RECEIVED, 03/03/2015 12:54:16 PM, Clerk, Supreme … # 24409462 E-Filed 03/03/2015 12:49 ... Gene...

RICHARD LEE REPORTING

Page 1

JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION Tallahassee, Florida

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE: ANDREW J. DECKER, III

JQC NO.: 13-25

SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: 14-383

VOLUME 1 (pp. 1 - 198)

TRANSCRIPT OF: PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE: Judicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel

DATE: December 10, 2014

TIME: 8:34 a.m. to 5:47 p.m.

PLACE: Suwannee County Judicial Annex 218 Parshley Street SW Live Oak, Florida

REPORTED BY: Rebekah M. Lockwood, RPR Notary Public State of Florida at Large

RICHARD LEE REPORTING (813) 229-1588TAMPA: email: [email protected] ST. PETERSBURG: 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 2060 535 Central Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Filing # 24409462 E-Filed 03/03/2015 12:49:30 PMR

EC

EIV

ED

, 03/

03/2

015

12:5

4:16

PM

, Cle

rk, S

upre

me

Cou

rt


Page 2

1 APPEARANCES:2 PANEL MEMBERS:3 Judge Krista Marx, Chair

Judge Thomas Freeman4 John "Jay" G. White, Esquire

Mayanne Downs, Esquire5 Dr. Steven Maxwell

Nancy Mahon6

FRED WALLACE POPE, JR., ESQUIRE7 ANGELINA LIM, ESQUIRE

Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP8 911 Chestnut Street

Clearwater, Florida 337579 Appeared for Judicial Qualifications

Commission Investigative Panel;10

SCOTT K. TOZIAN, ESQUIRE11 GWENDOLYN DANIEL, ESQUIRE

Smith, Tozian, Daniel & Davis, PA12 109 North Brush Street

Suite 20013 Tampa, Florida 33602

Appeared for Respondent;14

ANDREW J. DECKER, IV, ESQUIRE15 The Decker Law Firm

P.O. Box 128816 Live Oak, Florida 32064

Appeared for Respondent.17

ALSO PRESENT:18

JOHN BERANEK, ESQUIRE19 P.O. Box 391

Tallahassee, Florida 3230220 Counsel to the Judicial Qualifications

Commission Hearing Panel21

MICHAEL SCHNEIDER, ESQUIRE22 Judicial Qualifications Commission

P.O. Box 1410623 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4106

General Counsel and Executive Director to24 the Judicial Qualifications Commission25


Page 3

1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

2 ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Judicial Qualifications Commission

3 P.O. Box 14106 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4106

4 Assistant General Counsel to the Judicial Qualifications Commission

5 AMBER E. ASHTON, ESQUIRE

6 DeBeaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal, LLP

7 609 West Horatio Street Tampa, Florida 33606

8 Appeared for Witness Bart Valdes

9 JUDGE ANDREW J. DECKER, III

10 Respondent

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 4

1 INDEX

2 PAGE

3 Proceedings 17

4 BRENT SIEGEL

5 Direct Examination by Mr. Pope 70Cross-Examination by Mr. Tozian 90

6 Examination by Mr. White 109Redirect Examination by Mr. Pope 111

7BART VALDES

8Direct Examination by Mr. Pope 114

9 Cross-Examination by Mr. Tozian 123Examination by Dr. Maxwell 130

10 Examination by Mr. White 132Redirect Examination by Mr. Pope 134

11

12 ANDREW DECKER, III

13

14 Direct Examination by Mr. Pope 136

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 5

1 JQC'S EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 19

3 1. Transcript of 6(b) hearing for the JQC's Investigative Panel on August 22, 2013

42. Initial Notice of Investigation to Judge

5 Decker dated May 3, 2013

6 3. Judge Decker's written response to the initial Notice of Investigation dated August 22, 2013

74. Judge Decker's office campaign video and

8 verbatim transcript thereof

9 5. Video of July 31, 2012, televised debate between Andrew Decker and Frederick Schutte for

10 the judicial election of 2012, and verbatim transcript thereof

116. April, 2012, Bar complaint filed by Daniel

12 Dukes regarding Andrew Decker

13 7. Respondent's May 7, 2012, letter to The Florida Bar in response to Dukes' complaint

148. Letter from The Florida Bar to Andrew Decker,

15 III, dated November 20, 2012

16 9. Andrew Decker's response to The Florida Bar with enclosures, dated December 10, 2012

1710. Affidavit of Judge Paul Bryan, with exhibits

18 executed August 9, 2013

19 11. Circuit Court Complaint in Wells Fargo Bank v. Gene Cornell, et al., Case No. 07-493-CA, Third

20 Judicial Circuit

21 12. November 22, 2010, order in Wells Fargo case setting a trial to begin on January 25, 2011

2213. January 21, 2011, E-mail communication from

23 Attorney Bart Valdes to Andrew Decker

24 14. January 24, 2011, court order in Wells Fargo case granting continuance

25


Page 6



3 15. Consent settlement judgment in Wells Fargo entered April 25, 2011, by Judge Paul Bryan

416. BWD Land Trust Agreement dated January 21,

5 2004, among Paul S. Bryan, William Woodington and Daniel Dukes

617. Complaint in TD Bank v. Paul Bryan, Case No.

7 04-2010-CA-866, Eighth Circuit, Bradford County, Florida

818. Answer of defendants Bryan, Woodington and

9 Dukes in the case of TD Bank v. Paul Bryan, et al. Case No. 04-2010-CA-866, Eighth Judicial

10 Circuit, Bradford County, Florida

11 19. Quitclaim Deed executed by Daniel Dukes on March 18, 2011, regarding land in Bradford

12 County, Florida

13 20. Quitclaim Deed executed by William Woodington on March 18, 2011, regarding land in Bradford

14 County, Florida

15 21. E-mail message dated August 10, 2011, from Andrew Decker to Scott Thomas

1622. Chapter 11 Petition filed March 13, 2012, on

17 behalf of Judge Paul Bryan

18 23. Application to be employed as bankruptcy counsel filed March 13, 2012

1924. March 14, 2012, e-mail from Andrew Decker to

20 Attorney Scott Thomas

21 25. Order permitting Andrew Decker to withdraw as counsel for Dukes and Woodington entered March

22 15, 2012, in Bradford County Case No. 04-2010-CA-866

2326. Amended application to employ bankruptcy

24 counsel filed May 8, 2012

25

Family Investments served April 28, 2011RICHARD LEE REPORTING

Page 7



3 27. Compass Bank foreclosure suit complaint filed March 22, 2010, Case No. 10-188-CA, Third

4 Circuit, Taylor County

5 28. Docket Sheet in the Compass Bank foreclosure suit (now known as the MJE Family Investments,

6 LLC) covering the period March 22, 2010, through October 14, 2014

729. Engagement letter dated May 5, 2010, between

8 Siegel Hughes & Ross, Attorneys, and Job Edwin White and Frances Grace White

930. Frances Grace White's Answer to Complaint and

10 Affirmative Defenses served May 10, 2010

11 31. Job White's Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses served May 10, 2010

1232. Check dated July 14, 2010, for $226.95 payable

13 to Siegel Hughes & Ross from Job and Grace White

1433. Answer of Ellisons and Woods Marina served

15 June 3, 2010

16 34. Notice of Service of Interrogatories by Compass Bank to defendant, Woods Marina, LLC, served

17 September 3, 2010

18 35. Confidential Agreement dated October 5, 2010, between Job and Frances Grace White and Samuel

19 and Jennifer Ellison

20 36. Letter dated November 24, 2010, from Andrew Decker, III, to Attorney Brent Siegel

2137. Letter dated January 11, 2011, from Attorney

22 Brent Siegel to Andrew Decker

23 38. Plaintiff's Notice of Partial Voluntary Dismissal of Job and Frances Grace White dated

24 January 12, 2011

25 39. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by MJE


Page 8



3 40. Defendants' Verified Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's First

4 Amended Complaint, served June 28, 2013

5 41. Complaint of John K. Vreeland, Trustee v. Paul S. Bryan, Daniel E. Dukes, and William E.

6 Woodington, filed October 11, 2011 in Polk County Circuit Court

742. Promissory note dated January 22, 2004,

8 providing for quarterly payments of $3,611.25 and bearing the signatures of Daniel Dukes,

9 Paul Bryan and William Woodington

10 43. Promissory note dated January 22, 2004, in the amount of $235,400.00, providing for

11 semi-annual payments of $7,222.50 and bearing signatures of Paul Bryan, Daniel Dukes and

12 William Woodington

13 44. Plaintiff's Summary Final Judgment in the matter of Bass & Higginbotham, Ltd. v. William

14 E. Woodington and Lowell E. Dukes, Alachua County Circuit Court, December 21, 2009 in the

15 amount of $24,976.27

16 45. Final Judgment in the matter of Capital City Bank v. Bruce D. Dukes, Archie H. Smith,

17 Progressive Building Systems, LLC and William E. Woodington,entered July 12, 2010, by the

18 Leon County Court in the total amount of $192,643.66

1946. Quitclaim Deed dated March 17, 2011, by William

20 Woodington to Paul S. Bryan

21 47. Acknowledgments of Indebtedness dated February 22, 2009, by William Woodington in favor of

22 Paul Bryan and Daniel Dukes and by Woodington to Paul Bryan.

2348. Default Judgment Against William E. Woodington

24 entered February 27, 2012, in the Superior Court of Tattnall County, Georgia

25


Page 9



3 49. E-mail chain between Andrew Decker and Kris Robinson dated June 21, 2012

450. E-mail exchange between Judge Bryan and Daniel

5 Dukes dated January 14, 2012

6 51. Transcript of audio recording of June 11, 2012, of Lafayette County Republican Executive

7 Committee Forum.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 10

1 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE


3 1. Affidavit - Frederick J. Schutte, IV, dated September 20, 2013

42. Affidavit - Terry Lee Rauch, dated September

5 23, 2013

6 3. Acknowledgments, Agreements, Waivers and Hold Harmless, dated January 22, 2004, signed by

7 M.M. Chastain, William E. Woodington, and Daniel A. Dukes

84. Affidavit of Trustee, dated January 22, 2004,

9 signed by William E. Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes

105. Letter and copy of check dated December 21,

11 2004, from Billy Woodington

12 6. Dukes Promissory Note Payment, copy of check dated December 30, 2004, to Leland Bryan.

137. Complaint in John K. Vreeland v. Paul S. Bryan,

14 Daniel E. Dukes, and William E. Woodington, Case No. 53-2011-CA-004703-0000-LK, dated July

15 9, 2013

16 8. Defendant, Daniel A. Dukes, Notice of Serving Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and

17 Answer to Interrogatories in John K. Vreeland v. Paul S. Bryan, Daniel E. Dukes, and William

18 E. Woodington, Case No. 53-2011-CA-004708-0000-LK, dated July 9, 2013.

199. Order Granting State's Motion to Secure

20 Evidence in John K. Vreeland vs. Paul S. Bryan, Daniel E. Dukes, and William E. Woodington,

21 Case No. 2011-CA-004708, dated November 14, 2012, with exhibit

2210. E-mail from Paul Bryan to Billy Woodington and

23 Daniel Dukes, dated June 15, 2011, re: LRB notes; BWD trust document; Ga. answer

2411. E-mail from Dukes to Paul Bryan, dated January

25 14, 2012, re: Quit-claim deed.


Page 11



3 12. E-mail chain between Kris Robinson and Andrew Decker, III, dated April 12, 2012, re: Polk

4 County Litigation

5 13. E-mail chain between Kris Robinson and Andrew Decker, III, dated June 10, 2012, re: Paul S.

6 Bryan Chapter 11.

7 14. E-mail chain between Kris Robinson and Andrew Decker, III, dated November 28, 2012, re:

8 Leland Bryan Trust v. Bryan

9 15. Redacted June Windstream phone bill, invoice dated July 27, 2012

1016. Order Authorizing Leave to Withdraw as Counsel

11 in John K. Vreeland v. Paul S. Bryan, Daniel E. Dukes, and William E. Woodington, Case No.

12 53-2011-CA-004708-0000-LK, dated December 7, 2012

1317. Complaint in Daniel A. Dukes and William E.

14 Woodington v. Andrew J. Decker, III, et al, Case No. 2013-CA-000084, dated March 14, 2013

1518. Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in

16 Daniel A. Dukes and William E. Woodington v. Andrew J. Decker, III, et al,

17 Case No. 2013-CA-000084, dated August 6, 2013

18 19. Affidavit - Kris B. Robinson, dated September 5, 2013

1920. Letter from Bart Valdes to Andrew Decker, III,

20 dated May 24, 2010, re: Wells Fargo Bank v. Gene A. Cornell, Our File Number: 44075

2121. Order Scheduling Case Management Conference in

22 Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Gene A. Cornell, et al, Case No. 07-493-CA, dated November 12, 2010

2322. Order Setting Case for Non-Jury Trial in

24 Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Gene A. Cornell, et al, Case No. 07-493-CA, dated November 22, 2010

25

dated April 25, 2011RICHARD LEE REPORTING

Page 12



3 23. Notice of Appearance by Kris Robinson, Esquire, in Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Gene A. Cornell, et

4 al, Case No. 07-493-CA, dated December 6, 2010

5 24. E-mail between Bart R. Valdes and Andrew J. Decker, III, dated January 19, 2011, re:

6 Cornell Modification Counter/Proposal

7 25. E-mail between Bart R. Valdes and Andrew J. Decker, III, dated January 21, 2011, re: 44075

8 Wells Fargo Bank v. Gene A. Cornell adv. Wells Fargo

926. E-mail between Bart R. Valdes and Andrew J.

10 Decker, III, dated January 24, 2011, re: 44075 Wells Fargo Bank v. Gene A. Cornell: RE: Wells

11 Fargo v. Cornell; Columbia Circuit Case No. 07-493-CA

1227. Defendants' Motion for Continuance of Non-Jury

13 Trial in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Gene A. Cornell and Joan T. Cornell v. Option One

14 Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 07-493-CA, dated January 23, 2011

1528. Order Granting Defendants' Motion for

16 Continuance in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Gene A. Cornell and Joan T. Cornell v. Option One

17 Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 07-493-CA, dated January 24, 2011

1829. Facsimile from Bart Valdes to Andrew Decker,

19 III, dated February 8, 2011, re: Wells Fargo Bank v. Gene A. Cornell, Our File No. 44075

20 (proposed changes to Final Judgment)

21 30. Motion for Approval of Consent Final Judgment in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Gene A. Cornell

22 and Joan T. Cornell v. Option One Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 07-493-CA, dated April 8,

23 2011

24 31. Final Judgment in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Gene A. Cornell and Joan T. Cornell v. Option

25 One Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 07-493-CA,


Page 13



3 32. Original Warranty Deed - Bradford County property, dated December 9, 2005

433. Plaintiff's Summary Final Judgment in Bass &

5 Higginbotham, Ltd., v. William E. Woodington and Lowell E. Dukes, Case No. 2009-CA-004882,

6 dated December 21, 2009

7 34. Letter from Andrew J. Decker, III, to TD Bank Attorney Adrian Rust, dated January 25, 2011,

8 re: TD Bank, National Association v. Paul S. Bryan, William E. Woodington and Daniel A.

