TRANSCRIPT Judge Nielsen 2.15pm April 25 2006 Disqualif Counsel

8/13/2019 TRANSCRIPT Judge Nielsen 2.15pm April 25 2006 Disqualif Counsel

1/37

123

456789

111213141516171819202122232425

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICI L CIRCUITOF THE ST TE OF FLORIDA IN ND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J . GILLESPIEP l a i n t i f f

-v s -BARKER, RODEMS COOK P.A.A Flor ida Corporat ionWILLIAM J . COOK

Case No.:Divis ion:

05-7205F

Defendants .j

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE: HONOR BLE RICH RDCircu i t Judge A NIELSEN

TAI-


2/37

12

3

45

7

8

9

101112131415161718192021

22232425

2

APPEARANCES:

On beha l f of the P l a i n t i f f :

N IL J GILL SPIPro se l i t i gan t

On beha l f of the Defendant :RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS SQUIRBarker , Rodems Cook, P A400 North Ashley Drive , Sui te 2100Tampa, Flor ida 33602

B er r y h i l l Associa tes , Inc .


3/37

5

10

15

20

25

10

3

4

6789

11].2

C 131416171819

21

222324

P R O C E E D I N G STHE COURT: All r i gh t . So you a re Mr. Gi l l e sp ie ,

i s t ha t co r rec t?

MR GILLESPIE: Yes Your Honor. Nei l Gi l l e s p i e .THE COURT: And you are Mr. Rodems?MR RODEMS: Tha t s cor rec t , Your Honor.THE COURT: What order do we want to t ake these

mat te r s up today?MR RODEMS: Well Judge we n o t i c e d t h ree

motions for hear ing , two of them f i l ed byMr. Gi l l e s p i e . The f i r s t was to d i s qua l i f y me ascounse l for the defendants . The second was to dismissthe defendan t s dismiss and s t r i k e de fe nda n t scounterc la ims . Our motion i s a Sec t ion 57 .105 motion.

The four th motion t ha t we f i l ed had to do with ar eques t fo r a b a i l i f f to be presen t . We d i d n t no t i cet ha t for hear ing , but obvious ly we have a depu ty here .So t ha t I d o n t know t ha t t ha t nece s s a r i ly needs tocome up. I t was not no t i ced for hear ing today , but wecan take t up i f you want to .

I would suggest t ha t the order t ha t makes senseto fo l low i s Mr. G i l le s p i e s motion to d i s q u a l i f y andthe motion to s t r i k e our counterc la ims .

THE COURT: I agree . And as for the r eques t forb a i l i f f , my procedure i s on any case in which the re i s

Ber ryh i l l & Associa tes , Inc .


4/37

5

10

15

20

25

4

1 a pro se par ty , a b a i l i f f i s p r e s en t . So j u s t fo rfu tu re re fe rence you do not have to submit a r eques t .

3 And s ince it s not in the form o f a motion I d o n t4 t h ink it needs a ru l ing . All r i g h t .

Motion to d isqua l i fy , Mr. G i l l e sp i e .MR GILLESPIE: Good af te rnoon , Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Mr. Gil lesp ie , you can go ahead and8 argue your motion.9 MR GILLESPIE: Thank you Judge. As the motion

s t a t e s , t h i s i s to d i s q u a l i f y Mr. Rodems and t he law11 f i rm from rep re sen t ing themselves because in t h e i r12 p o s i t i o n as bo th a t to rney , Mr. Cook and the law f i rm13 they prev ious ly represented me. When t he ma t t e r i s the14 same or su b s t a n t i a l l y s imi la r to the m a t t e r in the

presen t controversy , now the i n t e r e s t o f Mr. Cook and16 Barker Rodems Cook are m a t e r i a l l y adverse to my17 i n t e r e s t s , t h e i r former c l i e n t . And t h i s i s c re a t i n g a18 c o n f l i c t o f i n t e re s t , a c onf l i c t o f i n t e r e s t t h a t19 app l ies to an a t to rney assoc ia ted with a law f i rm.

THE COURT: Mr. Gil lesp ie , I n o t i ce t ha t you are21 read ing your motion to d i s q u a l i f y , i s t ha t co r r ec t ?

MR GILLESPIE: Yes it i s .23 THE COURT: All r i gh t . Jus t so t ha t we can24 expedi te t h i s , I have read your motion .

MR GILLESPIE: Okay.

Ber ryh i l l Associa tes , Inc .


5/37

5

10

15

20

25

5

1 THE COURT: So if t h e r e s any a d d i t i o n a l argument2 t h a t you wish to make c la r i fy ing , expanding3 presen t ing case law t ha t would suppor t t ha t , t ha t i s4 what I would ask you to do a t t h i s t ime.

MR GILLESPIE: I thank you Judge. No I t h ink6 the motion i s f a i r l y thorough.7 THE COURT: Well see then t h e r e was one8 c l a r i f i c a t i o n t ha t I had and you had a c tua l ly j u s t9 read t h a t por t ion of it You made r e fe rence to a same

or s ubs t a n t i a l l y s imi la r mat te r to the p r e s en t11 con t rove rsy . Have you prev ious ly well , a re you12 r e f e r r ing to the mat te r in which as I unders tand , some13 o f the underly ing f ac t s of your c la im r e l a t e to the14 ac t i o n t ha t you had r e t a in ed the f i rm fo r having to do

with the16 MR GILLESPIE: Amscot Corpora t ion .17 THE COURT: Yes the Amscot.18 MR GILLESPIE: Yes.19 THE COURT: And the ac t ion brought . Was it in

f edera l cour t?21 MR GILLESPIE: Yes it was Judge.

THE COURT: Is t ha t , when you r e f e r to a mat te r23 or a s ubs t a n t i a l l y s imi l a r mat te r , i s t ha t the mat te r24 you were r e f e r r i n g to?

MR GILLESPIE: Yes Judge. The defendants

B er r y h i l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .


6/37

5

10

15

20

25

6

1234

6789

11121314

16171819

21

2324

r ep resen ted me on tha t case which r e a l l y as you sayforms the underlying fac ts of t h i s case . They a l sorepresen ted me on another payday loan l awsu i t aga ins tAce Cash Express which was more or l e s scontemporaneously handled with the Amscot case . Sothose two cases were s imi la r . The Amscot case ofcourse i s more s imi la r because the same fac t s areinvolved in cont rac t and in how the case played out .

THE COURT: All r i gh t s i r . Thank you.Mr. Rodems.MR RODEMS: Thank you Judge. As you pointed

out Your Honor Rule 4-1.9 of the Rules Regula t ing theFlor ida Bar discusses the same o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a t e dmat te r . The mat te r t ha t the defendants r ep resen tedMr. Gi l l esp ie on was a Truth in Lending Act c la im f i l edin the f edera l cour t involving i s sues o f

THE COURT: Do you have tha t ru le?MR RODEMS: Yes s i r . It s 4-1 .9 .THE COURT: F o u r - MR RODEMS: 4-1 .9 .THE COURT: All r i gh t . Got it.MR RODEMS: Okay. So the case tha t

Mr. Gi l l esp ie a l leges i s subs t an t i a l l y the same ors imi la r involved a cla im by Mr. Gil le sp ie aga ins tAmscot a corpora t ion invo lv ing a l l eged v io l a t i ons of

Berryh i l l Assoc ia tes Inc .C


7/37

123

45678

9

101112131415161718192021

22232425

7

Mr. G i l l e s p i e s r igh ts under the Truth in Lending Act.This lawsui t involves d i f f e r e n t pa r t i e s , d i f f e r en tfac t s and d i f f e r e n t l ega l i s sues .

In the case of Frank Weinberg Black v sEffman 916 So.2d 971 there was a l so a motion tod i s qua l i f y on tha t case . The defendant in t ha t casewas a law f i rm. And they were seek ing to d i s qua l i f y ana t to rney by the name o f Atlas who was rep resen t ingEffman. And Atlas had a t one t ime r ep resen ted the lawf i rm in an ac t ion the f i rm brought aga ins t a depar t ingshareholder to recover fees t ha t tha t depar t ingshareholder rece ived from c l i en t s .

And what the cour t sa id in t ha t case i s , quotethe t r i a l cour t did not depar t from the e s s e n t i a lrequirements of law i n ru l ing tha t the 1991 l awsu i t ,which involved the shareholder recover ing fees fromc l i en t s , were not s ubs t a n t i a l l y r e l a t ed to the 2003lawsui t within the meaning of the ru le , 4-1 .9 . Thelawsui ts involved en t i r e l y d i f f e ren t fac t s , even thoughthe same underlying document governing the r e l a t i ons h iplS the same.

So here we have a s i t ua t i on t ha t i s qui te s imi la rto tha t case in which Mr. Gi l l esp ie i s now suingBarker Rodems Cook P and Mr. Cook i nd iv idua l lyregarding a cont rac t he ente red i n to with the law f irm.

Berryh i l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .


