, there is no contract if the government can terminate at any time without consequence.

I negotiated that clause away in the Illinois scenario, unlike Mr. Vo who had negotiated prior Seed-

to-Sale contracts with the State of Washington and New Mexico, where those clauses are still

operative. I was also involved with NY on multiple levels regarding disclosures of interest and a

Franwell Protest filed in the state of New York. (See Exhibit “35” – Composite Exhibit)

And as previously disclosed, I informed Mr. Patrick Vo on October 4th that those contacted parties

would need to be contacted should I terminate the relationship. No objection was ever received

by I from Mr. Vo opposing such contact, nor was any objection received by Mr. Siegel or any of

his minions of attorneys.

Mr. Siegel cites that I stated “I can personally vouch as pivotal is my client that the management

is talented, forward looking and very reasonable to deal with.” That is one of the few true

statements contained in Mr. Siegel’s correspondence. If Mr. Siegel believes that I complimenting

another management team as being “very reasonable to deal with” is a personal slight onto him,

then that is within his own ego, not my words. That statement is not unethical, unprofessional or

malicious. It is simply a statement of fact. Nowhere in said statement did I discuss Mr. Siegel or

BioTrackTHC. Perhaps a guilty conscious, presuming that one has…

Mr. Siegel claims that he had several occasions where he disclosed confidential information about

his health. Indeed he did. I never revealed those conditions to anyone, nor does Mr. Siegel provide

any allegation of such. I don’t think that Mr. Siegel’s diabetes condition can be read to have any

connection to I stating that service of process handled by his attorney would be less stressful than

having Mr. Siegel served by a process server in the office or at home. I am not aware of anxiety

being a symptom of diabetes. However, I am aware of anxiety being associated with mental issues.

In either case, this is a clearly a ridiculous accusation that has been slung by Mr. Siegel.

Mr. Siegel never disclosed to I, at any time, that he had high anxiety disorder. I couldn’t use

something I was unaware of against Mr. Siegel. The only condition he advised I of was his

diabetes, and I would complement him on his weight loss for eating healthier. I don’t believe that

to be harassment or embarrassing.

After some reflection, as I previously stated, I never took Mr. Siegel’s discussions of being a

sociopath to be a fully diagnosed medical condition. However, if that was the case, I then certainly

do apologize to Mr. Siegel for discussing what was truly unknown to me to be a diagnosed medical

condition.

He had simply complained of being “very very sick” to I. (See Composite Exhibit “37” attached

hereto), And I, above and beyond my ethical duties offered to read the document to the “very very

sick” Mr. Siegel, like a parent reading a bedtime story to his ill child, to help facilitate his review

of the NewGate Answer and Motion to Dismiss which needed to be filed the next day per

previously set AAA deadlines that Mr. Siegel kept deliberately avoiding.

23

I found an article entitled “How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being

swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job” (See Composite Exhibit “37” attached hereto).

The article identifies these following characteristics of a sociopath: (i) Sociopaths are charming –

and I must give it up to Mr. Siegel, he certainly can be a charming man; (ii) Sociopaths are

incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse – again this would usually be just about when Mr.

Siegel would ask I if I thought he were a Sociopath because he actually really enjoyed working

people over and hurting them; (iii) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. In

fact as I look back at this, Mr. Siegel likes to tell a story where he explains how he was picked up

by the secret service or NIDTA agents, on a private government jet after confirming with them

that he had no ties to the pharmaceutical industry and they brought him to a “top secret” location

next to a cannabis grow to speak about him and BTMS having a special role in the cannabis

industry; (iv) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs – again I think this is now

self-evident; (v) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent – and Mr. Siegel is certainly intelligent.

He even calls himself a “Dr.”