9 Dukes, et al, Case No. 04-2010-CA-866

10 35. E-mail between TD Bank Attorney Scott Thomas and Andrew Decker, III, dated January 26, 2011,

11 re: TD Bank v. Bryan, et al

12 36. E-mail from TD Bank Attorney Scott Thomas to Andrew J. Decker, III, dated February 15, 2011,

13 re: TD Bank v. BWD Land Trust

14 37. Letter from Andrew J. Decker to Kenneth P. Abele, Esquire, dated March 3, 2011, re: TD

15 Bank, National Association v. Paul S. Bryan, William E. Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes, et

16 al, Case No. 04-2010-CA-866

17 38. Emails between Paul Bryan, Billy Woodington, Daniel Dukes, and Andrew Decker, III, dated

18 April 6, 2011, re: TD Bank

19 39. Letter from Andrew Decker to TD Attorney Scott Thomas, dated April 14, 2011, re: TD Bank,

20 National Association v. Paul S. Bryan, William E. Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case

21 No. 04-2010-CA-866

22 40. E-mail chain between Andrew Decker and TD Attorney Scott Thomas, dated June 16-17, 2011,

23 re: TD Bank v. BWD Land Trust

24

25


Page 14



3 41. Letter with attachments from Kris Robinson to Judge Toby Monaco, dated August 29, 2012, re:

4 TD Bank, National Association v. Paul S. Bryan, William E. Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes, et

5 al, Case No. 04-2010-CA-866 (Re: telephonic appearance)

642. Letter from Andrew Decker, III to Paul Bryan,

7 William Woodington, and Daniel Dukes, dated August 31, 2011, re: TD Bank, National

8 Association v. Paul S. Bryan, William E. Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case No.

9 04-2010-CA-866

10 43. Letter from Andrew Decker, III, to Paul Bryan, William Woodington, and Daniel Dukes, dated

11 September 6, 2011, re: TD Bank, National Association v. Paul S. Bryan, William E.

12 Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case No. 04-2010-CA-866

1344. E-mail from Andrew Decker, III, to TD Attorney

14 Scott Thomas and Paul Bryan, dated September 13, 2011, re: TD Bank - BWD Land Trust

15 Mediation

16 45. E-mail from Andrew Decker, III, to TD Attorney Scott Thomas, dated January 13, 2012, re: TD

17 Bank v. BWD Trust

18 46. E-mail from Andrew Decker, III, to TD Attorney Scott Thomas, dated March 9, 2012, re: BWD Land

19 Trust

20 47. E-mail chain between Andrew Decker, III, and TD Attorney Scott Thomas, dated March 13-14, 2012,

21 re: TD Bank v. BWD Land Trust, et al

22 48. Notice of Appearance by Kris Robinson in TD Bank, National Association v. Paul S. Bryan,

23 William E. Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case No. 04-2010-CA-96, dated April 5, 2012

24

25


Page 15



3 49. Order Authorizing (Decker) Leave to Withdraw as Counsel in TD Bank, National Association v.

4 Paul S. Bryan, William E. Woodington and Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case No. 04-2010-CA-86,

5 Composite: (a) Regarding Defendant BWD Land Trust, dated October 4, 2012; (b) Regarding

6 Defendant Paul S. Bryan, dated December 6, 2012

7 50. Application to Employ the Decker Law Firm, PA as Counsel for the Debtor IN RE: Paul S. Bryan,

8 Case No. 3:12-bk-01638, dated March 13, 2012

9 51. Amended Application to Employ the Decker Law Firm, PA as Counsel for the Debtor IN RE: Paul

10 S. Bryan, Case No. 3:12-bk-01638, dated May 8, 2012

1152. Order Authorizing Employment of the Decker Law

12 Firm, PA as Debtor's Counsel IN RE: Paul S. Bryan, Case No. 3:12-bk-01638, dated August 9,

13 2012

14 53. E-mail from Andrew Decker, III, to Kris Robinson, dated December 13, 2012, re: TD Bank

15 v. BWD Land Trust

16 54. Letter from The Florida Bar, dated April 23, 2012, with attachments, re: Complaint by Daniel

17 A. Dukes against Andrew Joseph Decker, III, The Florida Bar Vile No. 2012-00,796(3)

1855. Letter from Daniel Dukes to The Florida Bar,

19 dated May 16, 2012, re: Response to Mr. Decker's letter of May 7, 2012

2056. Letter from The Florida Bar to Andrew J.

21 Decker, III, dated July 17, 2012, re: Complaint by Daniel A. Dukes against Andrew J. Decker,

22 III, The Florida Bar File No. 2012-00,796(3) (Re: Supplemental Bar Inquiry filed by Dukes

23 against Decker)

24 57. Supreme Court of Florida Public Reprimand in The Florida Bar v. Frederick John Schutte, IV,

25 dated August 26, 2010


Page 16



3 58. Acknowledgment of Debt/Transfer of Ownership, dated February 22, 2009, signed by Billy E.

4 Woodington

5 59. Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice in Daniel A. Dukes and William E. Woodington v.

6 Andrew J. Decker, III, et al, Case No. 2013-CA-000084, dated April 6, 2014

760. Order and Judgment Composite: (a) Prime South

8 Bank-Blackshear v. Quali Hunter Builders, LLC, Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case No. 11-3-121C,

9 dated February 21, 2013; (b) Prime South Bank-Blackshear v. Gator Reserve Developers,

10 LLC, Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case No. 11-3-120C, dated February 21, 2013; (c) Prime

11 South Bank-Blackshear v. Commodore Forrest Holdings, LLC, Daniel A. Dukes, et al, Case No.

12 11-3-122C, dated February 21, 2013

13 61. Quitclaim Deed, executed by William Woodington to Paul S. Bryan, dated November 24, 2010

1462. Judgment on Remittitur in State Bank and Trust

15 Company v. Brantley Land and Timber, Co., LLC, et al, Case No. 2009-CV-175618, dated June 25,

16 2014

17 63. Deposition of Leslie Snyder with Exhibits in John K. Vreeland, et al v. Paul S. Bryan, et

18 al, dated October 15, 2013

19 64. Deposition of Elise Nessmith with Exhibits in John K. Vreeland, et al v. Paul S. Bryan, et

20 al, dated October 15, 2013

21 65. Redacted Notice of Investigation in Judicial Qualifications Commission's Inquiry Concerning

22 a Judge, Andrew J. Decker, III, dated May 3, 2013

2366. Composite Exhibit, re: City of Jasper Sale and

24 Purchase Potential Agreement

25 67. Composite Exhibit, character affidavits


Page 17

1 The transcript of proceedings, before the

2 Judicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel, on

3 the 10th day of December, 2014, at Suwannee County

4 Judicial Annex, 218 Parshley Street SW, Live Oak,

5 Florida, beginning at 8:34 a.m., reported by Rebekah

6 M. Lockwood, RPR, and Notary Public, in and for the

7 State of Florida at Large.

8 * * * * * * * * * *

9 PROCEEDINGS

10 THE CHAIR: All right. Good morning.

11 Good morning, everyone. We are here this

12 morning in the matter of the Judicial

13 Qualifications Commission in the inquiry

14 concerning Andrew Decker.

15 We'll start off having everyone introduce

16 themselves. I am Judge Krista Marx from Palm

17 Beach County, the 15th Judicial Circuit. I am

18 the presiding judge this morning. We'll start

19 over here to the right, if everybody will

20 please introduce themselves.

21 MR. BERANEK: I'm John Beranek. I'm

22 counsel to the hearing panel.

23 DR. MAXWELL: I'm Dr. Steve Maxwell. I'm

24 a gubernatorial appointee to the JQC.

25 JUDGE FREEMAN: I'm Tom Freeman. I'm a


Page 18

1 county judge from Pinellas County,

2 representative of the County Judge's

3 Conference.

4 MR. WHITE: Jay White from Palm Beach

5 County, former president of The Florida Bar.

6 MS. DOWNS: Mayanne Downs, Orlando.

7 MS. MAHON: Nancy Mahon, Jacksonville.

8 THE CHAIR: Mr. Pope.

9 MR. POPE: Wally Pope and my colleague,

10 Angelina Lim, from Clearwater and Tampa.

11 MR. TOZIAN: Scott Tozian. I represent

12 Judge Decker.

13 MS. DANIEL: Gwen Daniel. Also

14 representing Judge Decker.

15 MR. DECKER, IV: Andrew Decker, IV,

16 representing Judge Decker.

17 RESPONDENT: Judge Andy Decker.

18 THE CHAIR: Good morning, everybody. All

19 right. Well, we have a very ambitious schedule

20 here today. We're going to be trying what can

21 really be classified as three big matters,

22 which we'll get to here momentarily.

23 Gentlemen, I see you have marked all of

24 your exhibits and put them into binders, which

25 I really appreciate. I'm so glad to see that.


Page 19

1 A lot of times people ignore my dictate to go

2 ahead and premark your exhibits. Is there a

3 stipulation between the parties as to entrance

4 of all these exhibits, or are they merely

5 premarked?

6 MR. POPE: There is, Your Honor.

7 Mr. Tozian and I have done everything we can to

8 streamline this matter. It's not nearly as

9 formidable as the papers would indicate and

10 witness list would indicate. And we are

11 stipulating my two notebooks for the JQC and

12 his one notebook for the judge into evidence at

13 this time.

14 MR. TOZIAN: That's correct, Judge.

15 THE CHAIR: Okay. That's great.

16 (JQC's Exhibits 1-51 admitted into

17 evidence.)

18 (Respondent's Exhibits 1-67 admitted into

19 evidence.)

20 MR. POPE: And, in addition, we have

21 stipulated that the facts alleged in paragraphs

22 one and two of the second amended notice of

23 formal charges are accurate and accepted as

24 alleged, although we don't -- Mr. Tozian

25 reserves his right to argue what the meaning of


Page 20

1 those facts is.

2 MR. TOZIAN: That's correct, Judge.

3 THE CHAIR: Okay.

4 MR. POPE: And one last matter, Your

5 Honor, with regard to the documents stipulated

6 into evidence, we both reserve the right to

7 argue, even though they're in evidence that

8 they haven't -- a particular document has no

9 particular probative value and should be

10 disregarded. We just wanted to cut out

11 completely arguments over admissibility of

12 evidence.

13 THE CHAIR: All right. So let me just

14 get a little clarification on that then.

15 You're stipulating as to -- and so there is a

16 little confusion with regard to some of us are

17 referring to it as paragraphs and some of us as

18 to counts. So I just want to do a little

19 housekeeping on that as well.

20 So paragraphs or counts one through four

21 deal with alleged violations of the canons with

22 regard to campaigning. So you're stipulating

23 as to counts one and two, we'll call them, with

24 regard to the televised debate, which would be

25 count one, and the televised debate wherein


Page 21

1 there was a question regarding had there ever

2 been a conflict of interest, a stipulation

3 between the parties that that occurred? Is

4 that correct?

5 MR. TOZIAN: That's right. We do not

6 dispute the facts.

7 THE CHAIR: And then with regards to

8 count two, the allegation as to, "I'll be

9 bringing Christian beliefs," is there a

10 stipulation as to formal charges, what we'll

11 refer to count two, Christian beliefs, there

12 won't be any contest between the parties as to

13 that allegation? Is that correct?

14 MR. POPE: That's correct.

15 MR. TOZIAN: As to the facts. That's

16 correct.

17 THE CHAIR: Now, from my reading of the

18 answer, it appeared that there had been -- that

19 you admitted to -- Mr. Tozian, I'll direct this

20 to you -- that there was an admission as to

21 count three with regard to the judge stating

22 publicly he was Republican and pro-life.

23 MR. TOZIAN: There's an admission, but

24 Mr. Pope didn't want to make a stipulation.

25 MR. POPE: Well, Your Honor, I do


Page 22

1 stipulate to those facts, but there was a

2 little bit of embellishment that I wanted to

3 get into with regard to that. But those two

4 facts are not anything that I would not

5 stipulate to.

6 THE CHAIR: Okay. So there is a

7 stipulation, however, the prosecution intends

8 to call some witnesses just to --

9 MR. POPE: Flesh it out a little bit.

10 THE CHAIR: To flesh it out a little bit.

11 Okay. All right. Just so we're clear, we're

12 not going to spend a great deal of time on

13 that.

14 MR. POPE: We are not.

15 THE CHAIR: Call a couple witnesses on

16 that. And then as to count four, the Tea Party

17 issue, there's no stipulation with regard to

18 that?

19 MR. TOZIAN: There's great dispute

20 regarding that.

21 THE CHAIR: Okay. So we don't have a

22 bunch of witnesses on that particular --

23 MR. POPE: We will not. I have eight

24 witnesses, Your Honor. And they're -- the one

25 witness that will take a little bit more time


Page 23

1 is Judge Decker, and it just depends, to some

2 extent, on Mr. Tozian's cross-examination of

3 these witnesses. Some of them -- couple of

4 them are very short.

5 THE CHAIR: Okay.

6 MR. TOZIAN: Judge, before we go any

7 further with preliminaries, could we invoke the

8 rule at this time? Because there are

9 witnesses --

10 THE CHAIR: All right, folks, the rule of

11 sequestration has been invoked. So anyone who

12 has been listed as a witness, you're invited to

13 step outside the courtroom. I would caution

14 you not to discuss the case among yourselves at

15 any time, at any juncture during the course of

16 the trial. Each party is charged with making

17 sure that anyone that you have listed as a

18 witness is made aware that the rule has been

19 invoked. Thank you. Okay. So --

20 MR. TOZIAN: Thank you.

21 THE CHAIR: -- those are the counts or

22 paragraphs that relate to campaign violations.

23 Then when we're talking five through seven, are

24 there any agreements or stipulations with

25 regard to the BWD allegations?


Page 24

1 MR. TOZIAN: Not really. That's --

2 THE CHAIR: That's going to be --

3 MR. TOZIAN: Five and seven are probably

4 the most hotly contested of the entire bunch,

5 Judge.

6 THE CHAIR: Okay. So then I want to just

7 do a little housekeeping with regard to the

8 answer. Mr. Tozian, the way the formal charges

9 are alleged is paragraphs eight through 16 or

10 counts eight through 16, and I realize that the

11 formal charge seven is bumped out in paragraphs

12 with subparts for counts seven, and instead we

13 have paragraphs eight through 16, and then you

14 just do a general denial of count eight. So

15 are the parties just stipulating that it's

16 count eight, even though it's paragraphs eight

17 through 16 when you, in your answer, make a

18 general denial as to count eight, that that

19 involved the allegations of Compass Bank?

20 MR. POPE: Yes.

21 MR. TOZIAN: That's right, Judge. I

22 agree with that. I think there are eight

23 counts, and I think eight does go all the way

24 to 16.

25 THE CHAIR: So we might have been able to


Page 25

1 tighten that up with a little -- you know,

2 could have been a little tighter in the

3 charging, but I just want to be clear that

4 we're stipulating that that's one count, even

5 though it's several paragraphs, eight through

6 16, and that you're denying and there's no

7 stipulation as to any of the allegations of

8 paragraph eight through 16. Is that correct?

9 MR. TOZIAN: The facts in -- the facts in

10 paragraph eight are not -- they're not nearly

11 as much in dispute as they are in five to

12 seven. I mean -- but there are some -- I mean,

13 there's going to be quite a bit of testimony

14 taken, just because there's additional facts

15 that need to be known.

16 THE CHAIR: No general stipulations as

17 to --

18 MR. TOZIAN: Correct.

19 THE CHAIR: -- count eight. And there is

20 an agreement, despite the fact that the formal

21 charges allege paragraphs eight through 16,

22 that that encompasses one allegation. It

23 involves Compass Bank and the Ellisons and the

24 Whites and so forth?

25 MR. POPE: That's correct. Eight through


Page 26

1 16 is count eight.