8/37

5

10

15

20

5

8

1 And it s complete ly separa te , independent of the ac t ion2 tha t the law f irm represented Mr. G i l l e s p i e on.3 In add i t ion to t ha t case, Bochese vs . Town o f4 Ponce In le t 267 F. Supp. 2nd 1240, the cour t ru led in

t ha t case t ha t the , and again it was a chal lenge under6 4-1 .9 . That the two cases, the one t ha t the c l i e n t was7 c la iming t ha t was s ubs t a n t i a l l y the same involved8 d i f f e r e n t p la in t i f f s , d i f f e r e n t defendants , and for the9 l a rge pa r t , d i f fe ren t l ega l i s sues , which aga in i s what

we have here . The cour t in t ha t case den ied a motion11 to d i s qua l i f y counsel under 4-1 .9 .12 In Je t One Center Inc . In Re Je t One Center13 Inc . 310 So.2d - I m sorry , 310-BR, Bankruptcy14 Repor ter , 649 - t h i s i s Judge Pas kay - t he re was a

motion to d i squa l i fy the c i t y of Naples a i r p o r t16 a u t h o r i t y s at torney, who was Mr. Amado. The motion17 was f i l ed by the bank. Amado had, I th ink a t the same18 t ime or contemporaneously o r in the pa s t r ep resen ted19 the bank. But he represented the bank on c o l l e c t i on

cases and t h i s involved bankruptcy.21 And the cour t sa id even a cursory reading of the

t ex t in sub c lause (a) - again r e fe r r i ng to 4-1 .9 - 23 t h i s ru le l eaves no doubt tha t it app l i e s only to a24 rep resen ta t ion of a c l i en t aga ins t a former c l i e n t in

mat te r s t ha t are , quote, the same o r a s u b s t a n t i a l l y



9/37

9

1 r e l a t e d mat t e r i n which t h a t p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t s a re2 m a t e r i a l l y adverse to t he i n t e r e s t o f t h e former

c l i e n t .

4 And t hen Judge Paskay went on to say , one wouldr be ha r d pressed indeed to s e t f o r th a p e r s u a s i v e6 argument t h a t Amado s r e p re s e n t a t i o n o f t h e bank in7 c o l l e c t i o n cases b e f o r e t he sma l l c l a ims c o u r t o r in8 o t h e r cases where he appeared fo r t h e bank a re , quote ,9 the same o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a t e d m a t t e r s , c l o s ed

10 quote , to the i n t e r e s t o f the former c l i e n t .11 t would i nvo lve a quantum l e ap i nde e d to t i e the12 i s s u e s i nvo l ve d in t hose cases to t h e complex and13 h i g h l y t e chn ica l i s s u e i nvo lved in t h i s l i t i g a t i o n with14 NAA, d ea l i n g with r eg u l a t i o n s o f th e FAA programs a t15 a i r p o r t s and such. And aga in , Your Honor, t h a t case16 a l s o su g g es t s t h a t where you ve go t d i f f e r e n t p a r t i e s ,17 d i f f e r e n t f ac t s , d i f f e r e n t l ega l i s s u e s , t h a t 4 -1 .918 d o e s n t come i n to play .19 And I would a l s o c i t e t h e co u r t t o t h e case o f20 Transmark US vs S ta t e Department o Insurance which21 i s a t 631 So.2d 1112-1116. And t h a t case t a l k s about

t h e s e t ypes o f motions , Your Honor. And what it says23 i s t ha t , you know, when you wai t a c o n s i d e r a b l e l en g t h24 o f t ime and t hen t r y to move to d i s q u a l i f y counse l , it25 t ak es on t h e appearance o f be ing s u s p i c i o u s o r having a

B e r ry h i l l A sso c ia t e s , In c .


10/37

5

10

15

20

25

10

1 c a l c u l a t e d o r s t r a t e g i c reason fo r doing t h a t .2 In t h i s case t h i s motion was f i l e d s i x o r e i g h t3 months a f t e r t h i s l i t i g a t i o n began. And it appears to

4 be n o th in g more t han an e f f o r t by Mr. G i l l e sp i e toe i t h e r d e lay proceed ings o r d i s r u p t Barker , Rodems

6 Cook P and Mr. Cook from having the counse l o f t h e i r7 choos ing , which the case law a l so says t h a t s a d r a s t i c8 remedy t h a t should on ly be a l lowed under unusua l9 c i rcu ms tan ces .

Now he a l s o r a i s e s some o t h e r i s sues about why I11 shou l d be d i s q u a l i f i e d . And he says in h i s mot ion t h a t12 I m going to be a witness in t h i s case . Well t h e case13 law on t h a t i s c l ea r . That a l l e g a t i o n a lo n e i s not14 enough. You got to prove it He has not e s t a b l i s h e d

in any way b efo re t h i s cour t with any t e s t imo n y how I m16 a w i t n es s .17 But more impor tan t ly , in the case o f Cer i l l o vs18 Highley 797 So.2d 1288 the co u r t says , a l awyer may19 ac t as an advocate a t p r e t r i a l , open parens , b e fo re the

s t a r t o f the t r i a l , c losed parens , and p o s t - t r i a l , open21 p aren s , a f t e r the judgment i s rendered , c l o s ed parens .22 So even i f , even if I was to be a w i t n es s in t h i sL case , which t h e r e s been no p ro o f o f t h a t , t h a t24 w o u ld n t p rev en t me from handl ing the p r e t r i a l mat t e r s

or the p o s t - t r i a l mat t e r s , j u s t the a c t u a l trial o f the

B e r ry h i l l Associa tes , Inc .


11/37

5

10

15

20

25

11

case .2 But I would a lso po in t you out to Singer Is land3 Limited vs udget Construct ion Company because t h a t4 one i s a lmost d i r e c t ly on p o in t . 714 So .2d 651.

And what the cour t sa id i s , you know where6 somebody i s moving to d i s q u a l i f y counse l on the b as i s7 t h a t t he y r e going a witness , quote, we view motions to8 d i sq u a l i fy on t h i s ground with some skep t i c i sm because9 they are sometimes f i l e d fo r t a c t i c a l o r haras s ing

reasons r a t h e r than the proper rea sons .And in t h a t case on a wri t o f c e r t i o r a r i , the

12 cour t upheld the t r i a l c o u r t s den ia l o f the motion to13 d i sq u a l i fy because the p e t i t i o n e r a l l eg ed a t most only14 a p o s s i b i l i t y t ha t d i s qua l i f i c a t i on might be necessary .

In t ha t case he sa id the a t to rney was going to be a16 witness , but he h ad n t t aken the a t t o r n e y s depos i t i on ,17 as Mr. G i l l e s p i e has not taken y d ep o s i t i o n .18 And it sa id , quote i p e t i t i o n e r had wai ted19 u n t i l a f t e r he had deposed opposing counse l , he might

have been ab le to develop more o f a record to suppor t21 h i s motion to d i s q u a l i f y . On the o th e r hand co u n s e l s

tes t imony might well have convinced p e t i t i o n e r t h a t a23 motion to d i s q u a l i f y would not have been wel l - founded .24 So here he comes in with a bold , unfounded

a l l e g a t i o n t ha t somehow or o ther I m going to be a



12/37

5

10

15

20

25

12

1234

6789

11121314

16171819

21

2324

witness in the case and the re fo re I shou ld bed i s qua l i f i e d . His f ina l reason for t r y i n g tod i sq u a l i fy me i s he sa id t ha t l ack candor which hec i t e s no case law to t ha t . And I would a s s e r t beforethe Court as an of f i c e r of the cour t , t ha t everyth ingt h a t I v e represented to the cour t has been accura te .

So his , again unsupported unfounded a l l e ga t ionunder t he law cannot suppor t a d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . So wewould ask you to deny t ha t motion Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any fu r the r response, Mr. G i l l e s p i e?MR GILLESPIE: Yes. I would respond as to what

Mr. Rodems would t e s t i f y to . That would be h i sperformance during the se t t l ement of t h i s mat te r wherehe was having me s ign documents in h i s law o f f i c e tha tthe - - t ha t there have been - - November 1s t , 2001. Andthen two days e a r l i e r a t the se t t l emen t where we s ignedAmscot documents . He would be t e s t i f y i n g about what hedid a t t ha t t ime. And t h a t s a p r e t t y s u b s t a n t i a l par tof t h i s case .

The con t rac t r e a l l y i s a cent ra l i s sue in t h i scase . In f ac t I v e j u s t f i l ed today a motion forsummary judgment and t h i s i s Mr. Rodems copy.

Mr. Rodems t h a t s your copy.There s a l so an a f f i d a v i t in suppor t . And t h i s

i s a co n t r ac t case with elements of f raud. The

Ber ryh i l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .


13/37

13

1 con t rac t 1S the same con t rac t in the Amscot case , andit s the same con t rac t in t h i s case . And now it s up

3 for summary judgment. Now i f t h a t s granted , t h i s may4 be a moot po in t .5 However i f it goes fu r the r I ll have to t ake6 his , as you know a depos i t ion and ge t to exac t ly what7 h i s ro le was in the se t t l ement i n c r e a t i n g these fa l se

documents. The documents t ha t say on the one hand t ha t9 we had a cour t award for a t t o rn e y s fees , and on the

10 o th e r hand it wasn t r e a l l y a cour t award. It was a11 claim to a cour t award. And it was a c la im t ha t had12 no nothing to back it up. And a l l o f t h a t i s argued13 1n the summary in the motion for summary judgment .14 As fa r as l ack o f candor towards the cour t , h e s15 made severa l re fe rences to the fac t t h a t I committed16 c r imina l ex to r t ion . He c i t e d Flor ida s t a t u t e 836.0517 and the hold ings of the four cases 1n here . And18 t h e r e s rea l l y no bas i s for t ha t . And on t ha t b a s i s19 a lone , I t h ink he should be d i s qua l i f i e d .20 THE COURT All r i gh t . Well with respec t to21 those mat te r s covered under the c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t ,22 your motion i s denied.23 As to the i s sue o f a witness , it i s a l so denied.24 I t i s without pre jud ice to ra i se it a t a l a t e r t ime i f

appropr ia te . I wi l l say t ha t my unders tanding of the



14/37

123456789

101112131415

16171819202122232425

4

ru les r e l a t i n g to a t to rney as witness i s t ha t thoseru les have over the years s u b s t a n t i a l l y changed from ap o s i t i o n where 15 years ago any even p o s s i b i l i t y of ana t t o r n ey being a witness would have r e s u l t e d ind i s qua l i f i c a t i on .