The article also states that these type of folks use their high intelligence to deceive – again self-

evident; (vi) Sociopaths never apologize – well, every once and a while I would hear Mr. Siegel

apologize, but it wasn’t really a sincere or heart-felt apology, but rather calculated to just gloss

over a situation or he was just exhausted from being wrong on a matter; (vii) Sociopaths are

delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it! Again

self-evident after reading Mr. Siegel’s correspondence and reviewing I’s response with its

multitude of exhibits proving Mr. Siegel wrong in his countless malicious assertions against I.

The article also goes on to conclude that “You cannot reason with a sociopath. Attempting to do

so only wastes your time and annoys the sociopath. Tip for exposing sociopaths: Start fact-

checking something they claim. One simple method for dispelling sociopathic delusion is to start

fact checking their claims. Do any of their claims actually check out? If you start digging, you will

usually find a pattern of frequent inconsistencies. Confront the suspected sociopath with an

inconsistency and see what happens: Most sociopaths will become angry or aggressive when their

integrity is questioned, whereas a sane person would simply be happy to help clear up any

misinformation or misunderstanding.” I think it is also abundantly clear that Mr. Siegel certainly

seems annoyed to say the least after reviewing his correspondence and I would only expect that he

will be unable to logically explain the inconsistencies in his “fact-based” assertions that have been

exposed and debunked by I.

Again, I really hadn’t given it much thought, but I can now truly understand in retrospect the reality

of the sociopath medical diagnosis, as it applies to Mr. Siegel. However, in any matter, I don’t

believe that stress is a symptom or indicative of being diagnosed as a sociopath, or even a common

characteristic of being sociopath, so as you can see I had no intent to reveal any such real

confidence, or play upon any symptom of Mr. Siegel’s illness(es) known or unknown to I. Again,

I offer my sincere and heartfelt apologies to Mr. Siegel if this diagnosis was actually medically

certified.

Mr. Siegel cites my contacting Mr. Bergman as an issue. Mr. Bergman is not representing

BioTrackTHC in the litigation matter between Mr. Siegel, BTMS and I. Rather Mr. Bergman

24

concentrates on securities and corporate matters as Mr. Siegel has stated. Mr. Bergman has keen

insight into Mr. Siegel’s erratic behaviors, having experienced Mr. Siegel’s rage and abuse first

hand by simply representing Mr. Siegel and BioTrackTHC over a period of time. I reached out by

text to get Mr. Bergman’s permission to speak with him prior to I calling. Mr. Bergman was

amenable so I did indeed speak with him. I told Mr. Bergman that I appreciated all the things that

Mr. Siegel had done in the past and asked if perhaps there was a way to resolve the pending matter

before the situation turned for the worst. Mr. Bergman said regardless of outcome, he would

appreciate the opportunity to work with I again in the future. And I expressed that I would certainly

enjoy that as well.

Defendant. Siegel cites that I am still in possession of confidential documents. I do have copies

of certain emails on my Barry Gainsburg P.A. email address. Thankfully, it helps rebut his false

assertions in a matter such as this. My then attorney, Mr. Teschner, Esq. returned the

BioTrackTHC work computer and other hard materials containing the confidential documents

back to Defendant Siegel’s counsel on October 20, 2015. (See Exhibit “38” – Receipt for Return

of BTMS Property given by Andrew Teschner).

Defendant. Siegel states that I referred to him and BioTrackTHC as animals. I used a common

colloquially analogy to describe the dysfunction that Mr. Shiner, as counsel for BioTrackTHC

would have to deal with going forward defending and prosecuting cases on BioTrackTHC’s behalf.

Nothing more, nothing less was meant by said statement. If Mr. Siegel really believes that he

behaves like a monkey, well…

In fact, this is an odd and, in fact hypocritical allegation considering that Mr. Siegel, again in his

own words, gleefully compares his current attorney Mr. Shiner, directly, not allegorily mind you,

to a “Pitbull”. (See Exhibit 5 – Text from Steven Siegel to Barry Gainsburg regarding Mr.

“Pitbull” Shiner).