2 THE CHAIR: All right. I'm very happy to

3 have learned the reputation of both of you. So

4 I know that you have done many trials, so

5 you're well aware of how this works. You'll

6 direct your objections to me as the presiding

7 judge, that there will be no speaking

8 objections, that you'll make a one-word

9 evidentiary objection, that I'll rule, that

10 from time to time, perhaps, we'll break and

11 convene if we feel there's a need for us to, as

12 a group, make a decision. And we -- I don't

13 think there's anything we need to discuss at

14 this time. Is there anything that anybody

15 wants to address before --

16 MR. TOZIAN: Yes, Your Honor.

17 THE CHAIR: Okay.

18 MR. TOZIAN: If Your Honor will recall,

19 we filed a motion to dismiss when the amended

20 charges were first filed. And you struck

21 Canons 1, 2, and 3, which were cited in the

22 earlier draft of the complaint. And when it

23 got refiled, you see in count two -- one, two

24 and three were put back in.

25 THE CHAIR: Yes.


Page 27

1 MR. POPE: Scrivener's error.

2 THE CHAIR: I noticed that. And I

3 believe it was exactly that, a scrivener's

4 error.

5 MR. TOZIAN: Okay. And I'm not

6 suggesting otherwise. I just want the entire

7 panel to be aware that one, two, and three are

8 off the table, because they're found again,

9 Your Honor, on Page -- well, I may be wrong

10 about that. That may be the only place they

11 are.

12 THE CHAIR: I followed --

13 MR. WHITE: I'm not following. What's

14 stricken?

15 THE CHAIR: On earlier motions to

16 dismiss, there was a ruling that Canons -- that

17 several of the counts alleged violations of

18 Canons 1, 2, and 3, which pertain only to

19 charges of sitting judges, and Judge Decker at

20 no time was a sitting judge when any of the

21 allegations occurred. And, therefore, I struck

22 Canons 1, 2, and 3 from the formal charges.

23 And then when the second amended came out, a

24 scrivener's error occurred and one, two, and

25 three were put back in. So it was, in fact, a


Page 28

1 scrivener's error.

2 MR. TOZIAN: Your Honor, I wasn't

3 suggesting otherwise. I just wanted it to be

4 clear.

5 THE CHAIR: Exactly. Okay. Anything

6 else?

7 MR. TOZIAN: Only other thing that we

8 have is, we have several judges that we have

9 under subpoena. And so I would just like some

10 flexibility. They -- none of them need to come

11 today, so I won't interrupt the JQC's case

12 today, but I would just ask for some

13 flexibility. We have a federal judge coming.

14 We have the chief judge of the circuit coming.

15 We have another judge coming. We have,

16 actually, three judges. In deference to their

17 schedules, I just want some flexibility.

18 The other thing I want to be aware of,

19 there's a witness from The Florida Bar who --

20 who relates to the -- what we'll call count

21 five, paragraph five, and her testimony will be

22 very limited, as in about five minutes. I

23 talked to general counsel for The Bar, Paul

24 Hill, who asked if she could appear by

25 telephone. She's in Tallahassee. And I


Page 29

1 thought that that would probably be acceptable

2 to the panel. Cleared it with Mr. Pope.

3 We're, of course, at your disposal. I just

4 wanted to tell her whether she can appear by

5 phone or whether she needs to drive here.

6 MR. POPE: I have no objection to that,

7 Your Honor, either one of his propositions

8 about flexibility or the telephonic appearance

9 of the witness.

10 THE CHAIR: We'll have to arrange for a

11 telephonic appearance, so I -- generally,

12 that's something that has to be prearranged.

13 I'm sure that we can arrange it. But it's not

14 something we can accomplish today. So we'll

15 have to figure out how we're going to do that.

16 So I don't -- you know, we'll certainly make

17 every effort to get that accomplished. I

18 imagine they're equipped to do that.

19 Generally, that's something --

20 MR. BERANEK: Judge, I'll work on that.

21 THE CHAIR: Yes. Exactly. We'll work on

22 that. So that's not something that we'll deal

23 with today. And with regard to the judges, I'm

24 sure that's the issue that we addressed earlier

25 in the -- the motion in limine, correct, that


Page 30

1 they're going to be called as character

2 witnesses for the defense, and we -- and that I

3 indicated that they would be -- that there was

4 the question of whether they would be relevant

5 or not, because it went to his conduct on the

6 bench, and they were going to be very short

7 witnesses towards the end of the case. So

8 let's see how we clip along today, and we'll

9 certainly accommodate the schedules. But,

10 definitely, I don't anticipate that we'll be

11 calling them today.

12 MR. TOZIAN: Two of the judges are fact

13 witnesses.

14 THE CHAIR: Okay. All right. So we're

15 happy to accommodate their schedules.

16 MR. POPE: And I made one other agreement

17 with Mr. Tozian, is that he's subpoenaed some

18 of my same witnesses, and if he needs to elicit

19 something from that witness, he can just do it

20 while the witness is on the stand.

21 THE CHAIR: Rather than wait for --

22 MR. POPE: Rather than wait for another

23 one.

24 THE CHAIR: All right. Very good.



Page 31

1 THE CHAIR: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Pope,

2 you may call your first witness, sir.

3 MR. POPE: Could I make about a

4 three-minute opening?

5 THE CHAIR: Absolutely.

6 MR. POPE: Thank you.

7 As you know, we've stipulated all this

8 documentary evidence into evidence. The facts

9 are pretty well outlined in the second amended

10 notice of formal charges. I'm not going to

11 stand up here and go through all of that.

12 To me, the most complicated factual piece

13 of this is the conflict of interest set out in

14 count seven, paragraph seven involving Judge

15 Bryan, Mr. Woodington, and Mr. Dukes. And it

16 seems to me that it's complicated factually and

17 when Mr. -- I believe Judge -- I'm not calling

18 Judge Bryan, but I believe the other side will.

19 But I'm calling Mr. Woodington and Mr. Dukes to

20 explain those facts.

21 But one of the things I wanted to do

22 was -- was just make a -- a brief statement

23 about what I think you should pay attention to

24 when you're hearing that. And the best way I

25 know how to do it is -- is a quotation from the


Page 32

1 Florida Supreme Court in the case of Florida --

2 The Florida Bar vs. Della-Donna, 583 So.2d 307,

3 1989 case, and it was about the conflict point,

4 and I just want to share this standard with

5 you.

6 "An attorney's working under a conflict

7 of interest is not proper and will not be

8 tolerated. It is settled that, except in

9 exceptional circumstances, an attorney may not

10 represent conflicting interests in the same

11 general transaction, no matter how well-meaning

12 his motive or however slight such adverse

13 interest might -- may be. The rule in this

14 respect is rigid because it is designated not

15 only to prevent the dishonest practitioner from

16 fraudulent conduct, but also to preclude the

17 honest practitioner from putting himself in a

18 position where me may be required to choose

19 between conflicting duties, or be led to an

20 attempt to reconcile conflicting interests,

21 rather than to enforce to their full extent the

22 rights of the interest which he alone should

23 represent."

24 So with that, I would like to call my

25 first witness, unless Mr. Tozian wants to --


Page 33

1 THE CHAIR: Would you like to give an

2 opening statement?

3 MR. TOZIAN: I do have an opening, Judge.

4 It will be a little longer than Mr. Pope's, so

5 I beg the indulgence of the panel.

6 Ms. Daniel and I and AJ Decker have the

7 privilege of representing Judge Decker in this

8 proceeding. We've looked forward to today.

9 Judge Decker has been practicing law for

10 35 years. He graduated from the University of

11 Florida Law School in 1978 and moved to this

12 area at that time. He worked with another firm

13 for a period of four years, became a partner

14 here. Then he opened his own firm up in 1989.

15 Like a lot of people in a smaller geographical

16 area, he had a general civil practice, did some

17 estate planning, and eventually developed into

18 a federal practice where he did a lot of

19 bankruptcy work. He was a member of the

20 Professional Ethics Committee for two terms.

21 So he spent six years on the Professional

22 Ethics Committee, helping write Professional

23 Ethics Committees. He was a member of the

24 grievance committee locally. Served as the

25 chairman here for a year. He was a member of


Page 34

1 the local JNC for the Third Circuit here

2 helping decide who gets appointed to

3 judgeships. Some CLE seminars, Middle District

4 bankruptcy practice seminars.

5 He's a member of the St. Francis Xavier

6 Catholic Church where he works as a eucharistic

7 minister and also teaches catechism. He helped

8 established a nonprofit in the early '90s,

9 known as Love, Inc., which was an organization

10 that was set up to help people who were need

11 based without any consideration for their

12 denomination. He set up the corporation. He

13 served on their board for a number of years.

14 At the time he decided to run for judge,

15 his practice consisted of himself, his son, his

16 daughter, who's a lawyer, and his now

17 son-in-law. It was his future son-in-law. His

18 wife was his office manager. And at the time,

19 like I said, his practice was primarily

20 bankruptcy practice.

21 Now, the case, as you noted, Judge, is --

22 has got two major components. One is the

23 campaign statement aspect of it, counts one

24 through four, and the other is counts five

25 through eight having to deal with Judge


Page 35

1 Decker's conduct as a lawyer in the months

2 leading up to his election to the bench.

3 The evidence in the case is going to show

4 that those latter counts five through eight are

5 as a result of Judge Decker being a victim of

6 small-town politics. And I'm not -- by small

7 town, I don't mean it's petty, but it's nasty,

8 as it can be in bigger towns. But that's what

9 you're going to hear here today, that the

10 evidence is going to show that the JQC has been

11 used by Daniel Dukes, who filed the original

12 Bar complaint that morphed into a JQC complaint

13 when the Bar lost jurisdiction, and also his

14 lawyer, Kris Robinson, who represents

15 Mr. Dukes.

16 Because there's less dispute as to one

17 through four, I'll address one through four

18 briefly. One, two and three, there's no

19 dispute as to what was said. The only thing we

20 would want to reserve is our right to argue

21 whether or not it's a violation. If it's a

22 violation, how it should be treated.

23 Paragraph four is significantly

24 different. In paragraph four, what the JQC

25 relies upon is the word of two witnesses. One


Page 36

1 is Frederick Schutte, who was Mr. Decker's

2 opponent in the judicial campaign, and the

3 other is a gentleman by the name of Terry

4 Rauch, who is a local, who has a talk show on

5 the radio for an hour a week.

6 There's two components to part four --

7 really three, I guess. The first is that

8 Mr. -- or at the time, Mr. Decker, was at a

9 function in Lake City, a Tea Party rally. This

10 was a political function where all the

11 candidates were invited to give a three-minute

12 speech. And that while at that function, at

13 the opening of it, that he was on the stage

14 with the Tea Party Executive Committee. And,

15 according to the allegation, during the

16 opening, a member of the executive committee

17 referred to Mr. Decker as a member of the Tea

18 Party Executive Committee, a reference that

19 Judge Decker embraced and did not dispute or

20 correct.

21 That comes directly from an affidavit

22 that was provided to Mr. Pope by Judge Decker's

23 opponent, Frederick Schutte. We've deposed

24 Mr. Schutte. And Mr. Schutte has said that

25 nobody identified him as a Tea Party Executive


Page 37

1 Committee member. He directly refutes his own

2 affidavit. He said that by virtue of him being

3 up near the Tea Party group, that he was in --

4 this was the word he used -- in the envelope of

5 the committee. And so that he -- and

6 eventually during the deposition, I assume

7 you're going to hear it again today, he

8 eventually admitted that he made an assumption

9 that he was part of that committee.

10 We will have -- there is no executive

11 committee, by the way. They consider

12 themselves a board. We will have three of the

13 board members from the Tea Party testify for

14 the panel. And they will say that Judge Decker

15 was not on stage with the board prior to the

16 proceedings beginning, that he was not a member

17 of the executive committee or board, indeed he

18 wasn't a member of the Tea Party. Each of them

19 will say that. They will also say the only

20 time he was invited onto the stage was when he

21 was asked to give the invocation. And the

22 invocation that he gave -- the reason why he

23 was asked, because there had been a storm that

24 had come through here that summer. There had

25 been 36 inches of rain, and there had been a


Page 38

1 lot of people who had been stranded and had a

2 lot of problems. And the minister, who was

3 scheduled to appear, could not appear. And so

4 the president of the Tea Party asked Mr. Decker

5 to provide the invocation. And he did that.

6 So there will be no testimony to support

7 the charge that he was up there as a Tea Party

8 Executive Committee member. None whatsoever.

9 Then Mr. Schutte alleges in his affidavit

10 and will continue to allege it here in front of

11 you, under oath, with his right hand up, that

12 when Judge Decker gave the invocation, that he

13 turned it into a political statement, saying

14 things like, "We need to get those people out

15 of Washington, because they aren't capable of

16 running the country." Mr. Schutte will claim

17 that drew applause, one can imagine, and that

18 it was offensive to some people, and he didn't

19 like it. And, again, we will have three of the

20 board members from the Tea Party come and say

21 that the invocation was very brief. It was a

22 typical prayer with no political comment

23 whatsoever. None whatsoever.

24 And understand that the testimony will be

25 that there were a couple hundred people that


Page 39

1 came to this proceeding. This was a big rally

2 right at the courthouse. And not one person,

3 not one, will come in here and say that Judge

4 Decker made a political comment during the

5 invocation which drew applause. Only

6 Mr. Schutte will say that.

7 The third part of count four is the

8 allegation that he said he was a loyal

9 Republican while standing in a small group of

10 people away from the stage in a private

11 conversation. The basis for that statement

12 comes from Terry Rauch. And Mr. Rauch, like I

13 said, is a local radio talk guy. And Mr. Rauch

14 will tell you that he's -- Mr. Schutte will

15 tell you that they're friends and that

16 Mr. Schutte is Mr. Rauch's attorney and that

17 Mr. Schutte advertises on Mr. Rauch's web page

18 and that he has -- and that Mr. Schutte is on

19 Mr. Rauch's show one -- one time a month

20 usually. And Mr. Rauch will say -- and he,

21 too, provided an affidavit to Mr. Pope. In his

22 affidavit, he said he was standing near Judge

23 Decker when he was talking to a small group of

24 people, and he overheard him say this, "I'm a

25 loyal Republican." He claims in his affidavit,


Page 40

1 again, under oath, that the state attorney's

2 wife, Ms. Siegmeister, was standing next to

3 him and that she, too, heard what was said.

4 And that simply is not so.

5 We were prepared to call Ms. Siegmeister

6 as a witness here today or tomorrow. And we

7 may yet call her, depending on what Mr. Rauch

8 says. In his deposition, Mr. Rauch told me

9 that that part of his affidavit was false, that

10 he cannot say she heard what was said. I guess

11 you'll hear from him today why he put it in an

12 affidavit under oath and now he's backing off

13 from it. But that will be the only source of

14 proof that Judge Decker made the comment that

15 he was a loyal Republican or good Republican at

16 this event, although there were hundreds of

17 people there. And bearing in mind that the

18 JQC's burden of proof being clear and

19 convincing evidence.

20 That concludes the campaign allegations.

21 And that moves us into five through eight. And

22 I'll take five and seven together, because

23 they're related. Five and seven involve Judge

24 Decker's representation of Judge Paul Bryan,

25 who's been a longstanding circuit judge here


Page 41

1 for, I think, 20 years, William Woodington, and

2 Daniel Dukes. And starting back in about 2000,

3 Judge Bryan got involved in some land

4 investment deals with Mr. Woodington and

5 Mr. Dukes. One of the first things they got

6 involved in was a group called CUB, which stood

7 for Columbia, Union, and Bradford Counties.

8 There were, I think, 13 or 14 people involved

9 in the investment. And so that was the name

10 they gave to that group.

11 And then subsequent to that time, they --

12 they formed BWD Land Trust, and that, of

13 course, is Bryan, Woodington, and Dukes. And

14 the purpose of the land trust was to purchase

15 parcels of land, subdivide it, and sell it as

16 residential lots. So the three -- these three

17 formed this group. And in 2004, they first

18 purchased some property in Hamilton County,

19 which I believe was in Jasper. They purchased

20 a parcel for $235,000. And the money that was

21 used to purchase that property was borrowed

22 from Judge Bryan's father, Leland Bryan, or a

23 trust Leland Bryan set up. So $235,000

24 borrowed. They bought the property outright.