Right ly or wrongly, the Flor ida Bar, as wel l asthe American Bar Associa t ion has moved to a p o s i t i o nwhere the i s sue of an a t to rney being a witness i s notan automat ic bas i s for d i s qua l i f i c a t i on .

And in f ac t I t h ink t h e r e s some case law.T h e re s cases out the re t ha t suggest t ha t an a t t o r n eycan handle the case , Mr. Rodems, you were saying preand p o s t - t r i a l and not a t t r i a l . But my r e c o l l e c t i oni s , and t h e r e s some cases out the re t ha t say you caneven handle it a t t r i a l handing over the mat t e r toco-counse l a t the poin t t ha t you might have to t e s t i f y .At t ha t poin t you would a c t u a l l y be t e s t i f y i n g , ahypo the t ica l I m sugges t ing . But having sa i d a l l oft ha t , it s denied without pre jud ice fo r you to r a i s etha t a t some l a t e r t ime.

As fo r the grounds based upon l ack of candor , Id o n t f ind a proper bas i s for t ha t a t t h i s t ime. Thea l l e g a t i o n s t h a t you have made with respec t toa l l e g a t i o n s Mr. Rodems may have made seems to me tof a l l within the l i t i g a t i o n pr iv i l e ge . And so t ha t i s



15/37

5

10

15

20

25

15

1234

6789

11121314

16171819

2122

24

den ied as w el l .MR. GILLESPIE: Thank you Judge. I d o n t t h i n k

we d i s cu s s ed whether we were going to h ea r my motionfo r an o rd e r o f p ro t e c t i o n . I t r u s t y o u r e in r e c e i p to f t h a t .

THE COURT: I d o n t know about t h a t one . I v er ead seve ra l mot ions . Yes I d i d see t h a t .

MR GILLESPIE: That goes i n to t h e candor i s sue alittle more t horoughly .

MR. RODEMS: Jus t a second Your Honor. I f Ic ou l d have a moment t o f i n d t h a t p a r t i c u l a r motion.

MR. GILLESPIE: It s plaintiff s v e r i f i e dr e sponse to d e f e n d a n t s v e r i f i e d r eq u es t fo r bailiffand fo r s an c t i o n s , and p l a i n t i f f s mot ion fo r an o rd e ro f p r o t ec t i o n . T h ey re bo t h c o n t a i n e d in t h e samedocument.

MR. RODEMS: Your Honor if I might s u g g es t . Themotion r e l a t e d to the motion to d i smis s ourco u n te rc l a im was - - we n o t i ced t h es e h ea r i n g s f i r s t ,and s i n ce we only have 45 minutes , I would su g g es t t h a tit would be ap p ro p r i a t e if we could go to t h es u b s t a n t i v e motion.

THE COURT: Well I ag ree . Mr. G i l l e s p i e , s i n ceyour mot ion was qui t e l a t e in t h e p ro ces s , an add-onif you w i l l , to the re sponse t o t h e mot ion o r t h e

B e r ry h i l l Associa tes , In c .


16/37

5

10

15

20

25

16

1 reques t for the ba i l i f f , I ll defe r on t ha t and go backto the order we were discuss ing .

3 So the d i s qua l i f i c a t i on i s denied .4 And then -

MR RODEMS: Your Honor, may I prepare the6 proposed order on tha t s ince I m - 7 THE COURT: Yes, s i r .8 MR RODEMS: Okay.9 THE COURT: Now so we re back to what, your

motion for sanc t ions?11 MR RODEMS: No, s i r . The next motion would be12 Mr. G i l l e s p i e s motion to dismiss and s t r i k e the13 defendan t s counterclaim.14 THE COURT: Very wel l .

MR GILLESPIE: Here s case law on t ha t . Under16 the ru le o f c iv i l procedure , defendan t s counte rc la im17 i s a compulsory counterc la im and was not t ime ly f i l ed ,18 was waived and must be dismissed. That i s the f i r s t ,19 the f i r s t ob jec t ion to the counte rc la im.

As def ined by Rule 11 - 1.170(a) compulsory21 counte rc la im i s one t ha t a r i s e s out of a t r a ns a c t ion or22 occurrence t ha t i s the subject mat te r o f opposing23 p a r t y s claim. I t does not r equ i re fo r i t s24 adjudica t ion the presence of t h i rd p a r t i e s over which

the cour t cannot acquire j u r i sd i c t ion .



17/37

5

10

15

20

25

17

1 And t h a t s what we have here . There are no t h i r d2 p a r t i e s requ i red in t h i s l awsu i t to ad ju d i ca t e t h i s3 claim. And the cour t has developed a t e s t to determine4 whether a cla im i s compulsory, and t h a t s the l og ica l

r e l a t i o n sh i p s t e s t .6 THE COURT: Mr. Gil lesp ie , could you focus on the7 t iming i s sue . I may come back to the i s sue o f whether8 it s compulsory or permiss ive .9 MR GILLESPIE: Well ba s i c a l ly I m arguing t ha t

the - a compulsory coun terc la im must be r a i s e d a t the11 f i r s t appearance, de fendan t s f i r s t appearance. And12 t ha t would have been when he f i l e d the defendan t s13 motion to dismiss and s t r i ke on August 29th , 2005.14 Now we re here today many months l a t e r . The case

i s fa r moved along. In f ac t t h e r e s a motion fo r16 summary judgment. And now defendants want to r a i s e17 t h i s cla im, countercla im t ha t they should have done18 back on August 29th .19 Your Honor, t h a t s the t iming i s su e .

THE COURT: All r i gh t . Well, Mr. G i l l e s p i e ,21 you re not t ra ined in the law. You re not t r a i n e d in22 the Rules of Civ i l Procedure so I ll give you a quick

exp lana t ion o f how we can get to where we a re today.24 When you f i l ed your complain t , under the Rules of Civ i l

Procedure a defendant has the r i gh t , d o e s n t have to ,



18/37


19/37

19

1 paragraph 1, P l a i n t i f f Nei l J . G i l l e sp i e r e s i d e s in0 Ocala, Marion County, Flor ida . And d e f en d an t s3 response to it was, as to paragraph 1 o f the complaint ,4 defendan t s a re without knowledge and t h e re fo re deny the5 a l l e g a t i o n s .6 Now we go to t h e i r countercla im, and they take7 the oppos i t e pos i t ion . And t h a t w i l l be 62, paragraph

62, page 6, coun terc la ims . On in fo rmat ion and b e l i e fp l a i n t i f f counter defendant i s a r e s i d e n t o f Ocala ,Marion County, Flor ida . And it was r e a l l y a procedura l0o b jec t i o n . I d o n t know they can t ake bo th ends of1

12 t h a t argument .THE COURT: They can do t h a t because t h e y r e3

14 l awyers .MR GILLESPIE: Okay.5THE COURT: And because the ru l e s a l low it.6MR GILLESPIE: Okay.7THE COURT: And l e t me very b r i e f l y e x p l a i n the8

d i f f e r en ce . What they have sa id , and t h e y r e p e rmi t t ed920 to do t h i s under the ru les , i s they d o n t know whether21 you a re o r not . So when you d o n t know, it s denied,22 aga in under the r u l e s . When they come to t h e i r

coun terc la im and say on in fo rmat ion and b e l i e f , again24 t h e y r e say ing we d o n t know, but we t h i n k t h i s guy

l i v e s in Marion County. And so ev e ry t h i n g t h ey v e done

Ber ryh i l l & Associa tes , Inc .


20/37

5

10

15

20

25

20

1234

6789

11121314

16171819

21

2324

does not e s t a b l i s h or ra i se to the l eve l o f a l ack ofj u r i sd i c t i on .

In fac t , you know, you s t a r t ed th i s pa r ty here inHil lsborough County. And so as a r e su l t o f yous t a r t i n g the par ty , they can br ing you here , becauseyou came here, for anything they want, and under thelaw prove t ha t they have some so r t o f cause of act ion .I m not saying they do. I m j u s t saying t ha t , againunder our ru les by you s t a r t i n g it here , they thend o n t have to go to your county to engage you inl i t i g a t i o n .

MR GILLESPIE: Thank you, Judge.THE COURT: So I ll deny paragraph 2. All r igh t .

Now in 3 you say they fa i l ed to s t a t e a cause of ac t ionfor l i b e l .

MR GILLESPIE: Yes, Judge. In t h e i r complaint ,in t he i r counter complaint they a t tach a copy of thepurpor ted l ibe l . In o ther words, it s not a complete ,it s not a complete document. And in the l e t t e r toAmscot, and I have tha t as Exhibi t 2. I f you look a tthe l e t t e r to Amscot, the t h i rd paragraph it would be,and then the four th sentence down in paren theses itsays , see copy of my l e t t e r enclosed .

Well, the defendants haven t enc losed or a t tachedt ha t l e t t e r as pa r t of t h i s document. And in doing so



21/37

123

456789

101112131415161718192021

22232425

21

they a re not present ing the en t i r e i t em t ha t they sayi s l ibe lous . And the law i s pre t t y c l ea r on tha t , t ha tyou c a n t parse , p ick words out and say t h i s i s l i b e land t h a t s l i b e l . You have to t ake the document in i t sfu l l context . They haven t done tha t because theyhaven t at tached the l e t t e r . But in c on t r a s t , they vea t tached a d i f f e r e n t l e t t e r , the one tha t theyprepared , which r ea l l y doesn t have bear ing on my l i be lbecause I d i d n t wri te it.

And I th ink tha t th i s should be, a t l ea s t i f notd i smissed complete ly , a t l ea s t dismissed with al lowingthem a chance to amend it so t ha t we can see what thel e t t e r t ha t see copy of my l e t t e r enclosed s t a t e s .Because r i gh t now we d o n t know. And it s impor tant .

THE COURT: All r i gh t . Mr. Rodems, response ont ha t .