That characterization certainly speaks volumes to both Mr. Siegel and Mr. Shiner’s reputations

and intents. Perhaps comparisons to certain types of animals, monkeys rather than pitbulls is really

what Mr. Siegel finds objectionable, rather than comparisons to all “animals” in and of themselves.

Perhaps Mr. Siegel is a fan of George Orwell. According to Mr. Orwell’s classic tale Animal

Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Perhaps, Mr. Siegel

really only needed to take counsel from a wise Lion already under his circus tent.

Mr. Siegel states that I called him “a little school girl”. I did not. If Mr. Siegel read the sentence

in its entirety he may have noticed that it read “Oh yes, there is also effusive praise for I by the

Defendant Siegel – see where he writes in Big Fonts ‘Your awesome…I miss you around here :-

)” It almost sounds like words from a little girl.” If Mr. Siegel feels that he is like a little girl, again

that feeling is on him. But I did not say that of which he accuses I. I spoke to the tone of his

words, not Defendant Siegel as a person.

Defendant. Siegel alleges that I “attempted to gloat” about “him making it so my attorneys might

not represent me ” (sic). I did not gloat. My question was extremely straight forward. It was

completely devoid of any commentary. I believe they were relevant questions given the naming

of now Defendant Shiner in the Amended Complaint, which was filed with the Court the day

25

before. “Mr. Shiner I guess as a named defendant in the above referenced lawsuit it begs the

question of whether shall I continue contacting you directly in regards to the matter, or are

you/won’t you be represented by counsel in this matter whom I should direct my future

correspondences to. Also, Mr. Shiner, please advise if you will continue representing Defendant

BioTrackTHC and Mr. Siegel in this matter.” I strenuously deny any gloating was implied by I

as to anyone regarding making the quoted requests.

Defendant. Siegel claims that I sent him a screenshot to harass him. Not true. Not even remotely

true. My 13 year old son was teaching I how to take screenshots with my Iphone since I had never

done such before. I took one of a text message that is included herein as an exhibit in fact.

Accidentally, I hit send when I wanted to forward the picture to my email address to print out. As

soon as I realized it texted to defendant Siegel, I immediately notified him it was an accident and

apologized. There was no other comment by I. I tried explaining this to Mr. Shiner who asserted

it was intentional and harassment. (See Exhibit “43” – Screenshot from Gainsburg Iphone Text to

Defendant Siegel)

Defendant Siegel cites that I was causing him and BTMS harm and harassing him “because he had

no doubt that Mr. Gainsburg’s actions are intentionally harassing and directly intended to disrupt

my business (Bio-Tech’s business) and cost me and Bio-Tech Financial harm, attorney’s fees and

costs.” Please note, that Defendant Siegel is currently not an officer of BTMS. He has been

removed from the BTMS CEO position and now serves as a “Founder” and “Chairman of the

Board Emeritless”.

Also Defendant Siegal states there is “no doubt” – well the matters brought before the Court and

the Bar are to be resolved based on facts and case laws, statutes and rules which Defendant Siegel

and his counsel fail to produce in support of their allegations of “no doubt”. Defendant Siegel

references some unspecified conversations as his basis of epiphany. Defendant Siegel might

consider spending more time focusing on his and BTMS’ defense in the civil case now pending

against him. I am not disrupting Mr. Siegel’s business – he is disrupting it himself by wasting his

time with frivolousness and asserting malicious allegations against I.

In fact, on December 9, 2015 I received a Holiday Greeting card from the Shiner Law group, P.A.

I guess I could state it was intentionally harassing, it was unprofessional, etc… But in reality it

may be an administrative oversight, even though the envelope was hand written by someone from

SLG. Perhaps, Ms. Shiner likes and thinks enough of I to send it out.to I despite the litigation. I

accept it in the spirit that it was sent. Either case, mistake or deliberately by Ms. Shiner, neither

raises to a Bar Complaint issue, and not no objection is being made. Rather, it is fairly amusing

correspondence given the context. (See Exhibit “44” – Copy of 2015 Shiner Law group Holiday

Card sent to Mr. Gainsburg). Mr. Siegel’s allegations of intentional harassment against I are totally

unfounded and demonstrate his quick temper and irrationality.