25 There was no mortgage. A promissory note was


Page 42

1 given to Leland Bryan.

2 There was a second parcel purchased in

3 December 2005 in Bradford County. This time,

4 the purchase price was well over a million

5 dollars. So after money was put down on that,

6 there was still a mortgage of a million

7 dollars, and there were personal guarantees

8 from Bryan, Woodington, and Dukes.

9 And I think it's important for the panel

10 to keep in mind Judge Bryan had no involvement

11 in the forming of BWD, had no involvement in

12 the transactions that resulted in the purchase

13 of these two properties. Judge Decker had

14 nothing to do with it at that point in time.

15 Unfortunately, as the years progressed,

16 as everybody knows, the real estate market went

17 in the tank. And everybody who was an investor

18 became -- some of them bankrupt and poor. And

19 foreclosures, of course, those of you who are

20 judges know about foreclosure dockets all over

21 the state.

22 And in December of 2010, TD Bank filed a

23 foreclosure complaint and a guaranty action on

24 the Bradford County action. Judge Bryan was

25 concerned. They hadn't been making their


Page 43

1 payments. They had no ability to make the

2 payments. Woodington and Dukes were really

3 kind of low on money. So Judge Bryan suggested

4 to Woodington and Dukes, "We need a lawyer.

5 Let me find a lawyer." And Woodington and

6 Dukes agreed to that, superior knowledge of the

7 legal process.

8 So Judge Bryan asked around and got good

9 recommendations for Judge Decker and reached

10 out to him and hired Judge Decker to represent

11 the three of them.

12 Judge Bryan from the outset made it very

13 clear that this property was under water.

14 There was no equity. They were -- they were --

15 it was -- Scott Thomas from TD Bank, their

16 lawyer, will be here to testify and tell you

17 about this case and tell you about his opinion

18 whether or not there was a conflict. And he

19 will tell you the case from TD Bank's

20 standpoint was unlosable, and the case from

21 BWD's standpoint was unwinnable. And the best

22 thing that can be done was for the trust to

23 deed that property to the bank as soon as they

24 could, to avoid running up fees and costs, and

25 then negotiate for the lowest deficiency


Page 44

1 judgment that they could do. And that was --

2 he will tell you that that was the solution.

3 There was no other solution.

4 And that was what Judge Bryan told Judge

5 Decker the goal was. Let's get out of this for

6 as cheaply as we can. Nobody had any money.

7 Judge Bryan had some money. But they didn't

8 have the money to salvage the project.

9 So one of the first obstacles faced by

10 Judge Decker was, there was a judgment against

11 Billy Woodington for $25,000. And this was

12 recorded. And, in fact, when the foreclosure

13 was filed, this Bass and Higginbotham -- this

14 was your Exhibit 33 in our book, you'll see it

15 later -- was named as a defendant in that

16 foreclosure proceeding. So one of the first

17 things Judge Decker had to do was take care of

18 that particular lien so they could get clear

19 title and get it over to TD Bank. And he was

20 able to negotiate a partial release in exchange

21 for $4500, which was paid by Judge Bryan's

22 wife, because the other two had no money. But

23 it was Woodington's responsibility, not Dukes'

24 responsibility.

25 Then there was a second judgment from the


Page 45

1 Capital City Bank that Woodington had. It was

2 almost $200,000. And that, too, created a

3 concern of a cloud over the title, and that had

4 to be taken care of. And Judge Decker

5 negotiated partial release on that.

6 And there were other lawsuits going on.

7 This is really important to why the -- the

8 property was deeded from Woodington and Dukes

9 from Judge Bryan. Both Woodington and Dukes

10 were getting sued from all sides. For

11 instance, Mr. -- as we stand here today,

12 Mr. Dukes has four judgments in Georgia

13 totaling about $19 million. So this was all in

14 the hopper. They knew things were coming down

15 the pike. Mr. Woodington now has, I think,

16 three judgments exceeding $2 million.

17 So they -- there really was a legitimate

18 reason to try to get this property into Judge

19 Bryan's hands. And given the common goal of

20 let's get out of this as cheaply as we can,

21 that's what they did. They agreed to --

22 Woodington and Dukes agreed to provide

23 quitclaim deeds to Judge Bryan, so he would

24 take possession of it.

25 Now, if you look at 7(b), the charge


Page 46

1 7(b), that deals with the transfer of the title

2 from Woodington and Dukes to Judge Bryan. And

3 it reads, "As a partial settlement, you had two

4 of your clients, Messrs. Dukes and Woodington,

5 execute quitclaim deeds and delivered them to

6 Judge Bryan, thereby divesting themselves of

7 ownership of the Bradford property, and putting

8 them at a negotiating disadvantage. This

9 violated Rule 4-1.7(a) and 4-1.8(g)."

10 I don't believe you'll hear a single

11 witness say there was any type of conflict by

12 virtue of that transfer. As a matter of fact,

13 Mr. Thomas, who's a partner of Rogers Towers in

14 Jacksonville, will come here and tell you that

15 the handling of the case by Judge Decker was

16 textbook. What he was doing was saving all

17 three of them money by what he was attempting

18 to do. And that -- and he'll tell you straight

19 up, point-blank that Woodington and Dukes had

20 no negotiating power. They didn't have -- they

21 had limited funds. The property was under

22 water. There was nothing to negotiate. The

23 bank was either, like the FRAM oil filter

24 commercial, pay me now or pay me later. Bank

25 was going to get their money. There will not


Page 47

1 be any clear and convincing proof of 7(b)

2 violation.

3 The suit's filed. They're moving along.

4 They're trying to get the deed to TD Bank.

5 There's a mediation scheduled. And at the

6 mediation, Mr. Woodington and Mr. Dukes tell

7 Judge Bryan that, if they're given time, they

8 might be able to scrape together $10,000.

9 That's how tight they were on money.

10 In January of -- or February of 2012 --

11 mediation failed, of course, by the way. Judge

12 Bryan tells Judge Decker that Mr. Dukes was

13 accusing Woodington of forging his name to some

14 documents on a promissory note. And that was

15 with regard to the Hamilton County property.

16 And I know this case has got a lot of moving

17 parts. But, remember, the Hamilton County at

18 that time was the property they bought outright

19 with the money from Leland Bryan, Mr. -- Judge

20 Bryan's father. Excuse me. So Dukes makes

21 this allegation in an e-mail to Judge Bryan,

22 which is our Exhibit 11. It's dated

23 January 14th, 2012.

24 And so Judge Decker believed that there

25 was a conflict between Dukes and Woodington.


Page 48

1 Dukes is accusing Woodington of forgery. And I

2 think you'll hear during the course of this

3 case that during the CUB case, the earlier

4 investment was CUB, Columbia, Union, Bradford,

5 that Woodington did, in fact, forge Dukes'

6 signature. And he'll tell you or told me at

7 depo that he took $30,000 and paid bills with

8 the money that he kept away from the rest of

9 the group, but eventually was forced to pay

10 them back. So Dukes, for his part, probably

11 had some reason to believe that, perhaps,

12 Mr. Woodington had done that.

13 So based on this conflict that Judge

14 Decker perceives, he files a motion to withdraw

15 from both Woodington and Dukes, because they

16 appear to be the ones that are at each other.

17 And he still believed at that time that the

18 objective was to get rid of the property and

19 get out of there with the smallest deficiency

20 judgment they could. And it was still in all

21 three of their best interests. So he didn't

22 see that they had any -- that Judge Bryan had

23 any conflict with the other two.

24 While the motion to withdraw was pending,

25 it became known to Judge Decker that there was


Page 49

1 a motion for summary judgment in Georgia that

2 was scheduled against Judge Bryan that was

3 going to very possibly result in a judgment of

4 about $1.8 million. He was very much concerned

5 about how that was going to affect Judge

6 Bryan's ability to take care of his debts,

7 including TD Bank. So on March 12th, 2013, he

8 rushed and filed a Chapter 11 proceeding in

9 Jacksonville, in federal court to protect Judge

10 Bryan's assets.

11 And the JQC suggests that the filing of

12 that bankruptcy petition -- I'm now looking at

13 subsection C, 7(c) -- created a conflict

14 between Judge Bryan and the other two clients,

15 and he should have immediately withdrawn from

16 the representation of all three. Because he

17 didn't, that violated 4-1.7.

18 The fact is that Judge Bryan wasn't

19 insulating himself from liability or payment.

20 And, in fact, when a stay was issued, he

21 stipulated to the lifting of the stay, once

22 again, to make sure TD Bank didn't have to jump

23 through a bunch of hoops. And the fact is, as

24 we stand here today, what you're going to hear

25 is that Judge Bryan, through his Chapter 11,


Page 50

1 has a monthly payment -- he's entered into an

2 agreement to -- with TD Bank. He's making a

3 monthly payment every month. And there's a set

4 amount that he's going to have to pay over the

5 next several years. And that's the only money

6 TD Bank has gotten out of these three people.

7 This conflict, which is alleged, is going

8 to show you, and this bankruptcy protection

9 that favored Judge Bryan in the JQC's eyes has

10 resulted in Judge Bryan agreeing to -- and I'm

11 not going to say what the figure at this point

12 is -- I'm not sure if it's confidential or not.

13 We'll let Judge Bryan tell us that on the

14 stand. But Judge Bryan is the only one that's

15 paid. Not a single penny has been paid by

16 Woodington and Dukes, the two people who were

17 hurt by this conflict.

18 Count seven also says that Judge Decker

19 engaged in a lack of candor in the filing of

20 the -- one of the schedules in the bankruptcy

21 petition, which dealt with -- if I can get to

22 it, in the bankruptcy application, he attests,

23 under penalty of perjury, his firm had no

24 connection with the creditors or any parties at

25 interest or their respective attorneys. In the


Page 51

1 same statement of disinterestedness, under

2 penalty of perjury, Judge Decker declared that

3 he had no other connection with the debtor,

4 creditor, and other party at interest, their

5 respective appraisers or accountants. JQC

6 alleges that violates Rule 4-3.3, candor toward

7 a tribunal.

8 Now, those statements were made in a

9 bankruptcy filing. The presiding judge over

10 that proceeding was Judge Glenn, who's been a

11 bankruptcy judge in the Middle District of

12 Florida. He was in Tampa for a long time -- I

13 don't do bankruptcy work, but I remember his

14 name -- then got transferred to Jacksonville.

15 He's been in Jacksonville a long time. I think

16 he's been a bankruptcy judge for in excess of

17 20 years. And he's going to tell you that he

18 was never contacted by the JQC to seek his

19 opinion whether or not this was something that

20 would be considered a lack of candor. He's

21 going to tell you that Judge Decker, when

22 practicing in bankruptcy court, was one of the

23 finest bankruptcy lawyers that appeared in his

24 court. Never had any question, any reason to

25 doubt his candor or integrity. And that he did


Page 52

1 not consider the failure to list those names in

2 that statement to be approaching a lack of

3 candor. He'll tell you it was a mistake, it

4 was an honest mistake, a reasonable mistake.

5 He'll also tell you that when you look at

6 the next bankruptcy allegation, which is G,

7 where the JQC alleges that when he did amend

8 his application to tell the court about the

9 existence of some of this other litigation with

10 Woodington and Dukes and BWD, that Judge

11 Decker's failure to include his continued

12 representation of BWD in the lawsuits involving

13 Leland Bryan didn't make any difference. He

14 issued -- and he actually issued an order,

15 which is Exhibit 52 in our book, because the

16 matter was taken before Judge Glenn, the very

17 tribunal who supposedly there was a lack of

18 candor exhibited to.

19 And here's what Judge Glenn wrote, in

20 addition to other things. "Decker's work and

21 efforts before and after his withdrawal from

22 representation of William E. Woodington and

23 Daniel A. Dukes and his continued

24 representation of the debtor in this Chapter 11

25 case has been directed toward the same


Page 53

1 goals" -- this is going to be a theme you're

2 going to hear in the case repeatedly over and

3 over again -- "avoiding or minimizing any

4 deficiency claim TD Bank may assert. These

5 goals that are consistent with the interests of

6 the Debtor and William E. Woodington and Daniel

7 A. Dukes."

8 That's what the presiding judge said,

9 that there was no conflict. And he allowed

10 Judge Decker to continue the representation.

11 Judge Glenn's comments will later arrest any

12 idea that there's clear and convincing evidence

13 there's a violation of 7(e) or (g). And he'll

14 tell you point-blank, he doesn't believe Judge

15 Decker lacked candor.

16 Charge five, gratefully, I'm sure, is

17 pretty quick, and that deals with the

18 suggestion that Judge Decker in making a phone

19 call to Kris Robinson, whose name you're going

20 to hear repeatedly throughout this case, that

21 he called and said that he expected the

22 grievance to be dropped if they can sell the

23 Hamilton County property. And that

24 constitutes, according to the JQC, a violation

25 of Rule 4-1.16(b), 3-4.3, 4-1.9, and 4-1.8(b).


Page 54

1 Here's what you're going to hear about

2 charge five. Kris Robinson will say that as

3 best he can recall -- and he gave an affidavit

4 to the JQC, which is really the basis for

5 charge five -- that he received a telephone

6 call from Judge Decker, who said there's a

7 chance to sell the Hamilton County property; I

8 think it's in everybody's best interest, but if

9 we can reach an agreement, I expect that Dukes

10 will dismiss his grievance. And this was

11 several months after Dukes had filed the

12 grievance.

13 Judge Decker absolutely denies that he

14 made that statement to Mr. Robinson.

15 Mr. Robinson will not put quotes around it.

16 He'll say that's the best he remembers.

17 Mr. Robinson did not memorialize their

18 conversation. He said it was a very brief

19 conversation. He claims his response was, "I

20 won't have anything to do with a transaction

21 that is conditioned about the dropping of the

22 grievance." He'll then tell you that -- this

23 is Robinson's account -- Judge Decker didn't

24 say anything else about that. He simply said,

25 "Well, I think if we all get together, we might


Page 55

1 be able to get through these issues."

2 And Mr. Robinson will tell you that he

3 took that to mean they can reach some sort of

4 agreement and that he also -- Judge Decker

5 probably felt that he could persuade Mr. Dukes

6 that these ideas he had about Judge Decker's

7 conduct were erroneous.

8 To address that issue, we're going to

9 call Shanee Hinson. She's a lawyer with The

10 Florida Bar in Tallahassee. She's the ACAP

11 department, the Attorney Consumer Assistance

12 Program. She will tell you she was the initial

13 lawyer that handled the Dukes complaint. And

14 she handles thousands of them, by the way.

15 That's the -- Tallahassee is the clearinghouse.

16 They all start there, and then they get

17 disbursed to the five branch offices. I'm

18 not -- some of you have been Bar presidents,

19 I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

20 But she will identify a form letter that

21 goes out to respondents and complainants that

22 says you're not precluded from talking to one

23 another. This is after the grievance is filed,

24 The Bar is still saying, "Hey, if you can work

25 it out, work it out." She'll tell you before


Page 56

1 it becomes a complaint, when ACAP is contacted

2 initially, that The Bar actually encourages

3 potential complainants and lawyers to work it

4 out, which, obviously, logic supports that type

5 of position.

6 And so the letter that Judge Decker got

7 from Shanee Hinson that will be introduced into

8 evidence as Exhibit 54 said, "You can talk to

9 the complainant." And Judge Decker's position

10 was, he was trying to get the property sold and

11 wanted to talk to them, but absolutely,

12 positively did not condition the sale of the

13 property upon the dropping of the grievance.