MR RODEMS: Thank you, Your Honor. F i r s t ofa l l , under- the Rules of Civ i l Procedure and the caselaw concerning motions to dismiss , a l l the a l l e ga t ionsof the complaint are to be accepted as t rue . And t h i sl e t t e r from Mr. Gil lesp ie accuses the defendants andBarker , Rodems Cook of, among o ther th ings , beingincompetent and not t ru t h fu l .

And Mr. Gil lesp ie cla ims he was pres su red i n tothe lawsui t and t ha t Amscot pa id 42,000 too much to

Berryhi l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .


22/37

5

10

15

20

25

22

1 s e t t l e the case . And t ha t Mr Cook sa i d Mr Gi l l esp ie2 was s e l f i s h fo r not suing Amscot. And t ha t Am scot s3 and p l a i n t i f f counter d e fe n d a n t s a t t o r n ey s engaged in4 co l lus ion . Those are a l l t h ings t h a t a re s t a t e d in

t h i s l e t t e r .6 This i s the l e t t e r t h a t we rece ived . The f ac t7 t ha t the l e t t e r says , see copy o f the l e t t e r enclosed,8 does not o b jec t i v e ly prove t h a t the re was any l e t t e r9 enc losed . This i s what we rece ived.

The s ta tements con ta ined in t h i s l e t t e r ,11 r egard les s of whatever l e t t e r may have been a t tached ,12 are defamatory . Some o f them are defamato ry in and of13 themselves , c a l l i n g somebody un t ru th fu l , t ha t type of14 th ing . Saying t h a t people engaged in c o l l u s i o n to

force a higher se t t l ement than p l a i n t i f f and co u n t e r16 defendant wanted.17 So as f a r as the c la im t ha t Mr G i l l e sp i e makes18 in h i s argument to d ismiss , h e s v i o l a t in g the19 prov is ion of the case law t ha t says you accept the

c la ims in the l i gh t most favorab le to the nonmoving21 p a r ty , which would be us, and accept ing them as t r ue .

THE COURT: Well, Mr Rodems, are you say ing with23 r espec t to Exhib i t 2 t h a t t h a t s a l l t h a t you, t h a t24 t h a t s a l l t h a t the defendan t rece ived?

MR RODEMS That i s a l l t ha t the defendan t



23/37

5

10

15

20

25

23

1 received . Yes, Your Honor.2 THE COURT: Is tha t se t out in the - - let's see,')J 65 I guess t a lks about Exhibi t 2 .4 MR RODEMS: Yes, s i r .

THE COURT: I t r ea l l y doesn ' t c l a r i fy what you6 got as I read it.7 MR RODEMS: No, s i r . And I don ' t be l i eve tha t8 the pleading ru les require us to do t ha t . We are9 a l l eg ing t ha t he composed and publ i shed t h i s l e t t e r .

And Mr. Gi l l esp ie can deny tha t a l l e ga t ion if he11 doesn ' t be l ieve it's t rue . But a t t h i s po in t he12 composed and publ ished tha t l e t t e r . I t i s a fac t tha t13 we must assume on a motion to dismiss i s t rue .14 He's cla iming tha t t h i s i s n ' t a complete l e t t e r ,

but again , he ' s making an asse r t ion ou t s ide the four16 corners of the complain t to support his motion to17 dismiss , which i s not appropr ia te on a motion to18 dismiss .19 MR GILLESPIE: Actua l ly we ' re s t ay ing with in the

four corners of the l e t t e r . And it says, see copy of21 my l e t t e r enclosed. We have independent knowledge t ha t22 Mr. Macatchney of Amscot did in fac t r ece ive the23 enclosed l e t t e r because I rece ived the response from24 him by and through h is at torney . And his a t to rney

makes reference to the in format ion in t ha t l e t t e r .

Berryh i l l & Assoc ia tes , Inc .


24/37

5

10

15

20

25

24

1 Mr. Rodems I know has rece ived a copy o f t ha t l e t t e r2 from ano ther avenue.3 THE COURT: All r i gh t . Well here i s how I ll4 ru l e . I wi l l deny t h i s paragraph 3 o f your motion .

But the re w i l l be included in t h i s a s ta tement in the6 orde r i t s e l f t ha t the defendan ts rep re sen ted a t the7 hear ing t h a t the Exh ib i t 2 t ha t they rece ived cons i s t ed8 o f only one page.9 MR GILLESPIE: All r i gh t . Judge I m not

f in i shed s t a t i ng why and t h a t I ll s us t a in a cause o f11 ac t i o n fo r l i b e l . T h a t s j u s t the opener .12 THE COURT: Go ahead.13 MR GILLESPIE: T h ere s an abso lu te pr iv i l e ge14 here concern ing l i t i g a t i o n . I f you look a t the l e t t e r ,

the l e t t e r begins with a cap t ion o f t he cour t case .16 And t h a t s Clemment t a l . vs . mscot Corpora t ion with17 the case number d i s t r i c t cour t , e t c e t e r a . And it s18 addressed to Arnscot Corpora t ion , which was the19 defendan t in t h a t case. I m not even su re t ha t the

l e t t e r r i s e s to the l eve l o f pub l i ca t ion because it was21 sen t to the corpora t ion t h a t was a defendan t in the

l awsu i t .3 And t h a t s what the l e t t e r t a lks about , the

24 l awsu i t . And as such it t a l k s about the l awsu i t t h a twas passed, the Arnscot l awsu i t . And let s j u s t go



25/37

5

10

15

20

25

25

1 th rough it for a minute . I t says , I was a p l a i n t i f f in2 the above-cap t ioned l awsu i t . While the ac t ion i s3 s e t t l e d , I r eg r e t becoming invo lved and was pre ssured4 i n to it by my l awyer .

I d o n t know t ha t tha t being p re s s u re d by a6 l awyer amounts to l i b e l . I t h ink t h a t s what lawyers7 g en e r a l l y do i s they pre ssure peop le . There may be a8 f anc ie r t erm for it, but t h a t s what they do.9 Also it s a l e t t e r o f apology to Mr. Macatchney.

I am so r ry fo r the consequences y o u r e s u f f e r ing . And11 then I go on to t e l l him the fac t s about t h i s case,12 t h a t I found disc repanc ies in the case f i l e . This i s13 pa r t o f my a t tempt to uncover the t ru t h .

As I see i t , you pa id 43,000 too much to s e t t l et h i s case , and h e r e s why. ow Mr. Rodems ob jec t s to

16

14

t ha t , but t h i s doesn t l i b e l e i t h e r Mr. Cook o r17 Mr. Rodems' law f i rm because t h i s d o e sn t t a l k about18 t ha t . This t a l k s about Mr. Macatchney. This i s a19 ques t ion did he pay too much, and i s more o f a

r e f l e c t i o n on his a t torney, not the de fendan t s . It s21 j u s t not about them.)0_ For something to be l ibe lous it has to concern23 the p l a i n t i f f , the counter c la imant he re . And none of24 t he se s ta tements concern them, and if they do, t he y r e

p r i v i l e g e d . And then it goes on to t a l k about



26/37

123

456789

101112131415161718192021

222324

26

I

involvement in the Ace case, and t ha t I i n i t i a l l ydecl ined Mr. Cook's s o l i c i t a t i o n to j o i n the l awsui t .And again , t h a t s saying what I did . I i n i t i a l l ydec l ined . He s o l i c i t e d it. That s his job .dec l ined t ha t .

And again , Mr. Cook sa id tha t I was s e l f i s h fornot suing Amscot. Again t h a t s Mr. Cook making as ta tement about me. I 'm not c la iming t ha t they defamedme for saying t ha t I 'm se l f i sh , and they have no bas i sunder the law to claim they have been defamed by t ha t .

During the course of l i t i g a t i o n it becameapparent to me tha t Mr. Cook and his assoc ia te s wereincompetent and not t ru t h fu l . And I th ink t ha t t h a t sbeen spe l l ed out in the complaint from the l awsu i tt h a t s agains t them. And t h i s i s where the l e t t e rt h a t s miss ing, and I have a copy of it here . Duringthe se t t l emen t nego t ia t ions , I t r i e d to s e t t l e t h i scase for 10,000 in l ega l fees and 1,000 for each ofthe th ree p la in t i f f s . See copy of my l e t t e r enc losed.

Since they haven t provided it l e t me provide ita t t h i s t ime.

THE COURT: Well, s i r , t h a t s not necessary .MR GILLESPIE: Not necessary? Thank you, Judge.Again, you ul t imate ly paid 56,000 to s e t t l e and

t h i s was a r e su l t of our lawyers ' col lus ion . Then I go



27/37

123456789

101112131415161718192021

22232425

27

on to say, t h i s i s y opinion. This i s n t put out asfac t . This i s y opinion. I was involved in a l awsui tand I 'm - - I was prepar ing to sue them on the same se tof fac t s , and th i s i s y opinion o f what happened.

And I also say, and I welcome any suppor t ingevidence. I 'm reaching out to t h i s defendant who I v eapologized to .

And I j u s t want to go back to the secondparagraph. I d o n t say tha t there was no cause ofac t ion aga ins t Amscot. I j u s t say t ha t it was a pre t t yt h in case . And a t h in case never the less i s still acase tha t can be prosecuted .

And I go on to say, in the a l t e rna t ive , i t ha tse t of fac t s i s n t correc t , in the a l t e rna t ive , perhapsyour lawyer was j u s t a very poor negot ia tor and youpa id 43,000 too much to s e t t l e the l awsu i t . I 'mspecula t ing . This i s opinion and specu la t ion . I 'mt ry ing to ge t a t the t ru t h here .