Mr. Siegel, along with Patrick Vo, would constantly relate a story recounting how they pulled a

fast one over the State of Washington regarding BTMS’ first government contract with a seed-to-

sale system. Either of them, would regale anyone who would listen that on the date on the in-

person presentation at the then named State of Washington State Liquor and Control Board

(“WSLCB”) offices.

26

The story goes that BTMS’ had no local ability to obtain wifi or direct internet access on the BTMS

presentation lap top at the WSLCB offices. So in a subterfuge, Mr. Vo and Mr. Siegel then secretly

emailed from their cell phone to BTMS’ Chief Technology Officer, Mr. Terrence Ferraro, who

was offsite at a computer terminal to alert him to activate an essential piece of the proposed seed-

to-sale tracking software system appear seamlessly operational and functional from the state

agency’s offices, despite the obvious hidden truth of the matter. Mr. Siegel and Mr. Vo would (and

will) stop at just about nothing, including the ethical boundaries of honesty, to achieve their

objectives.

Based on the actions and representations of Mr. Steven Siegel contained in his correspondence to

the Florida Bar, I believe, as you should as well, that he poses a danger to the cannabis industry,

to local, state and federal governments and agencies enacting seed-to-sale tracking software, as

well as to employees and investors of BTMS. I believe the Florida Bar, the Courts and any industry

that Mr. Siegel happens to be involved in should be made aware of his continuing deceptive and

sociopathic ways.

Previously, and I still may, seek a good faith modification of the absolute immunity standard as

set forth in Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1998) to a standard of qualified immunity in

conformance with Justice Wells' eloquent dissenting opinion expressed therein and provided

below:

As much as I agree that we should prevent the chilling of grievance filings,

I must also consider and weigh the chilling and sometimes devastating

effect to an attorney's career and life of an expressly malicious and false

grievance filing made with intent to injure the attorney.

I believe the majority opinion ignores the reality of this effect when it

concludes that "if a baseless Bar complaint is filed against an attorney and

the Bar Grievance Committee returns a finding of no probable cause, then

public exoneration is a suitable remedy for any negative effects created by

the public awareness that a complaint has been made against that attorney."

Majority op. at 3.

.

Moreover, those who serve in the Bar grievance process on grievance

committees and the Board of Governors know that malicious grievance

filings are actually a fact of the present practice of law. Such filings can be

and have been used as tactical weapons against attorneys to accomplish

purposes that have nothing to do with violation of the rules of professional

conduct.

Attorneys should not be defenseless against this tactic nor should the

grievance process be freely available to those who employ this tactic.

I believe that the public, attorneys, and the grievance process are best served

by providing a complainant with qualified rather than absolute immunity

27

from civil liability for defamation. In accord with the amicus brief filed on

behalf of The Florida Bar in this present case, I would hold that qualified

immunity attaches to the initial complaint to The Florida Bar by an

individual against an attorney.

I hope that eventually the qualified immunity will become the majority court position. Who knows

how that change may be effectuated – perhaps back through the Florida court system or through

legislative initiative.

The documents attached hereto by Defendant Siegel demonstrate a compulsive and habitual

malicious intent to lie about and defame I. This includes doing so under oath to the Florida Bar, in

an attempt to gain some leverage in my civil suit against him and BTMS, as well as Defendant.

Shiner and the Shiner Law Group, P.A. Mr. Siegel’s false and malicious assertions are weaved by

him and his counsel, Mr. Shiner I suspect, to support the defamatory narrative that I was “a

disgruntled attorney who was fired for not doing his job.” But nothing else could be further from

the truth of Mr. Siegel’s delusional assertions. I. did my job and, perhaps, I did it far too well for

Defendant Siegel’s liking.