14 Charge six has to do with Judge Decker

15 prior to taking the bench having represented

16 Judge Bryan in the matters we've talked about

17 before. And this case is -- this particular

18 count will move quickly, I think. Foreclosure,

19 the Cornell case was pending for quite some

20 time in Lake City. Case languished somewhat,

21 and so a new counsel was brought in from Tampa,

22 a fellow by the name of Valdes, who was brought

23 in to make the case move more quickly, I guess.

24 The lender or the plaintiff wanted the case to

25 move faster.


Page 57

1 So Valdes comes in. He is close friends

2 with Kris Robinson, a name you'll hear a few

3 times. And when the case is going to get set

4 for trial, he brings Robinson in as local

5 counsel. Robinson comes in in December of

6 2010. The case is set for trial in

7 January 25th of 2011.

8 The sequence of events, which happens

9 relatively quickly, is on January 4th, 2011,

10 Judge Decker files an answer on behalf of BWD

11 and the three trustees. On January 5th, the

12 next day, he sends a proposed settlement, final

13 judgment to Mr. Valdes. Valdes responds on the

14 11th. And by the 19th, you'll have an e-mail

15 from Valdes to Mr. Decker that says, "Okay.

16 They'll agree to the following terms." It was

17 a remod -- it was a modification, and the

18 people are going to keep their home.

19 January 24th rolls around. The trial's

20 the next day. They don't have all the little

21 details hammered out, so they agree to a short

22 continuance, Valdes and Decker. They send a

23 stipulation from each of them, signed by each,

24 to the judge saying, "We agree to a short

25 continuance, 30 to 45 days." Judge signs it


Page 58

1 but doesn't set the date. He puts "to be set,"

2 I think, on the document. You'll see.

3 And because there's no date in the order

4 signed by Judge Bryan, what Mr. Valdes will

5 tell you is, he got Mr. Robinson's office to

6 grab him a date. The date they were offered

7 was March 2nd, which was well within the 30- to

8 45-day time period. And before they even set

9 that date, the case was fundamentally settled,

10 and it got settled. They never rescheduled the

11 case.

12 And there will be no evidence that you

13 will hear, because the allegation of this is

14 that Mr. Decker, as -- before he was Judge

15 Decker, had some unfair negotiating advantage.

16 That's what the allegation is. The case was

17 almost settled at the time he filed the answer.

18 Settled shortly thereafter. Mr. Valdes didn't

19 know he was the judge's lawyer. So I would

20 suggest to you, there will not be clear and

21 convincing evidence of an unfair negotiating

22 advantage.

23 Last charge, charge eight is -- involves

24 -- this one is a little bit complicated, too --

25 Judge Decker's representation of the Ellisons


Page 59

1 in a transaction in Taylor County where the

2 Ellisons were the owners of some property that

3 was used to build a condominium project in

4 Perry. And the people who developed the

5 property were Job and Frances White, a married

6 couple, Fred and Kelly Shore, another married

7 couple, and Ted Burt.

8 That group, the developers, the Whites,

9 the Shores, and Mr. Burt were represented by

10 Brent Siegel, who's going to testify here as

11 soon as I be quiet and sit down. Siegel is a

12 Gainesville lawyer. He has these three groups

13 come in, and he tells them there's a potential

14 conflict. He has them sign a conflict letter.

15 He'll tell you he wasn't there when Mr. White

16 signed it. I don't know that you'll hear to

17 what extent it was explained to Mr. White, the

18 conflict letter, but anyway, everybody signs

19 the conflict letter, and he signs an answer on

20 behalf of all three.

21 Meantime, Judge Decker is representing

22 Woods Marina, which is the entity that is owned

23 by Jennifer Ellison and Matthew Ellison.

24 Jennifer Ellison is a lawyer also.

25 So this foreclosure action is filed


Page 60

1 against everybody, Decker's clients and

2 Mr. Siegel's clients. When White and his group

3 go to see Mr. Siegel, Mr. Siegel will tell you

4 Mr. White was really nervous. He was really

5 scared. The reason was, Mr. White is an

6 accountant. He's not a lawyer. He's not

7 really an investor. He was a smaller investor.

8 But he's really nervous, because he was

9 the only one that was talked into or somehow

10 had his wife personally guarantee the loan. It

11 started out as a $9 million loan, and it was a

12 $2 million loan at the time of foreclosure. So

13 Mr. White is now really scared, because all his

14 assets are owned jointly. His wife is a

15 personal guarantor, and he's a personal

16 guarantor. And he's worried that he's really

17 going to get clobbered on this $2 million deal.

18 Mr. Siegel will tell you it's a perfectly

19 legitimate concern. Mr. Burt's wife's not on

20 it. Mr. Shore's wife's not on it. The only

21 wife that ended up on it was Mr. White's. So

22 Siegel will tell you, he was -- he uses words

23 like frantic, desperate. And yet he believed

24 that his marching orders were to defend the

25 foreclosure.


Page 61

1 The reason he wanted to defend the

2 foreclosure is to give the parties time to try

3 to salvage the project, buy the note from the

4 bank, do something, but salvage the project,

5 which Mr. White will tell you he wasn't

6 interested in. From the get-go, there's a

7 conflict between these three people, even

8 though there's a conflict letter.

9 So Mr. White is talking to I think his

10 housekeeper or somebody, and she says, "Well,

11 Jennifer Ellison is really a nice person. You

12 should talk to her." So this intermediary sets

13 up a meeting between Ellison and Job White.

14 And they meet, and they talk about it, and

15 Ellison gives Job White a way out of the deal.

16 "If you will buy a condominium from me, I'm

17 going to try to buy the note from the bank.

18 I'll use your money you paid for the

19 condominium to help me buy it. And then I'll

20 cut you out. You'll no longer be a defendant.

21 But you can turn around and sell the

22 condominium and get whatever you can get."

23 Mr. White was willing to do that. So

24 they enter into this agreement, and Judge

25 Decker gets a call, you know, "We've got a


Page 62

1 deal. Want you to take care of it."

2 Mr. White and Ms. Ellison show up a day

3 or so later at Judge Decker's office. And the

4 first thing that's said by Judge Decker is --

5 Mr. White comes in, is, "Aren't you represented

6 by Mr. Siegel? Don't you have a lawyer?"

7 And Mr. White will tell you in no

8 uncertain terms, "No. I don't need a lawyer.

9 I'm handling this myself." And absolutely,

10 positively, unequivocally told Judge Decker he

11 did not have a lawyer and he was going to take

12 care of himself.

13 So Judge Decker's decision point at that

14 time is follow his client's instruction, write

15 this up on her behalf and her husband's behalf;

16 or call Mr. Siegel, which, of course,

17 jeopardizes the deal, because Mr. Siegel has

18 two other clients who want to salvage the

19 project while Ellison's going her own way.

20 So Rule 4-4.2, which is the rule that's

21 cited in number eight, talks about whether or

22 not a lawyer knows a person to be represented

23 by counsel. It's very specific. If you know

24 somebody's represented by counsel, you cannot

25 have communication with them. He was


Page 63

1 specifically told by Job White, University of

2 Florida-educated accountant, sophisticated guy,

3 "I don't have a lawyer." So he writes up

4 the -- writes up the deal for them.

5 Here's what's interesting. They have to

6 come back the next day to sign the deal. And

7 when they come back the next day, Job White is

8 going to tell you that Matthew Ellison starts

9 to say, "Well, you know, I don't like the way

10 this deal is. I'm going to tweak it a little

11 bit."

12 And Judge Decker goes, "No. You're not

13 going to tweak it. You got a deal. This is

14 what we agreed to. Let's just go with what we

15 agreed to."

16 So Job White got the deal that he got.

17 There's a confidentiality agreement in there,

18 which the JQC -- special counsel thinks it's

19 somehow sinister, but it will be explained to

20 you that was in there to allow Ms. Ellison to

21 try to accomplish what she needed to accomplish

22 to purchase the note so she could get done. So

23 they agreed not to talk about it for a period

24 of time. She bought the note.

25 And Mr. Siegel finds out later that


Page 64

1 there's -- this conversation's occurred. He

2 calls Mr. White in, he calls Mr. Shore in, he

3 calls Mr. Burt in. He says, you know, "What's

4 up?"

5 And Job White tells his story, "I cut my

6 own deal. I want out of this thing." And

7 he'll tell you that he couldn't sit still. Job

8 White was so nervous and frantic. He was

9 walking around. He was so worried about his

10 assets.

11 And, significantly, Mr. Burt and

12 Mr. Shore said to Mr. Siegel, "Do not do

13 anything to jeopardize what Job White has done

14 for himself. We want this deal to go through

15 for him."

16 And I don't know if you'll hear any

17 testimony that they felt guilty about getting

18 his wife on there personally, where they left

19 him to twist and turn, or why they agreed to

20 that, but they -- it was very clear to

21 Mr. Siegel he was not to interrupt the deal

22 that had been cut by Job White.

23 So Mr. Siegel never really asked

24 Mr. White how is it you ended up over there,

25 who said what. So Siegel doesn't know Job


Page 65

1 White walked in and said, "I don't have a

2 lawyer." So he was miffed about the

3 conversation, which is, I think, somewhat

4 understandable.

5 But for the purposes of this proceeding,

6 what's important to note is that Judge Decker

7 was told, "I don't have a lawyer," and he

8 followed his client's wishes. More will

9 develop out of that. That's probably enough on

10 that, so we can get started.

11 The last thing I want to talk about,

12 because it's going to be a theme in this case,

13 is that when Daniel Dukes -- when Judge Decker

14 withdrew from Daniel Dukes and Mr. Woodington

15 in the Bradford County case because of the

16 conflict that was created by Dukes' accusation

17 of Woodington, Mr. Dukes went and hired Kris

18 Robinson. And when he did that -- Mr. Robinson

19 has not -- has not collected one dime from

20 Mr. Dukes to date, some two years later.

21 Hasn't been paid in two and a half years later,

22 hasn't been paid one penny.

23 You'll hear that Mr. Dukes prepared his

24 Bar grievance, which I said before, morphed

25 into the JQC complaint, at Kris Robinson's


Page 66

1 office. He prepared a four-page document at

2 Kris Robinson's office. He prepared a

3 ten-and-a-half-page document at Kris Robinson's

4 office.

5 When he gets cross-examined on the

6 preparation of those documents, just ask -- I

7 know you'll listen carefully to everything,

8 about his ability to explain what he put into

9 writing. He'll tell you he didn't have any

10 help doing it. He asked Mr. Robinson a

11 question or two. Mr. Robinson didn't tell him

12 how to do it. He did it himself. Listen to

13 how he explains where he got the information

14 that he put into it, because I've had the

15 pleasure of deposing him, and I know what he's

16 going to say.

17 He also, this year, filed two Bar

18 grievances against the county attorney for

19 Columbia County, gentleman named Joel Foreman.

20 And he's going to testify before you.

21 Mr. Foreman has never represented Mr. Dukes.

22 Mr. Foreman has never been opposing counsel to

23 Mr. Dukes. Mr. Dukes filed a grievance against

24 him. Where was the grievance prepared? In

25 Kris Robinson's office. He filed a second


Page 67

1 grievance against him.

2 It just so happens that Mr. Foreman was

3 in a political campaign during 2014 at the time

4 this grievance was filed against him, running

5 against Kris Robinson's father.

6 Mr. Dukes never represented by him, never

7 opposing counsel. And he complained that

8 Mr. Foreman represented Judge Bryan and failed

9 to disclose it, and the judge -- he'd gone and

10 gotten a number of cases showing where there

11 had been this representation by Mr. Foreman of

12 Judge Bryan.

13 And when I asked him, "Where did you get

14 the information you put in your claim?

15 "I don't know.

16 "Who'd you talk to?

17 "I don't know."

18 And when The Bar initially closed it

19 down, he went and got a DVD, a recording of a

20 hearing that was conducted in front of Judge Bryan

21 that -- that Mr. Foreman was counsel in, the

22 recording, "Where did you get it?

23 "I don't remember.

24 "Who told you it existed?

25 "I don't know.


Page 68

1 "Kris Robinson tell you to do it?

2 "No.

3 "Where was it prepared?

4 "Kris Robinson's office."

5 That's what you're going to hear. What

6 you're going to hear is this gentleman doesn't know

7 where he got what he got and when -- I predict he

8 won't even tell you what he even said in it, in

9 these things.

10 But everything was prepared in Kris

11 Robinson's office. And I asked Kris Robinson, "Did

12 you review the complaints against Mr. Decker, the

13 two letters that were written, before they went

14 out?"

15 "I don't recall."

16 It would seem that's not something that

17 happens in law offices every day. It seems like you

18 would recall. But that's what he'll tell you. He

19 doesn't recall.

20 What you're going to hear from our side

21 is that Judge Decker on the bench has done an

22 outstanding job. You'll hear from three live

23 witnesses. Judge Glenn will weigh in on that.

24 Chief judge here, Judge Parker, here will tell you

25 what he's done. We have affidavits from 15 or 20


Page 69

1 people, lawyers here, longstanding in the area will

2 tell you what type of jurist he is.

3 And at the end of this case, I'll come

4 back before you, and I'm going to ask you, based on

5 the relative lack of egregiousness in the campaign

6 violations, to impose a public reprimand. Thank

7 you.

8 THE CHAIR: Thank you, sir.

9 Mr. Pope, you may call your first

10 witness.

11 MR. POPE: We'll call Brent Siegel,

12 attorney. While he's coming in, I'm going to

13 start with tab 27 in volume two. And I've

14 learned through experience in dealing with

15 these fat notebooks that the best way to flip

16 the pages is maybe a half inch at a time or

17 three quarters. If you try to do the whole

18 thing, it jams up.

19 THE CHAIR: Thank you. 27, is that

20 right?

21 MR. POPE: Yes, Your Honor.

22 THE CHAIR: Thank you. Morning, sir.

23 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

24 THE CHAIR: Raise your right hand. I'll

25 have the court reporter do it.


Page 70

1 WHEREUPON,

2 BRENT SIEGEL,

3 was called as a witness and, after having been first

4 duly sworn, testified as follows:

5 THE CHAIR: I'll have you state your name

6 and spell it for the record, please.

7 THE WITNESS: Brent Siegel. B-r-e-n-t,

8 S-i-e-g-e-l.

9 DIRECT EXAMINATION

10 BY MR. POPE:

11 Q Your address, Mr. Siegel?

12 A My business address is 4046 Newberry

13 Road, Gainesville, Florida.

14 Q And your occupation?

15 A I'm an attorney.

16 Q How long?

17 A About 32 years.

18 Q Licensed in -- by the State of Florida?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Are you board certified?

21 A Yes, I am.

22 Q In what?

23 A Business litigation.

24 Q And the length, you said 32 years.

25 What's the nature of your practice?


Page 71

1 A Primarily business litigation, civil

2 trial practice, do some products liability cases,

3 but mostly business disputes.

4 Q Mr. Siegel, I put -- I opened volume two

5 of that notebook there to tab 27. If you would take

6 a look at that, please. And the exhibits I will ask

7 you to look at will follow after 27. What is tab

8 27?

9 A Appears to be a copy of a complaint, a

10 case where I was hired to represent some of the

11 defendants.

12 Q And which defendants did you represent?

13 A Fred Shore, his wife, Kelly Shore, Ted

14 Burt, Job Edwin White, he goes by Job E. That's how

15 people know him. And Frances White.

16 Q And who represented the other defendants

17 in the case?

18 A Well, the other defendants -- there were

19 some defendants who were nominally -- they were

20 junior lienors --

21 Q Let's not talk about the nominal

22 defendants.