Fina l ly I t a lk about a bar complaint aga ins tMr. Cook, t ha t I f i l ed a bar complaint , and then I putthe complaint number here . And I a l so wr i t e t ha t t h i swas to no ava i l . That means t ha t the bar reviewed a l lo f these is sues here and more, and they dec ided t ha twhatever happened, t ha t t h i s d i d n t amount to anythingwrong under the F lor ida ru les governing l awyers .



28/37

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

28

And then I go on to say, I m a v a i l a b l e to di scusst h i s fu r the r i f you wish.

TH COURT: All r i gh t . Thank you.Mr. Gi l l esp ie , l e t me again exp la in t h a t whether it sin a coun terc la im or complaint , I m l i m i t e d to lookinga t the four corners , j u s t for su f f i c i e n c y now, not themer i t s , the su f f ic iency under the law o f what sa l l eged .

They a l lege t ha t you have made fa l se s t a t ement s ,t ha t you ve damaged t he i r good name and repu ta t ion .read the l e t t e r . That s within the four corner s . Thel e t t e r says the lawyers were incompetent and nott r u th fu l . That alone, not the re may be o th e r th ingst h a t if you ve covered a l l of the p o in t s o f yourl e t t e r , it may o r may not have been an i s sue to thedefendan t s in t h i s case . I d o n t know. But t h a t alonein my mind r i s e s to the l eve l of a s u f f i c i e n t c la im ofl i b e l .

Your second point , which was - - o r my secondpo in t , it may have been your f i r s t po in t , i s t ha t youc la im these are p r iv i l eg ed communications r e l a t i n g toongoing l i t i g a t i o n . That may o r may not be the case .Under l i be l , whether you are p r i v i l e g e d in yourcommunication or not i s what i s c a l l e d an a f f i rma t ivedefense . So you must respond to the a l l e g a t i o n o f

B er r y h i l l Assoc ia tes , Inc .

I


29/37

5

10

15

20

25

29

123

4

6789

1112

14

16171819

21222324

whether it was l ibe lous or not in your opin ion . And ifyou be l ieve t ha t t he y r e pr iv i l eged , then you r a i s et h a t as a defense.

MR GILLESPIE: And would t h a t go the same fo r aqua l i f i e d pr iv i l ege?

THE COURT: Yes s i r .MR GILLESPIE: And what about the i s sue o f not

being publ ished?THE COURT: Well s i r , my unders tanding o f the

law i s if you say something or if you w r i t e somethingand it goes to somebody e l se , t h a t s p u b l i c a t i o n . Andthey say t ha t you re the author of t h i s , and it went tosomebody bes ides them. There have to be t h ree par t i e sinvo lved . I t has to be from one p a r t y to a t h i r d p a r tyabout a second par ty . Tha t s s u f f i c i e n t to havepub l i ca t ion as I view t h i s l e t t e r .

MR GILLESPIE: All r i gh t . And whether it sopinion, Judge?

THE COURT: Again t h a t s going to be a mat te r o fdefense .

MR GILLESPIE: And with regard to t h e i rincompetency and the record shows t h a t they d id notp re v a i l in any cour t .

THE COURT: Well s i r , t r u t h w i l l be yourabso lu te defense to l i b e l .



30/37

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425

30

MR GILLESPIE: Will I need to asse r t t ha t a tt h i s t ime?

THE COURT: No, s i r .MR GILLESPIE: Okay.THE COURT: I f you can prove to a t r i e r of fac t ,

whether t h a t s me o r a jury , tha t in fac t they wereincompetent , then the l i be l claim f a i l s .

MR GILLESPIE: All r igh t .THE COURT: All r igh t . And we have run out of

t ime. I have a 3:00. You have a 3:00 ending to your45 minutes . So we can pick t h i s up a t some o ther t ime.

MR RODEMS: There are before we close therecord, Your Honor, j u s t so tha t we re c lea r . Thereare severa l more paragraphs of t h i s motion to dismissand s t r ike counterclaim tha t have not been heard. Whenwe readjourn are we going to p ick it up from t ha tpoint?

THE COURT: Well, it s up to you where you wantto p ick it up. I v e drawn my l ine a f t e r paragraph 3.

MR RODEMS: Yes, s i r .THE COURT: Of the p l a i n t i f f s motion.MR GILLESPIE: Judge, I m not c l ea r about what s

happening. Could you help me unders tand.THE COURT: We have stopped the hear ing because

you have run out of t ime.

Berryh i l l Associa tes , Inc .


31/37

5

10

15

20

25

31

12J

4

6789

11121314

16171819

21222324

MR GILLESPIE: Is tha t s top for the day o r j u s tfor a break?

THE COURT: It s stopped for the day.MR GILLESPIE: Thank you.THE COURT: I have o ther cases t ha t have

scheduled from 3:00 through 4:30. So to p ick up againyou have to see my jud ic ia l a s s i s t an t about addi t iona lt ime a t some fu ture date .

MR GILLESPIE: Thank you. Do I need to take anyac t ion other than tha t?

THE COURT: Mr Rodems wil l be prepar ing an orderon what we ve covered thus far , and he wi l l send it toyou for your review. Your review i s only for the form,not whether you l ike the ru l ing or not , b ut the form ofthe order . But i f the form meets with what you be l ievehappened today, then you can approve t ha t . AndMr Rodems wil l send t ha t on to me with t ha tunders tanding.

I f you disagree , then you re to provide your ownvers ion of what you bel ieve the order , the ru l ings tha tmay be covered.

MR GILLESPIE: One of the th ings Mr Rodemswanted to do was to chal lenge my qua l i f i ca t i ons toproceed pro se . Do you want to address any o f tha t a tt h i s t ime?

Berryh i l l Associates , Inc .


32/37

12

3

45

7

89

10111213141516171819202122

2425

32

THE COURT: We have no t ime l e f t today.MR GILLESPIE: Okay.MR RODEMS: Thank you fo r your t ime, Your Honor.THE COURT: Thank you both .(Thereupon, the hear ing concluded . )



33/37

33

1

3456789

1011121314151617181920212223245

STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH

I DENISE L. BRADLEY cour t r ep o r t e r fo r thec i r c u i t cour t o f the Th i r t een th Jud ic ia l C i rc u i t o f the s t a t eof Flor ida in and fo r Hil lsborough County

DO HEREBY CERTIFY t ha t I was author ized to and didthrough use of computer-a ided t ransc r ip t ion r epor t inshorthand the proceedings and evidence in the a fo re - s t y l e dcause as s t a t e d in the capt ion the re to and t h a t theforegoing pages numbered 1 to 32 inc lus ive c ons t i t u t e at rue and co r r ec t t ransc r ip t ion of my shor thand r ep o r t o f sa idproceedings and evidence.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereun to s e t my hand inthe City o f Tampa County of Hi l lsborough s t a t e of F lo r idat h i s 6th day of Ju ly 2006.