Mr. Siegel quotes I stating “I believe my former colleagues, who are mostly wonderful people

committed to the cannabis industry, would better be served with the appointment of a credible and

professional management team to move BioTrackTHC forward, Jah Bless”. I did say that. And I

still believe that to be true. And in fact, today it is even more true and therefore important to

implement in order save any credibility that BTMS had in its industry. Along with many others, I

make no apology for stating the obvious truth.

Defendant Shiner, Esq. has been obsessively viewing my LinkedIn home page. At first I

disconnected the LinkedIn connection between Mr. Shiner and I. But this did not stop Mr. Shiner’s

relentless viewing of my home page. This is creepy and stalky like behavior exhibited by Mr.

Shiner that should be vetted by the Florida Bar.

I subsequently, blocked Mr. Shiner from having any access to my LinkedIn page and I reported

his behavior to LinkedIn’s customer service team. I have asked them to provide I with any

analytical data that they may possess which would indicate the frequency and duration of his

“visits” to my home page. Should I receive such data I will happily forward on to the Florida Bar

for its review. I have attached copies of screen shots that indicate the most recent activity of Mr.

Shiner within a few hours’ time prior to his being blocked by I. (See Exhibit “39” – Screenshots

of David Shiner on my Linkedin page on or about December 4, 2015)

I also had a UMC hearing this morning, on December 17, 2015 on the Bio-Tech Medical Software,

Inc. case to compel a deposition and production of insurance information which was stayed by the

court at Defendant’s Request. After the hearing, Mr. Shiner chased I down the hall way wanting

to speak. I told him to please put in writing an thing that he wanted to say. When Mr. Shiner

caught up with I at the elevator he stated to I “You started this and I am going to end this” He

told me I screwed with the wrong person and he was going to finish my career because he

knows people.” As Mr. Shiner, Esq. is a member of the Florida Bar Grievance Committee in Palm

28

Beach I believe his threat to be true and already initiated. I immediately ran back to the Court

Room and informed Judge Imperato of what had transpired at the elevator bank.

Based on the actions of David Shiner, Esq., a Palm Beach County Grievance Committee Member,

along with his malicious defamatory statements, as well as his unethical and unprofessional actions

as to I, I pray the Florida Bar should initiate a complaint and suspend Mr. Shiner from engaging

in all Florida Bar Grievance Committee matters, and the practice of law in the State of Florida for

a period of at least ninety-one (91) days pending the conclusion of said investigation by the Florida

Bar..

As noted earlier, I have filed a civil suit to address the civil monetary damages that Defendant

Shiner and the Shiner Law Group may owe to I, both compensatory and punitive in nature.

Defendant. Shiner, and his firm, the Shiner Law Group, P.A., present a clear and present danger

to the South Florida legal community. Accordingly, I have attached an ACAP complaint form

regarding Defendant Shiner and his firm to this response letter.

Again, I would also like to request an advisory opinion from Bar Counsel regarding the “privilege”

issue previously raised herein by David Shiner, Esq, so that Defendant. Siegel’s attorney-client

privilege with I can be properly waived in part for discovery purposes as proposed by Defendant

Shiner or retained in full to protect Defendant Siegel’s confidences as I believe the rules require

as of date, since they have not been fully waived.

Mr. Mendez, I appreciate your anticipated expeditious review of this matter, along with your

copious review of all of the attached exhibits.

Jah Blessings and Merry Christmas,

Barry R. Gainsburg, Esq.

cc: Mr. Alan Pascal, Esq. Bar Counsel

Hon. Cynthia Imperato

29

Requested Witness List

1. Hon. Judge John Bowman

2. Hon. Judge Imperato

3. Mr. Brian McClintock

4. Mr. Alexander Krochmal

3. Mr. Dale Bergman, Esq.

4. Mr. David Shiner, Esq.

5. Ms. Lara Shiner

6. Mr. Peter Kirsch

7. Mr. Liam Molloy

9. Mr. Joseph Alvares, CEO of NewGate Capital Partners

11. Mr. Steven Siegel

12. Mr. Patrick Vo