23 A -- that weren't really actively involved.

24 But the active defendants were represented by then

25 Attorney Andy Decker.


Page 72

1 Q Would you please turn to tab 29.

2 A Yes, sir.

3 Q Tell us what tab 29 is.

4 A Well, I was initially contacted about

5 this case by either Ted Burt or Fred Shore, both of

6 whom I've known for years. Fred Shore, I've -- I've

7 done a number of legal matters for, and Ted Burt is

8 an attorney who I've worked with and done cases for.

9 So one of them contacted me and said, "We

10 have development that's got some problems. The

11 bank, Compass Bank, has foreclosed, and we need

12 representation. We're hoping it's not going to be a

13 big deal, but we'd like to get you, you know,

14 prepared in case we need you."

15 It turned out to be a big deal. And so,

16 eventually, it turned out that I was representing

17 both Fred Shore and his wife, Kelly, Ted Burt, and

18 also Job E. and Frances Grace White, who I hadn't

19 met before this, to the best of my recollection.

20 And when I realized I was representing multiple

21 parties in the same matter, I talked to them and

22 had them execute this letter, which was a conflict

23 disclosure and waiver letter.

24 Q And this particular copy that's in here

25 was executed by whom?


Page 73

1 A Job E. White and his wife, Frances Grace.

2 Q It was executed on what date?

3 A Looks like May 7, 2010.

4 Q And the date on the letter was May 5,

5 2010?

6 A Yes, sir.

7 Q All right. Let me preface this next

8 question with a -- by reciting Rule of Professional

9 Conduct 4-1.7(c). Quote, "When representation of

10 multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken,

11 the consultation must include an explanation of the

12 implications of the common representation and the

13 advantages and risks involved."

14 Now, my question is, Mr. Siegel, is -- is

15 it your standard practice when you are representing

16 multiple parties, particularly when they're

17 defendants in a case, to have them all execute a

18 conflict disclosure and waiver letter like this?

19 A Yes. I mean, I would normally talk to

20 them about the -- the pros and cons of joint

21 representation, and ultimately have them execute a

22 letter like this.

23 Q All right. And you consider this to be

24 your compliance with Rule 4-1.7(c)?

25 A Yes.


Page 74

1 Q Refer, please, to tabs 30 and 31.

2 A Okay.

3 Q What is 30?

4 A That's the answer to the foreclosure

5 complaint we filed on behalf of Frances Grace White.

6 Q And 31?

7 A The answer we filed for Job E. White.

8 Q Did you file a separate answer for each

9 separate person you were representing?

10 A Yes, we did. I don't remember offhand

11 why we did. But I do know that I had told all of

12 the clients that before we could file their answers,

13 we needed them to execute the conflict waiver

14 letter, Exhibit 29. And so I -- I think we probably

15 did separate answers, because we were waiting for

16 them to each sign.

17 Q And did you consider yourself upon the

18 filing of these answers to be counsel of record for

19 the Whites?

20 A Absolutely.

21 Q Would you refer to tab 33, please.

22 A Okay.

23 Q And what is that?

24 A It appears to be a copy of the answer and

25 defenses that were filed on behalf of the Ellisons


Page 75

1 and their entities by Attorney Decker.

2 Q And would you take a look at Page 21 of

3 that, the certificate of service, signed by

4 Mr. Decker, and he served you?

5 A Yes.

6 Q All right.

7 A It appears so.

8 Q All right. Would you refer to tab 32?

9 A Okay.

10 Q What is that?

11 A It's a copy of a check in the early

12 stages of my representation -- well, I guess until

13 this litigation got to be extremely active, which

14 was after the Whites were no longer involved, we

15 would send monthly bills, as I recall, to all three

16 of the -- the parties we were representing. And

17 this appears to be a payment by the Whites for

18 one-third of the bill for the month, I presume, that

19 preceded the check.

20 Q Did Mr. and Mrs. White, acting

21 individually or together, at any time from the time

22 you filed the answer on their behalf on -- in May of

23 2010 until this date ever terminate your services?

24 A No.

25 Q Would you refer to tab 35?


Page 76

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q What is that?

3 A Well, it appears to be a copy of a

4 settlement agreement that I didn't find out about

5 till after the fact. But I understand it was a

6 settlement agreement between my clients Job E. and

7 Frances Grace White and the Ellisons.

8 Q Did Job E. or Frances Grace White inform

9 you in advance they would be meeting with Defense

10 Attorney Decker in his office in Live Oak together

11 with Jennifer Ellison, who also happens to be a

12 lawyer?

13 A Absolutely not.

14 Q What -- what were the positions of

15 Attorney Decker, the Ellisons, and Woods Marina,

16 LLC, and the Compass Bank mortgage foreclosure

17 litigations?

18 MR. TOZIAN: Judge, that's a compound

19 question. Maybe different from one to the

20 other.

21 THE CHAIR: Overruled.

22 A If I understand your question, they were

23 co-defendants with my client. Is that what you were

24 asking?

25 Q Yes.


Page 77

1 A Yes. They were co-defendants with my

2 clients.

3 Q And were they the landowners --

4 A Yes.

5 Q -- of the condo project?

6 A Yes. It -- this was a condo development

7 where the Ellisons had owned and contributed the

8 land. And my clients Fred Shore and Ted Burt were

9 basically provided most of the money and the

10 construction and legal expertise. They were

11 building a condo project, and they all hoped to make

12 a lot of money. And, unfortunately, they were a

13 year and a half or two years late in the economic

14 cycle, and the tide fell out from under the boat.

15 Q Would you take a look back at tab 35, the

16 agreement. Paragraph nine makes reference to a

17 company called MJE Family Investments, LLC. What

18 was that?

19 A Well, I didn't know at this time, but the

20 Ellisons -- so the condo project, the Ellisons

21 formed Woods Marina to hold title to the land. And

22 my clients formed another entity, Gulf Breeze

23 Partners, which is also a defendant here. And,

24 apparently, as part of this agreement, Exhibit 35,

25 the Ellisons were negotiating and effected the


Page 78

1 purchase of the Compass Bank loan from Compass Bank.

2 And, again, I didn't know it at the time, but they

3 apparently formed an entity, MJE Family Investments,

4 LLC, and they used that entity to take title to

5 purchase the loan from Compass Bank. So MJE

6 ultimately became Compass Bank and was substituted

7 as the party plaintiff.

8 Q In the lawsuit?

9 A Yes.

10 Q In the existing lawsuit. Now, at this

11 time, what -- when you got into this case on behalf

12 of your clients, what prior dealings had you had

13 with Attorney Decker before this Compass Bank suit?

14 A I don't believe I ever met him or spoken

15 with him or had a case with him prior to that.

16 Early on, after I found out he was involved, one of

17 my partners mentioned that he'd done --

18 MR. TOZIAN: Objection. Hearsay.

19 THE CHAIR: Sustained.

20 Q That's sustained, so where were you

21 headed without that?

22 A Okay. It was my understanding that some

23 of my partners had dealt with him, but I had not.

24 Q Okay. All right. Now, once this

25 agreement that is tab 35 was executed on October 5,


Page 79

1 2010, did either of the Whites inform you that they

2 had signed this agreement?

3 A Not until several weeks later.

4 Q Okay. And how -- how -- how did that

5 come about?

6 A My office makes a practice of hopefully

7 providing copies to our clients promptly of things

8 that happen in the case and things we file. And,

9 apparently, a few weeks after this meeting, my

10 paralegal was sending copies of discovery or

11 whatever we'd sent out to our clients by e-mail, and

12 she got an e-mail back from Job E. White saying,

13 "Oh, by the way, I've met with the Ellisons and

14 settled the case." And I was in a meeting in my

15 office, and my paralegal came in and told me that.

16 And I was very distressed. And I told her we needed

17 to meet with the clients tomorrow.

18 Q Well, let's -- let's stick with Exhibit

19 35 for a minute. First, paragraph one --

20 A Okay.

21 Q -- states, "This Agreement is intended to

22 memorialize certain understandings and agreements

23 White and Ellison reached at a meeting held on

24 October 4th, 2010, at the office of the Decker Law

25 Firm, PA in Live Oak, Florida. This Agreement shall


Page 80

1 be construed and enforced," et cetera.

2 When did you first actually see a copy of

3 this agreement?

4 A Probably four to six weeks afterwards.

5 Q All right. Do you remember how you got

6 it?

7 A I remember I learned about this meeting

8 through the conversation I was telling you about.

9 And then when I met with my clients, including Job

10 White, the next day, they told me generally about

11 the agreement, but I don't think I saw it for

12 several weeks after that. And I don't recall who

13 provided it to me.

14 Q Taking a look at paragraph seven of the

15 agreement on Page 2. It says, "White and Ellison

16 shall not disclose the terms of this Agreement to

17 any person or entity except to their respective

18 legal counsel, to White's friend, John M. Kurtz,

19 Alarion Bank President and Chief Executive Officer,

20 or as may be required by law, statute or court

21 order."

22 Now, the question is, there's an

23 authorization in here to disclose it to their

24 respective legal counsel. Who was that in terms of

25 the Whites?


Page 81

1 A Well, in terms of this Compass Bank

2 litigation on October 5th, 2010, I was.

3 Q All right. What was your reaction when

4 you learned about this confidential agreement?

5 MR. TOZIAN: Objection. Relevancy.


7 Q In the 30-plus years that you practiced

8 law, have you encountered something like this

9 before?

10 A No.

11 Q What action did you take when you learned

12 about the agreement?

13 A Well, as I -- as I said, I directed my

14 paralegal to schedule a meeting as soon as possible,

15 I think I said the next day, to meet with my

16 clients, and I met with them.

17 Q And what transpired at that meeting?

18 A Well, I was very upset, and I wanted to

19 know what had happened. Fred Shore and Ted Burt

20 were there, and it's my recollection that Job White

21 came a few minutes late. And I asked them what the

22 heck was up. And I was, you know, very distressed

23 with -- with Mr. White and with the situation,

24 really. And all of my clients told me that they

25 wanted the settlement to go through. They wanted


Page 82

1 the Whites to be able to get out of the litigation.

2 And they told me to not do anything to disturb the

3 opportunity for the Whites to get out.

4 Q Let me -- let me quote Rule 4-2.2 of the

5 Rules of Professional Conduct. Quote, "In

6 representing a client, the lawyers shall not

7 communicate about the subject of the representation

8 with the person the lawyer knows to be represented

9 by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer

10 has the consent of the other lawyer."

11 Question is, did you in any form or

12 fashion give your consent to Attorney Decker for him

13 to deal directly with your clients?

14 A No. I was never asked. I didn't know,

15 and I certainly didn't consent.

16 Q Do you have any information that Attorney

17 Decker on or before October 4 and 5, 2010 attempted

18 to contact you about contacting your clients?

19 A I'm not aware of any effort to contact

20 me.

21 Q Take a look at tab 36, please.

22 A Okay.

23 Q What is that?

24 A Well, it's a letter that I received from

25 Attorney Decker. And the -- the time perspective of


Page 83

1 this letter, I received -- I received this letter

2 about six or seven days after I found out about the

3 meeting that is memorialized in the agreement, which

4 is Exhibit 35. And I remember that pretty

5 distinctly, because I had met with my clients and

6 found out what was up, had been told to not do

7 anything to rock the boat when this letter came.

8 And when this letter came, I remember thinking to

9 myself, boy, I'm glad I knew what had happened,

10 because otherwise, I would have picked up the phone

11 and called Mr. Decker and said, "What the heck is

12 going on here? How can you be doing this?"

13 Q And just, in essence, what did this

14 letter ask or demand of you -- of your clients?

15 A Well, it was -- it --

16 MR. TOZIAN: Judge, I think the letter

17 speaks for itself.


19 Q All right. Does this letter mention the

20 existence of this secret agreement?

21 A I'd have to look at it, honestly.

22 Q Well, it speaks for itself, so you don't

23 need to spend time on it. I'll represent that it

24 doesn't. Would you take a look at tab 37.

25 A Yes.


Page 84

1 Q Tell me what that is.

2 A That's a letter that I sent to

3 Mr. Decker. So time had passed. The reason that my

4 clients wanted me to not rock the boat was,

5 apparently, as we understood it, the involvement of

6 my clients, Job White and his wife, in the -- in

7 this settlement were to provide money to help the

8 Ellisons buy the loan from Compass Bank, which was

9 why MJE Investments was formed. It was our

10 understanding that that transaction had not been

11 completed. And my clients didn't want to do

12 anything to undermine the chances of that

13 transaction occurring, because that was what was

14 necessary for the Whites to get out of the case. So

15 by January 11th, apparently, we understood that the

16 transaction had occurred and that Compass Bank had

17 sold the mortgage, and the Whites were still parties

18 defendant in the case. So I sent this letter to

19 Mr. Decker.

20 Q On behalf of whom?

21 A Well, I sent it on behalf of Job White

22 and his wife.

23 Q All right.

24 A Asking was he going to dismiss my

25 clients. Now, to this point, we had not talked


Page 85

1 about this meeting or anything. I -- I just

2 swallowed it and let it go, as far as my concerns

3 about what had transpired. But I sent this letter

4 and fully expected, really, I mean, I --

5 MR. TOZIAN: Judge, I object. I don't

6 think there's a question pending. I

7 certainly -- it's hard for me to know what's

8 coming next.

9 THE CHAIR: Rephrase.

10 Q When you sent this letter, did you

11 anticipate a particular response?

12 A Yes.

13 Q And what was that?

14 A Well, when I was sending this letter, I

15 actually thought to myself, and I remember this,

16 "I'm going to get a phone call from Mr. Decker

17 tomorrow, and he's probably going to say, 'Oh my

18 gosh, you're still the Whites' lawyer. They told me

19 you weren't.'" I mean, that's the only thing that I

20 could imagine that would come out of the letter,

21 because it was the only explanation that I could

22 think of that might be offered for how there was a

23 meeting with my clients without having checked with

24 me.

25 Q What kind of response did you actually


Page 86

1 get from Attorney Decker?

2 A I got --

3 Q Take a look at tab 38.

4 A He communicated back with me the next

5 day. But the communication was simply the notices

6 of voluntarily dismissal of Mr. and Mrs. White.

7 Q And the certificate of service that he

8 signed identified you?

9 A Yes.

10 Q As counsel for whom?

11 A Well, for all of my clients, including

12 Mr. and Mrs. White.

13 Q All right. Did you consider that at the

14 time the Whites were dismissed out of the case by

15 this notice in January of 2011 that your

16 attorney/client relationship had, at that point,

17 been terminated?

18 A Well, as far as my responsibilities to

19 them in the litigation, yes.

20 Q All right. And what -- what's the

21 current -- tell us how this litigation went along

22 and what the current status is.

23 A Well, it's in about six or seven volumes

24 of court file, unfortunately. It's been through a

25 bunch of judges, but it was actually set for two or


Page 87

1 three trials, the first of which was to start Friday

2 of this week, incredible coincidence after all this

3 time. And -- and as of last night, I think we've

4 settled the issues that were going to be tried

5 starting Friday through the week. There are still

6 some related issues in related cases, but it appears

7 there's a settlement between my clients and the

8 clients who were represented by Mr. Decker at the

9 time.

10 Q Now, would you take a look at tab 40.

11 This is the last document I'm going to ask you to

12 talk about. And I'd like you to go to Page 10 and

13 11 of the Fifth Affirmative Defense, paragraphs 82

14 and 83 and 84. First, tell me what tab 40 is.

15 A Tab 40 is one of the versions of our

16 amended answer and affirmative defenses that we

17 filed on behalf of my clients in the -- what was the

18 Compass Bank litigation. It became the MJE Family

19 Investments litigation.

20 Q And you -- did you in the Fifth

21 Affirmative Defense make an issue of this secret

22 agreement and contact with the Whites?