Denise L. Bradley Court Reporter


34/37

1

American- 14:7 bearing - 21 :8 claimant - 25:23amount - 27:24 became - 26:11 claiming - 8:7,7 amounts - 25:6 becoming - 25:3 23:14,26:8714 -11:4 Amscot- 5:16,5:17, began -10:31,000 - 26:18 claims - 9:7, 18:23,6:5,6:6,6:25,12:17, 21 :24, 22:2010,000 - 2618 797 - 10:18 begins - 24: 1513:1,20:20,20:21, behalf - 2:3, 2:743,000 - 25:14, clarification - 5:8belief - 19:8, 19:23 clarify - 23:57:16 8 21 :25, 22:2, 23:22, Black- 7:4 clarifying - 5:2~ ~ _ : _ ~ ~ _ t 24:16,24:18,24:25,836.05 - 13:16 26:7,27:10 Bochese- 8:3 clause - 8:22Amscot s- 22:2 bold - 11 :24 clear - 10:13, 18:15,answer - 18:18, Bradley- 1:20,33:4, 21:2,30:13,30:2206 -18:8 9 18:23, 18:25 33:19 Clemment- 24:16916 - 7:5 apologized - 27:7 break - 31:2 client - 4:17,8:6,o briefly - 19: 18 8:24, 9:3, 9:1071 - 7:5 apology - 25:9apparent - 26: 12 brin.g - 20:5 clients - 7:12, 7: 175-7205 - 1:5 appearance - 9:25, brought - 5:19,7:10 close - 30:12A 17:11 Budget - 11:3 closed - 9:9, 10:20,1 -1 10:21Appearances- 2:1ble - 11 :20 co-14:16ppeared - 9:8bove-captioned -191,19:3,33:11 c co-counsel- 14:165:2 applies - 4:19,8:23.170(a - 16:20 calculated - 10: 1 collection - 8: 19ppropriate - 13:25,bsolute - 24:13,1-16:20 9:75:21,23:17 candor - 12:3,9:25112-1116 - 9:21 13:14,14:21,15:8 collusion - 22:4,pprove - 31 :16ccept - 22:19240 - 8:4 22:14,26:25annot - 12:8, 16:25pril- 1:18288 - 10:18 accepted - 21 :20 Commencing- 1:19rgue - 4:8 caption - 24:15,ccepting - 22:213 -187 33:10 committed - 13: 15rgued -13:12ccurate - 12:65 - 14:3, 18:11 captioned - 25:2 communication rguing - 17:9991 - 715 accuses - 21 :21 28:24ase - 3:25, 5:3, 6:1,rgument - 5:1,9:6,ce- 6:4, 26:1st -1215 19:12,22:18 6:2, 6:5, 6:6, 6:8, communications cquire - 16:25 6:22,7:4, 7:6, 7:13, 28:21rises - 16:21ct - 10:192 Company- 11:3:23,8:3,8:5,8:10,ct - 6:15, 7:1 Ashley- 2:9 9:15,9:19,9:21,10:2, complaint - 17:24,ction - 5:14, 5:19, assert - 12:4, 30: 1- 18:9,2013, 10:7,10:12,10:17, 18:5, 18:25, 19:3,:10,8:1,20:7,20:14, assertion - 23: 15020, 22:23, 23:3, 10:23,11:1,11:11, 20:16,20:17, 21 :20,4:11, 25:2, 27:10, assis tant - 31:74:7 11:15,12:1,12:4, 23:16,26:14,27:19,ssociated - 4:191 :10001 -12:15 27:20,27:21, 28:52:19,12:21,12:25,ssociates - 26: 12ctual - 10:25003 - 7:17 13:1,13:2,14:10, complete - 20:18,ssociation - 14:7005 - 17:13 add -15:24 14:12,16:15,17:14, 20:19,23:14ssume - 23: 13dd-on - 15:24006 -1:18,33:16 21 :18,22:1,22:19, completely - 8:1,tlas- 7:8, 7:9ddition - 8:3100 - 2:9 21:114:15,24:17,24:19,ttach - 20:175 - 1:18 additional - 5:1, 25:11,25:12, 25:15,1 :7 attached - 20:24, complex - 9: 1267 - 8:4 21 :6 21 :7 22:11 26:1, 26:18, 27:11, composed - 23:9,9th - 17:13, 17:18 address - 31 :24 27:12,28:16, 28:22 23:12ddressed - 24:18 attempt - 25:13:15-1:19 compulsory djudicate - 17:2 attorney - 4: 12 Case- 1:5nd - 8:4 4:19,7:8,8:16,11:15, 16:17,16:20,17:4,ases - 6:6, 8:6,djudication 14:1,14:4,14:8, 8:20,9:7,9:8,9:12, 17:8,17:10,18:196:243 computer - 33:84:11,23:24,25:20 13:17,14:11,14:14,dverse - 4:16, 9:2 31 :5ttorney s - 11:16 Computer- 1:25dvocate - 10: 19-2014, 24:4, 13:9 Cash- 6:4 computer-aided 019 affidavit - 12:24 33:8enter- 8:12fore - 33:9 attorneys - 22:310-813 August - 17:13, central - 12:20 Computer-aidedfore-styled - 33:910-br - 813 17:18 1:252 - 33:11 afternoon - 4:6 Cerillo- 10:17author - 29: 12 certain - 18:2 concern - 25:22,3602 - 2:9 ago -14:3 25:24:00 - 30: 10 31:6 agree - 3:24, 15:23 authority s - 8: 16 Certify- 33:7ahead - 4:7,24:12 authorized - 33:7 certiorari - 11: 11 concerning - 21 :19,automatic - 14:9 24:14ided - 1:25, 33:8 cetera - 24: 174 airport - 8: 15 avail - 27:22 challenge - 8:5, concluded - 32:5available - 28:1 31 :23-1.9 - 6:12,6:18, airports - 9: 15 conflict - 4: 18avenue - 24:2:20,7:18,8:6,8:11, al- 24:16 chance-21:12 13:21822,9:17 award - 13:9, 13:10, changed - 14:2llegation - 10:13, consequences 1125, 12:7, 18:22, 13:11 25:1000 - 29 choosing - 10:723:10,28:252,000 - 21 :25 Christopher- 2:8 considerable - 9:2345 -15:20, 30:11 allegations - 14:23, circuit - 33:5 consisted - 24:7B14:24, 195,21 :19:30 - 316 Circuit - 1: 1 1:15, constitute - 33:1133:5llege - 28:9 bailiff - 3:16,3:25, Construction - 11 :34:1,15:13,16:1 circumstances contained - 15: 15alleged - 6:25,1 11 :13,28:8 10:9ank - 8:17, 8:19, 22:1096,9:808 - 116 alleges - 6:23 cite - 9:19 contemporaneousl56,000 - 26:24 alleging - 23:9 Bankruptcy- 8:13 cited-13:16 y - 6:5,8:1857.105 - 3:14 allow -19:16 bankruptcy - 8:20 cites - 12:4 context - 21:5allowed - 10:8 Bar- 6:13,14:6, City- 33:15 contract - 6:8, 7:25,14:7llowing - 21: 11 city - 8:15 12:20,12:25,13:1,6 almost - 11 :4 bar - 27:19, 27:20, civil-16:16 13:227:22- 19:8 alone - 10:13, Civil-1:2,17:22, contrast - 21 :662-197,19:8 13:19,28:13,28:16 Barker- 1:7,2:8, 17:24,21:18 controversy - 4: 15631 - 9:21 alternative - 27: 13 4:16,7:24,10:5, 5:11laim - 5:13,6:15,649 - 8:14 27:14 21 :22 6:24, 13:11, 16:23, convinced - 11 :2265 - 23:3 Amado-8:16,8:17 based - 14:21 17:3,17:4,17:17, Cook-1:7, 1:8, 2:8,651-11:4 Amado s - 9:6 basis - 11 :6 13:18, 22:17,26:10,28:17, 4:12,4:15,4:16,7:24,14:9 14:22 26:9th - 3316 amend - 21 :12 28:21 30:7 10:6 21 :22 22:1


35/37

2516,26:6,26:7, declined - 26:2 12:21 16:17 17:12ocument - 7:20 harassing - 11:92612,27:20 26:4 26:5 15:16 20:19 20:25 17:24 18:20 27:20 hard - 9:5defamatory - 22:12ook s- 262 21 :4 final - 12:2 hear - 15:3copy - 12:22 12:23 defamed - 26:8 documents - 12:14 Finally- 27:19 heard - 30: 1520:17 20:23 21:13 26:10 12:17 13:8 finished - 24:10 Hearing - 1:1622:7,23:20,241, done -17:17,18:7,efendant - 7:6 firm - 4:11 4:12 hearing - 3:1017:25 18:10 19:9 19:25 21 :56:16 26:19 4:19,5:14,7:7,7:10, 3:17,3:19,24:7,22:16 22:24 22:25 7:25,8:2,25:17oubt - 8:23 30:24,32:5orners - 23: 16 24:19,24:21,27:63:20,286,28:11 down - 20:22 First- 21 :17 hearings - 15:19Defendant - 2:7 drastic - 10:7 first-3:11,15:19,orporation-1:7, help - 30:23defendant s - 3:13 drawn - 30: 19 16:18 16:19 17:11 Hereby - 33:716,24:16,24:18 15:13 16:13 16:16 28:20rive- 2:9 hereunto - 33: 14orporation - 6:25 17:11 17:12 19:2 During - 26:11 Florida- 1: 1 1:7 higher - 22:154:21 1:17,2:9,6:13,13:16,6:162:3 Highley-10:18orrect - 3:3 3:6 Defendants - 1:9 during - 12:13 14:6 19:2 19:10 highly-9:13:21 27:14 33:12 27:25,33:1,33:6, Hillsborough - 1:1efendants - 3:12ounsel- 3:12 33:15 1:17,20:4,33:2,33:6,:25,6:14,8:8,17:16,11,924, 10:6 11 :6 E 33:159:4 20:24 21 :21 focus -17:6119,14:16 Effman - 7:5 7:9 follow - 3:22 holdings - 13:174:6,25:20,28:16ounsel s - 11 :21 effort - 10:4 force - 22:15 Honor- 3:4 3:6efense - 28:25ounter - 19:9 4:6 6:12 9:15 9:22oregoing - 33:119:3 29:20 29:25 eight -10:2017,22:3,2215, 12:9,15:10,15:17,orm-4:3,31:13,ither-10:5,25:16efenses -18:185:23 16:5,17:19,21:17,lements - 12:25 31:14 31:15efer - 16:1ounterclaim 23:1 30:13 32:3nclosed - 20:23 former - 4:17 8:24519,16:13,16:16, defined - 16:20 9:2 9:100:24 21:13 22:7 Honorable - 1:156:17 16:19 16:21 delay - 10:5 22:9 23:21 23:23 forms - 6:2 hypothetical 7:10 17:17 18:24 denial-11:12 14:186:19 forth - 9:5enied - 8:109:6 19:23 28:5 13:22 13:23 14: 19 ending - 30:10 forthcoming - 18: 170:15

15:1 16:3 18:10 ends -19:11 founded - 11 :23ounterclaims I19:21 engage - 20: 10 Four- 6:19:14,323,18:18, engaged - 22:3 four-13:17,23:15, important - 21 :14enies - 18:259:8 22:14 23:20 28:6 28:11 importantly - 10: 17ounty - 20: 10 Denise - 1:20 33:433:19 entered - 7:25 fourth - 3: 15 20:22 Inc - 8:12 8:13ounty-1:1,1:17, Frank- 7:4 included - 24:58:24 19:2 19:10 deny - 12:9 19:4 enters - 18:6 inclusive - 33:110:13,2310, 24:4 entire - 21: 1 fraud - 12:259:25 20:4 33:233:6 33:15 entirely - 7:19 fUIl-21:5 incompetency epart - 7:14 29:22squire- 2:8 future - 4:2 31:8ourse - 6:7 26:11 departing - 7:107:11 essential - 7:14 incompetent ourt- 1:1,3:2,3:5, Department- 9:20 establish - 20:1 21 :23 26:13 28:12:7,3:24,4:7,4:20, Gestablished -10:14 30:7:23,51,5:7,5:17, deposed - 11 :195:19,5:22,69,6:17, et - 24:16 24:17 generally - 25:7 indeed - 9:5 9:11eposition - 11 :1611 :17 13:619,6:21,12:5, evidence - 27:6 Gillespie- 1:4 2:4 independent - 8:1deputy - 3: 17 33:9 33:13 3:2,3:4,3:11,4:5, 23:212:10,1320,15:6,15:23 16:7 16:9 exactly - 13:6 4:6,4:7,4:9,4:20,etermine - 17:3 individually - 7:244:22,4:25,5:5,5:16,614,176,17:20, Exhibit- 20:20 information - 19:8evelop - 11 :20 22:23 23:3 24:7 5:18,5:21,5:25,6:15,8:16,19:13,1916, 19:23,23:25eveloped - 17:3difference - 19: 19 expanding - 5:2 6:23 6:24 7:23 8:2 Inlet - 8:49:18,2013,21:15, 10:4 11:17 12:10222, 23:2 23:5 expedite - 4:24 Insurance - 9:20ifferent - 7:2 7:324:3,2412,2622, 7:19,8:8,8:9,9:16, explain -19:18 12:11 15:2 15:8 interest - 4:15 4:18283, 29:6 29:9 9:17 21 :7 28:4 15:12 15:23 16:15 9:2,9:10,13:2129:19 29:24 30:3 directing - 18:6 explanation - 17:23 17:6 17:9 17:20 interests - 4:17 9:130:5 30:9 30:18 directly - 11 :4 18:14 18:21 19:1xpress - 6:4 involve - 9:113021, 30:24 31 :3 19:15 19:17 20:12isagree - 31: 19 extortion - 13: 16 involved - 6:8 6:2431 :5 31 :11 32:1 20:16 21 :21 21 :24iscrepancies 7:16,7:19,8:7,8:20,32:4 33:19 25:12 22:1 22:17 23:10 9: 12 9: 13 25:3 27:2Fcourt - 5:20 6:16 discuss - 28:1 23:19 24:9 24:13 29:147:13,7:14,8:4,8:10, discussed - 15:3 Faa- 9:14 26:23 28:4 29:4 involvement - 26:18:21,9:7,9:19,10:15, discusses - 6:13 fact - 12:21 13:15 29:7 29:17 29:21 involves - 7:21018,11:5,11:12, discussing - 16:2 14:10 17:15 20:3 30:1 30:4 308, involving - 6:1612:5 12:6 13:9 22:6 23:12 23:22 30:22,31:1,31:4,ismiss - 3:12 6:2513:10 13:11 13:14 3:13 15:18 16:12 27:2 30:5 30:6 31 :9 31 :22,32:2 Island - 11:216:25 173, 18:5 17:13 18:1 18:10 facts - 5:13 6:2 Gillespie s- 3:22 issue - 9:13 12:2024:15 24:17 29:23 21 :19 22:18 23:13 6:7,7:3,7:19,9:17, 7:1 16:12 13:23,14:8,15:8,33:4 33:5 23:17 23:18 30:14 2511,27:4,27:14 17:7,17:19,28:15,overning - 7:20court s - 11 :12 dismissed - 16: 18 failed - 20:14 27:25 29:7

21 :11ourthouse- 1:17 fails - 30:7 granted - 13:3 issues - 6: 16 7:3covered - 13:21 disqualification fairly - 5:6 ground - 11 :8 8:9,9:12,9:17,10:10,2814,31 :12 31 :21 11:14 12:8 14:5 fall - 14:25 grounds - 14:21 27:23creating - 4:17,13:7 14:9 16:3 false - 13:7 28:9 guess - 23:3 item - 21:1criminal- 13:16 disqualified fancier - 25:8 guy -19:24 itself - 24:6cursory - 8:21 1011,12:2,13:19 far -13:14 17:1522:17 31:12isqualify - 3:11 H J3:22 4:5 4:10 4:21 favorable - 22:20D 7:6,7:7,8:11,8:15, federal- 5:20 6:16 hand - 11 :21 13:8 January- 18:7damaged - 28: 10 9:24 11 :6 11 :8 fees - 7:11 7:16 13:10,18:23,33:14 Jet-8:1211:13 11:21 11:23ate - 18:11 31:8 13:9 26:18 handing - 14:15 job - 26:412:3ate- 1:18 file - 18: 1 18: 12 handle - 14:12 join - 26:2days -12:16 18:11 disrupt - 10:5 18:18 25:12 14:15 Judge- 1: 15 3:9dealing - 9: 14 district - 24: 17 filed - 3:10 3:15 handled - 6:5 4:9 5:5 5:21 5:25decided - 27:23 Division - 1:2 1:6 6:15 8:17 10:2 11:9 handlinll - 10:24 6:11 8:14 9:4 15:2


36/37

3

1814 18:21 20:12 24: 14 26:11 28:22 next 16: 11 passed - 24:25 Pro - 2:520:16 24:9 26:23 lives 19:25 Nielsen - 1:15 past - 8:18 procedural -19:1029:18 30:22 loan - 6:3 none - 25:23 pay - 25:19 procedure - 3:25judgment 10:21 logical - 17:4 nonmoving - 22:20 payday - 6:3 16:1612:22 13:3 13:13 look - 20:20 24:14 North - 2:9 people - 22:14 25:7 Procedure 17:2217:16 looking - 28:5 NotarY-l:20 performance 17:25 21:18JUdicial- 1:1 33:5 nothing - 10:4 12:13 proceed - 31 :24judicial - 31 :7July- 33:16 M 13:12notice - 3:16 4:20noticed - 3:9 3:19

perhaps - 27:14permissive - 17:818:19

proceedings - 10:533:9 33:13Proceedings - 1:13urisdiction - 16:25 Macatchney 18:22 20:2 23:22 25:9 25:18 15:19 permitted - 19:19 process - 15:24jury - 30:6 Marion - 18:24 November- 12:15 person s - 9:1 programs - 9:1419:2 19:10 19:25 number - 24:17 persuasive - 9:5 proof 10:23K materially - 4:169:2matter - 4:13 4:145:10 5:12 5:22 5:236:14 9: 1 12:13

27:21numbered - 33:11 petitioner - 11:1311 :18 11:22pick - 21 :3 30:1130:16 30:19 31:6Plaintiff - 1:5 2:319:1plaintiff - 19:922:3 22:15 25:125:23

proper - 11 :1014:22proposed - 16:6prosecuted - 27: 12protection - 15:415:15prove - 10:14 20:722:8 30:5provide - 26:20

key - 1812knowledge 19:423:21L 14:15 16:22 29:19matters - 3:8 8:259:9 10:24 10:2513:21

objection - 16:1919:11objectively - 22:8objects - 25:15ack - 12:3 13:1414:21 201 meaning - 7:18 obviously - 3:17 plaintiffs - 15:12 31 :19large - 8:9 means - 27:22 Ocala-19:2 19:9 15:14 30:21 provided - 26:20late - 15:24 meets - 31 :15 occurrence - 16:22 plaintiffs - 8:8 provision - 22:19law - 4:10 4:12 merits - 28:7 office-12:14 26:19 Public 1:204:19 5:3 7:7 7:9 might -11 :14 officer - 12:5 play - 9:18 publication - 24:207:15 7:25 8:2 10:7 11:19 11:22 14:16 Once-18:5 played - 6:8 29:11 29:1610:13 12:4 12:8 15:17 once -18:16 pleading 18:7 published - 23:912:14 14:10 16:15 mind - 28:17 one - 5:7 7:9 8:6 23:8 23:12 29:817:21 20:7 21:2 minute - 25:1 9:4 11:4 13:8 15:6 pleadings - 18:2 purported - 20:182119 22:19 25:17 minutes - 15:20 16:21 18:23 21 :7 18:4 18:12 18:13 put - 27:1 27:2026:10 28:7 2910lawsuit - 6:3 7:27:15 7:18 17:230:11missing - 26:16moment - 15:11

24:8 29:14One- 8:12 31 :22ongoing - 28:22Pm-l:19point - 11 :2 11:413:4 14:16 14:17 Q

21 :25 24:22 24:24 months 10:3 open -10:19 10:20 23:11 28:19 28:20 qualifications 24:25 25:2 26:2 17:14 opener - 24:11 30:17 31 :2326:14 27:2 27:16 moot - 13:4 opinion - 27:1 pointed - 6:11 qualified - 29:5lawsuits - 7: 19 most - 11 :13 22:20 27:2 27:4 27:17 points - 28:14 quantum - 9: 11lawyer - 10: 18 motion - 3: 14 3: 15 29:1 29:18 Ponce - 8:4 quick - 17:2225:4 25:6 27: 15 3:22 3:23 4:3 4:8 opportunity-18:17 poor - 27:15 quite - 7:22 15:24lawyers - 19:14 4:9 4:21 4:24 5:6 opposing - 11 :19 portion - 5:9 quote - 7: 13 8:25256 2725 28:12 7:5 8:10 8:15 8:16 16:22 position - 4:12 9:8 9:10 11:7 11:18lawyers - 26:25 10:2 10:11 11:12 opposite - 19:7 14:3 14:7 19:7leap-9:11least - 21 :10 21 :11 11 :21 11 :23 12:912:21 13:13 13:22 order - 3:7 3:2115:4 15:14 16:2 possibility 11: 1414:3 Rleaves - 8:23 153 15:11 15:14 16:6 18:6 18:7 post 10:20 10:25 raise -13:24 14:19left - 32:1 15:18 15:22 15:24 18:11 18:16 24:6 14:13 17:16 20:1 29:2legal - 7:3 8:9 15:25 16:10 16:11 31:11 31:15 31:20 post-trial 10:20 raised -17:109:17 18:2 26:18 16:12 17:13 17:15 outside - 23: 15 10:25 14:13 raises-l0: l0Lending- 6:15 7:1 181 18:9 23:13 own - 31 :19 pre - 14:12 rather - 11 :10length - 9:23 23:16 23:17 244 prejudice - 13: 24 Re- 8:12less - 6:4 30:14 30:21 p 14:19 reaching - 27:6letter - 2019 20:21 Motion - 4:5 preliminary - 18:5prepare - 16:5 read - 4:24 5:915:7 23:6 28:110:23 20:25 21 :6 motions - 3:10 page - 19:8 24:821 :7 2113 21 :21 9:22 11 :7 15:7 18:6 pages - 33:11 prepared - 21 :8 reading - 4:21 8:2122:5 22:6 22:7 228 21 :19 paid - 21 :25 25: 14 preparing - 27:3 readjourn - 30:1622:10 22:11 23:9 move - 9:24 26:24 27:16 31 :11 really - 6:1 12:2023:12 23:14 23:20 moved -14:7 17:15 Paragraph - 18:9 presence 16:24 13:10 13:18 19:1023:21 23:23 23:25 moving - 11 :6 paragraph 19: 1 present - 3:16 4:1 21 :8 23:524:1 2414 2415 must 16:18 17:10 193 19:7 20:13 4:15 5:10 reason -10:1 12:22420 24:23 25:9 23:13 28:25 20:21 24:4 27:9 presenting - 5:3 reasons - 11:102615 26:19 2811 30:19 21:1 receipt - 15:42812 2815 29:16level - 20: 1 24:20 N paragraphs - 30:14parens -10:19