23 A Yes.

24 MR. POPE: I would respectfully request

25 that he be allowed to publish to the panel at


Page 88

1 least paragraph 82 and 83.

2 THE CHAIR: It's been stipulated into

3 evidence as exhibits. You may do so.

4 A Okay. You want me to read it?

5 Q If you would.

6 A Yes. 82, "In addition to the fact that

7 the Ellisons (and their entities MJE and Woods

8 Marina) usurped a joint venture opportunity by

9 purchasing the loan, the Ellisons also have unclean

10 hands in how they acquired the funds to purchase the

11 loan. On or about October 4, 2010, the Ellisons

12 (who are the sole owners of plaintiff MJE) and their

13 then-counsel Andrew Decker, III, met in secret with

14 then-defendants Job and Frances White (the

15 'Whites'). The Whites were and are members of the

16 defendant GB Partners, and were at the time

17 represented in this lawsuit by the undersigned

18 counsel. Despite the fact that the Whites were

19 represented by the undersigned counsel in this

20 litigation, that said representation was reflected

21 in the Court file and a matter of public record, and

22 that the secret meeting directly involved the

23 subject matter of the undersigned's representation

24 of the Whites, the undersigned was not notified by

25 Mr. Decker or Jennifer Ellison (who is also an


Page 89

1 attorney) of the October 4, 2010 meeting, in

2 violation of Rule 4-4.2 of the Florida Rules of

3 Professional Conduct."

4 Did you want me to read 83, as well?

5 Q Please, if you would.

6 A 83, "At that secret meeting, the Ellisons

7 (and their entities MJE and Woods Marina) and

8 Mr. Decker coerced a settlement from the Whites, who

9 were in fear of losing all they had. The settlement

10 coerced from the White -- the settlement coerced

11 from the Whites was a necessary and integral part of

12 the Ellisons' purchase of the loan that is the

13 subject of this action from former Plaintiff Compass

14 Bank. Indeed, pursuant to the secret agreement, the

15 Whites provided over one quarter of the purchase

16 price for the loan."

17 Q Mr. Siegel, do you now occasionally still

18 represent clients in the Third Circuit where Judge

19 Decker sits?

20 A The only matter that I currently have

21 ongoing is the continuation of this case, which part

22 of it, at least, is settled.

23 Q But does your range of practice go out

24 into the Third Circuit?

25 A Occasionally, yes.


Page 90

1 MR. POPE: All right. That's all the

2 questions I have.

3 THE CHAIR: Folks, before we do cross,

4 we're going to take a five-minute comfort

5 break. There's a lot of us here, so we'll try

6 to stick to five minutes. That will put us at

7 ten after. We're in recess.

8 (Recess from 10:03 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.)

9 THE CHAIR: All right. You may proceed,

10 sir.


12 CROSS-EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. TOZIAN:

14 Q Morning, Mr. Siegel.

15 A Morning.

16 Q When you were hired by the Shores, the

17 Whites, and Mr. Burt, the initial contact was from

18 either Burt or Shore. Right?

19 A Yes.

20 Q You had a longstanding attorney/client

21 relationship with Mr. Shore, I believe. Right?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And you knew Mr. Burt for quite some

24 time?

25 A Yes.


Page 91

1 Q And you're not even sure, when the other

2 two first came to see you, that Mr. White was there.

3 Right?

4 A It was -- that is correct. In one of the

5 first two meetings, I believe Mr. White was there

6 before we filed responsive pleadings, but I don't

7 remember exactly which one.

8 Q But you agreed that you saw Mr. White

9 quite a bit less than you saw the other two, as it

10 relates to this case?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And has it been your experience when you

13 handle a case where you have multiple clients, that

14 one or more of the people is the point person and

15 that you don't always have all three of the men for

16 your meetings or discussions?

17 A I don't do this very often, but, yes,

18 that would generally be true when I have more than

19 one party.

20 Q It would be kind of counterproductive to

21 have them each come in at different time?

22 A Yes.

23 Q You rely on some measure for the people

24 that come to see you and talk to you to relay

25 information to the others?


Page 92

1 A To some measure, yes.

2 Q Okay. Now, when you prepared these

3 conflict waivers for the clients, you were not

4 present when Mr. White and Ms. White signed it.

5 Right?

6 A It's my recollection, I was not present.

7 Q And you certainly recognized there was a

8 risk of conflict. Right?

9 A Yes.

10 Q When Mr. White first came in, you noted

11 that he was really nervous. Right?

12 A He was more nervous than the other

13 clients. Nobody is happy being sued and faced with

14 a several-million-dollar guaranty judgment. But I

15 think he was more nervous than the other two.

16 Q And you said he was more nervous because

17 his wife had personally guaranteed the loan as well.

18 Right?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And I don't --

21 A That's what he -- that's why he said he

22 was more nervous.

23 Q Right. But you thought that was a

24 legitimate reason to be nervous, because all joint

25 assets would be exposed if each of them had given a


Page 93

1 personal guaranty?

2 A Yes.

3 Q That was a completely different situation

4 for Burt and Shore. They did not have wives that

5 gave personal guaranties?

6 A They did not have wives that gave

7 personal guaranties. I don't know. I don't think

8 they were without significant economic risk, but

9 they didn't have their joint assets at risk.

10 Q I'm sorry?

11 A I believe that Shore and Burt had

12 significant economic risk, but they didn't have

13 their joint assets at risk, as did --

14 Q Right.

15 A -- Mr. White.

16 Q In the past when you've represented

17 multiple clients and a conflict arose, because one

18 client told you something confidential that was not

19 told to the other two, you were in a position where

20 you had to withdraw. Correct?

21 A I've never had to withdraw.

22 Q But if you were in a situation where you

23 had three clients and one came to you and told you

24 something that he had not told the other two, you

25 agree with me that you could not violate your oath


Page 94

1 of confidentiality and tell your other two clients.

2 Correct?

3 A Well, when I represent more than one

4 client, I explain to them that the confidentiality

5 -- that I can't be required to keep confidential

6 information as between them, because otherwise, I

7 don't think I could work the joint representation.

8 Q Okay. So in this situation then, if

9 Mr. White had something that he didn't want the

10 other two to know, he couldn't tell you, or they

11 would know. Right?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Okay. So your clients' understanding

14 going in, that they don't get the same protection of

15 the confidentiality that single clients that you

16 have come to you?

17 A Yes. I hope they do. I try to explain

18 that to them.

19 Q Okay. But you consider that to be so --

20 and I understand if all three of them are in the

21 room, they're all talking, there's no

22 confidentiality. But you believe that if one of

23 them tells you something, they don't tell the other

24 two, that you are duty bound to tell the other two?

25 A No. I don't think I'm affirmatively


Page 95

1 required to tell them. And I certainly wouldn't

2 think that that -- what you're describing would go

3 beyond the matter that I'm representing them in

4 jointly. But I don't think I can be required not to

5 tell the other clients, if necessary, and if it

6 relates to their joint representation.

7 Q Okay. Well, I'm going to get back to

8 that. But I want to stay with the specific facts of

9 this case. But I'll get back to that with you.

10 You did meet with Mr. White, but you

11 didn't spend nearly the time with him that you did

12 the other two. Right?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And during the entire time you

15 represented him, you only saw him only two or three

16 occasions. Right?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And included in those two or three was

19 the time he came in after he'd already settled his

20 case to have the sit-down with you and the other two

21 clients?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And as I understand, what you've told me

24 previously, your marching orders were to defend the

25 foreclosure?


Page 96

1 A At the outset -- yes. That was what our

2 job was. At the outset, I understood it to be

3 really to try to slow down the foreclosure, because

4 I understood that all of my clients were working

5 together, trying to find a -- either a way to

6 refinance the Compass Bank loan or to potentially

7 jointly arrange a purchase of the Compass Bank loan.

8 Q Actually, you don't recall Mr. White ever

9 saying he wanted to salvage the project. Right?

10 You recall him saying he was really nervous?

11 A I recall him saying -- I recall that he

12 was really nervous. I don't recall his goals being

13 different than my other clients.

14 Q But you don't recall him saying he wanted

15 to salvage the project, did you?

16 A Well, salvaging the project, I don't

17 believe any of the -- my clients were anticipating,

18 when they came to me, continuing to build

19 condominiums. My understanding was that the goal of

20 continuing the project was to change it, and to

21 convert the remaining condo plots to single family

22 homes and be able to sell those, and hopefully

23 recoup some of the investments.

24 Q You do remember him saying he wanted to

25 get out of the litigation. Right?


Page 97

1 A Mr. White wanted to get out of the

2 litigation.

3 Q Okay. I think you -- when we were

4 talking about it before, you referred to defending

5 the foreclosures as a side show. Right? Is that

6 the term you used?

7 A I felt like what we were doing in

8 defending the foreclosures was a side show to the

9 real activities that I understood were going on, and

10 that I wasn't actively involved in, which were

11 trying to find other financing or arrange a joint

12 buyout of the Compass Bank loan. Either of those

13 things would have ended the litigation. So I was in

14 a -- as I understood it, a slow down, don't do

15 anything that you don't have to do mode, and let us

16 try to work this out on the outside.

17 Q And then in November of 2010, you learned

18 that Mr. White had cut his own deal?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Okay. And then you had the three of your

21 clients in shortly after you learned that, Burt,

22 Shore, and Mr. White?

23 A Yes.

24 Q And at that time, he told you what had

25 happened?


Page 98

1 A Yes.

2 Q "He" being Mr. White. I'm sorry.

3 A Yeah. He told me generally what had

4 happened. I did not see the settlement agreement

5 until sometime later. As I recall, because I asked

6 him, you know, "Why didn't you tell me about it?"

7 And I recall him telling me he was told

8 he couldn't.

9 Q He what?

10 A I recall him telling me that he didn't

11 tell me, because he was told he could not.

12 Q Okay. Did he tell you that before he met

13 with Jennifer Ellison that he spoke to Mr. Shore,

14 and advised Mr. Shore that he was meeting with

15 Jennifer Ellison?

16 A No, I don't recall that.

17 Q Did Mr. Shore ever admit that to you,

18 that he knew Job White was trying to get himself out

19 of the deal?

20 A I believe by the time I had the joint

21 meeting with my clients, which was the day after I

22 found out about it, by then, Mr. Shore knew. I

23 don't know when he knew.

24 Q Okay. So you don't know if he knew in

25 advance?


Page 99

1 A Well, I don't know if he knew before my

2 office is calling saying, "You guys got to come in

3 tomorrow," or if he knew sometime before that.

4 Q But you did learn from your other two

5 clients, Burt and Shore, that they wanted Mr. White

6 to get the benefit of the bargain that he'd gotten?

7 A They under -- yes, to answer your

8 question. They understood that he was at extreme

9 financial risk because of having his wife also on

10 the debt, and they wanted him to be able to get out

11 of it if he could.

12 Q Did they feel guilty because they got him

13 into the deal and let him -- allowed him to let his

14 wife sign the personal guaranty?

15 MR. POPE: Objection.


17 Q But you were in favor of Mr. White

18 getting the benefit of the bargain, weren't you?

19 A Myself?

20 Q Yes.

21 A It's my job to do within the law and

22 ethically what my clients want me to do. And my

23 clients unanimously wanted Mr. White to be able to

24 go forward with the deal and end his exposure in the

25 litigation. So I was in favor of that on behalf of


Page 100

1 my clients.

2 Q Okay.

3 A I was distressed about how it had

4 happened, but I was in favor of my client getting

5 the benefit of the bargain.

6 Q All right. He cut himself a pretty good

7 deal, didn't he?

8 A Well, it turned out he did, yes.

9 Q And he recognized that early, because he

10 wanted out. And he was happy with his deal. Right?

11 A He was happy to get out. I don't know

12 when he recognized that. And I think at the time he

13 didn't -- I don't know what he thought about the

14 deal.

15 Q That's fine.

16 A He just wanted out.

17 Q Yeah. He'll testify here. He'll tell

18 the panel what he thought. But you did not believe

19 that he was coerced into cutting the deal with the

20 Ellisons, did you?

21 A I believe --

22 MR. TOZIAN: Could I get a yes or no

23 answer before he explains?

24 THE CHAIR: I'm not really sure he can

25 answer -- I'm not really sure that's relevant


Page 101

1 anyway, what he believed. So I'm going to ask

2 that you rephrase the question anyway.

3 Q Okay. Did -- you did not believe that

4 Mr. White was coerced when he cut his deal with

5 Ms. Ellison?

6 MR. POPE: Objection. It doesn't --

7 irrelevant.

8 MR. TOZIAN: May I be heard on that?

9 THE CHAIR: Objection is sustained.

10 MR. WHITE: Can we talk for a minute?

11 THE CHAIR: Go ahead. You can answer the

12 question.

13 A Well, I mean, coercion --

14 THE CHAIR: Go ahead.

15 A Coercion can take a lot of forms. And

16 can -- it can mean a lot of things. I think -- and

17 I think I've testified in my deposition, and it was

18 my mental image that Job White was so scared

19 economically, that he would have walked uphill on

20 his hands backwards from Gainesville to Live Oak to

21 participate in a meeting, if he thought that could

22 get him out of the case. And if -- and he wasn't --

23 I want to be clear, I don't think he was as

24 concerned about getting out of the case as ending

25 his economic exposure. It was my understanding at


Page 102

1 the beginning of my representation of him, he would

2 have been satisfied if ending his economic exposure

3 had taken the form of refinancing the loan,

4 finishing the project. I didn't think he was

5 opposed to that. He just wanted not to lose his

6 assets. So I don't know if he felt that somebody

7 was forcing him to enter into this settlement, which

8 is certainly a context of coercion, or a view of

9 coercion. But I feel like meeting with opposing

10 counsel and the opposing party, who was also a

11 lawyer, without the opportunity to confer with his

12 own lawyer, without having his own lawyer know, I

13 don't think that was appropriate. And if -- in my

14 view, it's coercive, but that's just my view. I

15 don't know if that's --

16 MR. TOZIAN: May I approach the witness?

17 THE CHAIR: You may.

18 Q Mr. Siegel, I'm going to hand you a copy

19 of the deposition that I took of you. Mr. Pope was

20 present. One of the first ones we took a while

21 back. It was on September 8th, 2014 in your office.

22 Do you recall that, sir?

23 A Yes.

24 Q And referring you to Page 33, Line 21.

25 Do you remember this question? This is from me.


Page 103

1 "Okay. I mean, you don't feel like he

2 was coerced into cutting this deal, do you?"

3 You see that question, sir?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And your answer was, "No. I think it's

6 what he wanted to do. And if the litmus test for

7 these things is the end justifies the means from

8 Mr. White's perspective, it wouldn't surprise me

9 that it was a justified event."

10 Is that the answer you gave that day?

11 A It was.

12 Q Can you reconcile that with what you told

13 us today?

14 A I think that they conformed. I mean, you

15 asked me if I thought it was coerced. And in this

16 question, I understood you were asking me if he

17 thought it was coerced.

18 Q I'm sorry. This question on the -- in

19 September was, "Okay. I mean, you don't feel like

20 he was coerced into cutting this deal, do you?"

21 A Right. And so -- and then what I said

22 is, "From Mr. White's perspective, it wouldn't

23 surprise me that it was a justified event."

24 And so I -- and I'm sorry if my answer --

25 as I think about my answer, I answered there about


Page 104

1 what I think his perspective is. I think his

2 perspective is "thank goodness."

3 Q All right. So if I understood, he didn't

4 feel like he was coerced, but you felt like he was

5 coerced?

6 A I'm very concerned about what happened

7 and how, yes.

8 Q Okay. But you do agree that he cut

9 himself a great deal in hindsight?