10:20 10:21pressed - 9:5pressure - 25:7pressured - 21 :24

receive - 23:22received - 7:1222:6 22:9 22:248:17 aa 9:14libel - 20:15 20:18 name - 7:8 28: 10 parentheses 25:3 25:5 23:1 23:23 24:121 :3 21 :4 218 Naples - 8: 15 20:22 pretrial 10: 19 24:72411 256 2516 necessarily - 3: 18 parse - 21:3 10:24 recollection - 14:1328:18 28:23 29:25 necessary - 11 :14 part - 8:9 12: 18 pretty -12:18 21:2 record - 11 :2030:7 26:22 26:23 20:25 25:13 27:10 29:22 30:13libelous - 21 :2 need - 30:1 31:9 particular - 15:11 prevail - 29:23 Recorded- 1:2425:22 29:1 needs - 3:18 4:4 parties - 7:2 9:16 prevent 10:24 recover - 7:11light - 22:20 negotiations 16:24 17:2 18:17 preViously - 4: 13 recovering - 7:16limited - 28:5 26:17 29:13 5:11 refer - 5:22Limited- 113 negotiator - 27:15 party - 4:1 20:3 privilege - 14:25 reference - 4:2 5:9line - 30:19 Neil - 1:4 2:4 3:4 20:5 22:21 29:14 24:13 29:5 23:25litigant - 2:5 19:1 29:15 priVileged - 25:25 references - 13: 15litigation - 9:13 nevertheless party s - 16:23 28:21 28:23 29:2 referring - 5:1210:3 14:25 20:11 27:11 Paskav-8:149:4 Dro-4:1 31:24 5:24 8:22


37/37

4

reflection - 25:20 rUles-14:1 14:2 25:24,28:9 thoroughly - 15:9 waived -16:18regard - 29:21 18:3 185 18:20 states - 4:10,21 :13 three - 3:9, 26:19, Weinberg- 7:4regarding - 7:25 19:16,19:20,19:22, stating - 24:10 29:13 welcome - 27:5regardless - 22: 11 20:9, 23:8, 27:25 Statute - 13:16 tie-9:11 well-founded regret - 25:3 Rules- 6:12, 17:22, staying - 23:19 timely-16:17 11 :23Regulating- 6:12 17:24,21:18 Stenographically - 18:20 Whereof- 33:14regulations - 9:14 ruling - 4:4, 7: 15 124 timing -17:7 17:19 William-1:8relate - 5:13 31 :14 still - 27:11 today - 3:8,3:19, wish - 5:2, 28:2related - 6:13,7:17, rulings - 31 :20 stop - 31:1 12:21, 17:14, 17:23, witness - 10:129:1 9:9 15:18 run - 30:9, 30:25 stopped - 30:24, 31 :16,32:1 10:16 10:22 11:7relating - 14: 1 Ryan- 2:8 31 :3 towards -13:14 11:16 12:1 13:2328:21 strategic - 10:1stri ke - 3:13, 3:23,16:12,17:13,30:15styled - 33:9

Town- 8:3trained - 17:21transaction - 16:21Transcript- 1:1314:1 14:4 14:8Witness- 33:14word -18:12words - 20: 18 21 :3

relationship - 7:20relationships - 17:5relying - 18:22 sanctions - 15:14remedy - 10:8 16:10 sub - 8:22 transcription - 33:8, wr i t l l : llrendered - 10:21 scheduled - 31 :6 subject - 16:22 33:12 write - 21 :9 27:21,report - 338 33:12 se - 2:5 4:1 31 :24 submit - 4:2 Transcription- 1:25 29:10Reported- 1:20 second - 3: 12 substantial-12:18 Transmark- 9:20 wrongly - 14:6reporter - 33:4 15:10 27:8 2819 substantially - 4: 14 trial-7:14 10:20Reporter- 8: 143319 29:15Section- 3:14 5:10,5:23,6:13,6:23,7:17 8:7 8:25 9:9 10:25,11:12,14:13,14:15 yrepresentation See- 26:19 14:2 tried - 26:17 years - 14:2, 14:3824 96 see - 5:7 15:7 18:8 substantive - 15:22 trier - 30:5represented - 4: 13 20:23,21:12,21:13, sue - 27:3 true - 21 :20, 22:21,6:1 6:3 6:14 7:9 22:7, 232 23:20, suffering - 25:10 23:11, 23:13, 33: 128:2 8:18 8:19 12:6 25:14,31 :7 sufficiency - 18:2, trust -15:424:6 seeking - 7:7 18:4, 28:6, 28:7 Truth-6:15 7:1representing - 4:11, selfish - 22:2, 26:6, sufficient - 28:17, truth - 25:13, 27: 187:8 26:9 29:15 29:24reputation - 28:10 send - 31 :12,31 :17 suggest - 3:21, truthful - 21 :23,request - 3:16,3:24, sense - 3:21 14:11,15:17,15:20 26:13,28:134:2,15:13,16:1 sent - 24:21 suggesting - 14:18 try - 9:24require - 16:23, sentence - 20:22 suggests - 9: 16 trying -12:2 27:1823:8 separate - 8:1 suing - 7:23, 22:2, two - 3:10, 6:6 8:6required - 17:2 set - 9:5, 23:2, 27:3, 26:7 12:16requirements - 7:15 27:14,33:14 Suite- 2:9 type - 22:13resident - 18:24, settle - 22:1,25:14, summary - 12:22, types - 9:2219:9 26:17,26:24,27:16 13:3,13:13,17:16resides - 19: 1respect -13:20, settled - 25:3settlement -12:13, Supp- 8:4support - 5:3, U14:23 2223 12:16,13:7,22:15, 11 :20, 12:8, 12:24, ultimately - 26:24respond - 12:11, 26:17 23:16 uncover - 25: 1328:25 several- 13:15, supporting - 27:5 Under- 16:15, 28:23response - 12:10, 15:7,30:14 suspicious - 9:25 under - 7:1, 8:5,1513 1525 19:3 shall-18:11 sustain - 24: 10 8:11, 10:8, 12:8,21 :15,23:23 shareholder - 7:11, 13:21, 17:24, 18:3,18:19,19:20,19:22,20:6,20:9 ,21 :18,26:10 27:25 28:7

responsive - 18:3,18:6,18:12,18:13 7:12 7:16shorthand - 33:9, Tresult - 20:4, 26:25 33:12 tactical - 11 :9resulted - 14:4 shows - 29:22 talks - 9:21, 23:3, underlying - 5: 13retained - 5:14 sign - 12:14 24:23,24:24,25:18 6:2 7:20review - 31 :13 signed - 12:16 Tampa- 1:17, 2:9, unfounded - 11 :24,reviewed - 27:22 similar - 4:14,5:10, 33:15 12:7Richard- 1:15 5:23, 6:6, 6:7, 6:24, technical - 9:13 unsupported - 12:7Rightly- 14:6 7:22 technically - 18:3 untruthful - 22: 13rights - 7:1 Singer - 11 :2 term - 25:8 unusual - 10:8rises - 24:20, 28:17 situation - 7:22 test - 17:3, 17:5 up - 3:8 3:19 3:20Rodems- 1:7 2:8, six -10:2 testify - 12:12, 13:2,13:12,30:11,3:5 36 39 4:10 skepticism - 11:8 14:16 30:16,30:18,30:19,4:16 6:10 6:11 6:18 small- 9:7 testifying - 1217 31 :6620 6:22, 7:24, 10:5, SO.2d - 7:5, 8:13, 14:17 upheld - 11 :1212:12 1222 1223 9:21 10:18 11:4 testimony - 10:15 Usa- 9:2014:12,14:24,15:10, solicitation - 26:2 :2215:17 165 16:816:11 2115 21:17 solicited - 26:4sometimes - 11 :9 testing - 18:4text - 8:22 V21 :22 2222 22:25 sorry - 8:13,25:10 themselves - 4:11, verified - 15:12,23:4, 23:7, 24:1, sort - 20:7 2213 15:132515 30:12 30:20 speculating - 27:17 therefore - 12: 1 version - 31 :2031:11,31:17,31:22, speculation - 27:17 19:4 view - 11 :7 29:1632:3 spelled - 26:14 thereto - 33: 10 violating - 22:18Rodems - 18:22, start - 10:20 Thereupon- 32:5 violations - 6:252517 started - 20:3 they ve - 19:25, vs - 1:6 7:4, 8:3,role - 13:7 starting - 20:5, 20:9 21 :6 9:20 10:17 11:3Room-l :16 State - 1:1,9:20, thin - 27:11 24:16Rpr- 1:20 33:1 33:5 33:15 third -16:24 17:1

TRANSCRIPT Judge Nielsen 2.15pm April 25 2006 Disqualif Counsel

Documents

Transcript of TRANSCRIPT Judge Nielsen 2.15pm April 25 2006 Disqualif Counsel