10 A Yes. Yes. He got out of the litigation.

11 He had to put up about $220,000 to help the Ellisons

12 buy the mortgage, which he borrowed, but he was able

13 to sell a condominium, and I think it ended up

14 costing him 30 to $40,000 out of pocket to get out.

15 Q Okay. So for 30 or $40,000, he got out

16 of a $2 million liability?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And you agree that the fees that were

19 generated in this case from 2010 to date greatly

20 exceed that 30 or $40,000. Right?

21 A Yes. Unfortunately, but they do.

22 Q Do you know if Jennifer Ellison offered

23 Mr. Shore an opportunity to get out of the case,

24 too, back in 2010?

25 A I do not.


Page 105

1 Q Okay.

2 A Not to my knowledge.

3 Q You said in referring to items 38 and 39

4 that you wrote this letter to Mr. Decker at the

5 time. Hang on. I got the wrong numbers.

6 A 37.

7 Q 37, yes. 37 and 38. My apologies.

8 A No problem.

9 Q 37, you write to him, and you -- you

10 mention the -- the meeting, and the thing you asked

11 him for in the second paragraph, "Please confirm as

12 soon as possible that your clients will be filing a

13 dismissal in regards to Mr. and Mrs. White and that

14 their attendance at mediation will not be required?

15 Thank you for your attention." Right?

16 A Right.

17 Q One thing you asked for. You testified

18 to the panel that you expected Mr. Decker to call

19 you. Right?

20 A Yes.

21 Q In response to your one request, the next

22 day, Mr. Decker responded that he filed a notice of

23 partial voluntary dismissal, cutting loose Job White

24 and his wife. Right?

25 A Yes.


Page 106

1 Q Okay. Did you ever pick up your phone

2 and call him and ask him what happened?

3 A No.

4 Q And you never asked Mr. White what was

5 said when he met with Mr. Decker. Right?

6 A I didn't ask him much detail at the time.

7 The meeting that was shortly prior to Exhibit 36. I

8 did talk with him a couple years later, but not in

9 great detail.

10 Q If Mr. White had called you and told you

11 that he wanted to have a meeting for the purpose

12 that the meeting was conducted, wouldn't that have

13 created for you an irreconcilable conflict?

14 MR. POPE: Speculative.


16 MR. TOZIAN: I'm sorry?


18 Q Ethically, could you have revealed what

19 Mr. White told you if he called you and said, "I

20 intend to meet with the other people to get out of

21 the case"? And when I asked revealed, to the other

22 two clients?

23 MR. POPE: Speculative.

24 MR. TOZIAN: It's an ethics question.



Page 107

1 A Okay. I believe based on the common

2 interest or the letter and the explanation that I

3 gave the clients when they retained me jointly, if

4 Mr. White had contacted me, I would have said,

5 "That's fine. You know I'm going to need to let

6 Burt and Shore know about that." And so based on

7 what they did, my belief is that Burt and Shore

8 would have said, "Let him go." And --

9 Q I'm not asking you what you think would

10 have happened. You didn't know that at the time.

11 A Well, you asked me if I thought there

12 would be an irreconcilable conflict. And I think

13 there would have been an irreconcilable conflict if

14 they had disagreed.

15 Q You don't agree with me that by virtue of

16 telling Burt and Shore what White told you and

17 thereby, potentially -- you wouldn't know if they

18 were going to kill this deal or not, but you

19 wouldn't find yourself in a position where somebody

20 is accusing you of violating your confidentiality

21 oath to your clients?

22 MR. POPE: Speculative and argumentative.


24 MR. TOZIAN: It was argumentative.

25 THE CHAIR: And speculative.


Page 108

1 Q Your affirmative defense where you allege

2 that Mr. White was coerced was never determined

3 judicially. Correct?

4 A No. It hasn't been yet, and probably

5 won't be by virtue of the settlement.

6 Q Right. And you never called the JQC

7 about this issue, did you, sir?

8 A Well, at the time, I think it would have

9 been the grievance committee, but, no, I didn't.

10 Q I understand. You didn't call The

11 Florida Bar back then, and you didn't initiate

12 contact with the JQC?

13 A I did not. I actually thought about that

14 at some length and decided, on behalf of my

15 remaining clients, that their interests were best

16 served by asserting the affirmative defense that we

17 did, and I also made a public record of the issues.

18 Q And you got a phone call from the JQC,

19 Mr. Pope, subsequently learned that Mr. Kris

20 Robinson gave Mr. Pope your name?

21 MS. DOWNS: Can we hold a moment? We

22 didn't hear his last answer about making a

23 public record. Can the court reporter read it

24 back?

25 THE WITNESS: You want me to restate it?


Page 109

1 MS. DOWNS: Have the court reporter read

2 it back.

3 (The reporter read as requested.)

4 MS. DOWNS: Thank you.

5 THE CHAIR: Sorry for the interruption.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. TOZIAN: I have such a short

8 attention span, I forgot my last question.


10 MR. POPE: Objection. Irrelevant.


12 MR. TOZIAN: May I have a moment, Judge?

13 THE CHAIR: Sure.

14 MR. TOZIAN: Thank you, sir. I have no

15 further questions.

16 THE CHAIR: Thank you. Any questions

17 from the panel? Any questions from the panel?

18 Raise your hand, if you have any questions from

19 the panel. Mr. White.

20 EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. WHITE:

22 Q Why did you -- upon learning about the

23 settlement that the Whites cut in the meeting with

24 Mr. Decker, why didn't you call Mr. Decker about him

25 meeting directly with your clients without your


Page 110

1 approval or consent?

2 A Well, I talked to my clients about that,

3 and they didn't want me to make an issue of it.

4 They wanted to let the settlement, specifically the

5 purchase of the Compass Bank loan, go forward. And

6 then once that happened, we were -- I've never been

7 faced with something like this in my practice. I've

8 never had this kind of event happen where someone

9 actually met with my client and settled a case. So

10 I was concerned about it. But I also was concerned

11 about continuing to represent my remaining clients.

12 And we -- because mortgage foreclosure is an

13 equitable action, we felt it gave equitable defenses

14 to my remaining clients. And so -- because

15 Mr. Decker's clients had become the plaintiff, and

16 so we asserted the affirmative defense that I read

17 into the record, and things got fairly curious in

18 the litigation after MJE bought the mortgage.

19 Mr. Decker filed an amended complaint for MJE. And

20 at that point, he was actually representing the

21 plaintiff and some of the defendants, which I'd

22 never seen before, and we couldn't figure out really

23 what to do about that, but decided, again, in the

24 equitable mishmash of the litigation, it may well

25 play to the benefit of our remaining clients, so we


Page 111

1 let it go.

2 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Siegel.

3 That's all I have.

4 THE CHAIR: Any redirect, sir?

5 MR. POPE: Couple, Your Honor.

6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

7 BY MR. POPE:

8 Q Mr. Siegel, you were asked a series of

9 questions carrying the implication that the Whites

10 got a good deal, so any ethical impropriety is de

11 minimis and should be overlooked?

12 MR. TOZIAN: Objection to that. Judge,

13 that's argumentative. I didn't suggest any

14 such thing.

15 MR. POPE: I said it was an implication.


17 BY MR. POPE:

18 Q All right. And you -- what brought that

19 to mind was that you used the phrase if you -- if

20 you think the end justifies the means in

21 cross-examination. Do you remember --

22 MR. TOZIAN: Objection. Leading.


24 BY MR. POPE:

25 Q Let me get to the ultimate question,


Page 112

1 Mr. Siegel. In your view, as a lawyer, like all

2 lawyers obliged to comply with the rules of

3 professional conduct, what is the harm that occurred

4 here?

5 MR. TOZIAN: Objection as to the

6 relevance.


8 A I think the harm is to the system. I

9 think, as a lawyer and having been practicing for 32

10 years plus, hard to believe, one of the things I

11 believe that the system provides is assurance that

12 the other attorney isn't going to be talking with

13 your client substantively, not just about the

14 weather, but substantively about the case, much less

15 settling the case without your involvement and

16 knowledge. And the couple of times that I've had in

17 my practice clients approach opposing counsel in

18 the past, it's always been predicated by a phone

19 call. Usually I've known about it. If I know, I

20 normally tell them, you know, "They're going to be

21 contacting you." It's not very common. But this is

22 the first time I'd ever seen this. And I was

23 stunned.

24 MR. POPE: No further questions.

25 THE CHAIR: I'm going to allow recross


Page 113

1 only as to Mr. White's question. Do you have

2 any cross for questions posed by Mr. White from

3 the panel?

4 MR. TOZIAN: I forgot Mr. White's

5 question.

6 MR. WHITE: I asked why he was --

7 Mr. Siegel didn't call you once he found out

8 that the Whites had been --

9 MR. TOZIAN: That's not helpful to what I

10 wanted to ask.

11 THE CHAIR: Thank you, sir. You may step

12 down.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

14 THE CHAIR: Mr. Pope, you may call your

15 next witness.

16 MR. POPE: We'll call Bart Valdes,

17 attorney. We will be starting with tab 11.

18 THE CHAIR: Thank you. Volume two?

19 MR. POPE: Volume two, yes, Your Honor.

20 THE CHAIR: Good morning.

21 WHEREUPON,

22 BART VALDES,



25 THE CHAIR: Sir, if you'll state your


Page 114

1 name and spell it for the record.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, my name is Bart

3 Valdes. B-a-r-t. Last name Valdes,

4 V-a-l-d-e-s.


6 BY MR. POPE:

7 Q Your address, Mr. Valdes?

8 A 609 West Horatio Street, Tampa, Florida.

9 Q Your occupation?

10 A I'm an attorney.

11 Q Licensed in Florida?

12 A Yes, sir.

13 Q For how long?

14 A Fourteen years.

15 Q The name of your firm?

16 A DeBeaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris &

17 Neal.

18 Q And the nature of your practice?

19 A I do business litigation and commercial

20 litigation.

21 Q Mr. Valdes, in front of you are a couple

22 of notebooks. I think the one that is open is

23 volume two.

24 A Correct.

25 Q And if it has -- should have a tab 11 in


Page 115

1 it. And I -- I have learned through experience that

2 the easiest way to deal with these notebooks is to

3 flip them a few -- an inch at a time at the max.

4 A Yes, sir. I'm on tab 11.

5 Q All right, sir. What is that?

6 A It appears to be a complaint -- or it is

7 the complaint in a lawsuit styled Wells Fargo vs.

8 Gene Cornell in Columbia County, Florida.

9 Q And when did you get involved in that

10 case?

11 A I have my own pleading file. If I can

12 just look at our notice of appearance. In April of

13 2010.

14 Q And did you substitute for an existing

15 law firm?

16 A Yes, we did.

17 Q All right. And why did you come into the

18 case?

19 A We were retained by our client to come

20 in because the case had been stalled for several

21 years, and we were retained because it was deemed to

22 be a high-risk case by our client because there were

23 allegations of fraud, lender liability. There were

24 cross-claims, and counter-claims involved. And so

25 it was deemed to be a high-risk, complex matter, so


Page 116

1 we were brought in to litigate it.

2 Q The nature of the case, it was simply

3 more complex?

4 A Correct. It was a foreclosure case. It

5 had been pending since 2007 by the time we came in

6 in 2010. And because of the nature of the defenses

7 that were raised, as well as the counter-claims and

8 cross-claims, our client wanted to bring us in -- or

9 the loan servicer wanted to bring us in to litigate

10 the case.

11 Q And would you refer to tab 12, please?

12 A Yes, I'm there.

13 Q What is that?

14 A This is the order setting the case for

15 non-jury trial.

16 Q And how did that order come about?

17 A When we entered the case, the first thing

18 we did is to clean it up, get it at issue, respond

19 to the discovery or any discovery that was pending,

20 and then do a notice for non-jury trial and get the

21 case set for trial as soon as possible.

22 Q And this is pursuant to instructions from

23 your client?

24 A Correct.

25 Q All right. So how important was this


Page 117

1 trial date to you and your client?

2 A It was very important. It was the reason

3 we were brought in, is to get this case set for

4 trial and either get it settled or get it tried.

5 Q Would you refer to tab 18, please. 18.

6 A Okay. I see it.

7 Q Are you -- have you seen this particular

8 pleading before?

9 A No.

10 Q All right. It's in evidence, an answer

11 that attorney Andrew Decker served on January 4,

12 2011, which one of his clients was Judge Paul Bryan.

13 So let me ask you this. Who was the presiding judge

14 in the Cornell/Wells Fargo case that you -- you had

15 come in to resolve?

16 A Judge Paul Bryan.

17 Q Did you learn from any source from mid

18 December 2010 through the final resolution of your

19 Wells Fargo case in April 2011 that your opposing

20 counsel was the attorney for Judge Paul Bryan, the

21 presiding judge in your Wells Fargo case?

22 A No.

23 Q Did -- neither Judge Bryan nor Attorney

24 Decker made that disclosure to you?

25 A That's correct. We were never told by


Page 118

1 either the judge or opposing counsel.

2 Q Would you refer to tab 13, please.

3 A Okay.

4 Q What is tab 13?

5 A It's an e-mail chain between myself and

6 Andrew Decker, III.

7 Q And start with Mr. -- Attorney Decker's

8 e-mail to you dated January 21, 2011 at the bottom.

9 What is he asking for?

10 A He's asking for a continuance. The trial

11 was set for January 25th, and so we were in the

12 middle of settlement discussions. We were getting

13 very close to resolving it. We had not resolved it.

14 So he's asking for a continuance of the trial.

15 Q And is there any disclosure in this, that

16 his client, Judge Bryan, happens to be the judge

17 presiding over the case?

18 A No, sir.

19 Q And I gather from your earlier testimony

20 that he didn't tell you that over the telephone

21 either?

22 A Never in any written or oral

23 communication.

24 Q What was your response to the request for

25 a continuance?


Page 119

1 A We would agree to the short continuance,

2 and as I state in my e-mail, 30- to 45-day

3 continuance, so that we would either finalize the

4 settlement or be back in trial.

5 Q And would you take a look at tab 14.

6 A Yes, I see it.

7 Q What is that?

8 A This is the order granting the

9 defendant's motion for continuance.

10 Q Did it reset the trial immediately?

11 A No. It did not. It had a -- a line for

12 when the trial would be reset, but there's no date

13 in there. It just says to be reset.

14 Q In your experience -- tell us just

15 briefly what kind of experience you've had in

16 prosecuting mortgage foreclosure cases.

17 A Sure. We've -- for a while, it was

18 probably a third of my practice going back to the

19 2007 time frame, we did work for various clients and

20 investors, and we would be called in when we had

21 a -- an atypical foreclosure case, where there were

22 either cross-claims or counter-claims, where there

23 were complex defenses, defenses beyond just standing

24 or notice or something like that, cases that had

25 been stalled, cases that were deemed to be


Page 120

1 high-dollar-valued properties, maybe cases that had

2 been dismissed once before, so they were deemed by

3 our client to be either high-risk, complex, or

4 high-dollar cases. And probably from 2007 certainly

5 through 2010, it was a significant portion of my

6 practice. It's still part of my practice, but as

7 the economy has recovered, it's probably

8 five percent of my practice now.

9 Q And in your experience, what is one of

10 the principal things that defendants are seeking in

11 these kind of mortgage foreclosure cases?

12 A To delay as long as they can until

13 judgment is entered or until they're forced to move

14 out of the home.

15 Q After the continuance that was granted,

16 did you and Attorney Decker continue negotiation?

17 A Yes, we did.

18 Q And did it ultimately lead to a

19 settlement?

20 A Yes, it did.

21 Q Would you take a look at tab 15?

22 A Okay.

23 Q What is that?

24 A This is the -- the final judgment that

25 was entered by Judge Bryan that was the final step,


Page 121

1 I would say, in our settlement.

2 Q And that was entered on what day?

3 A April 25th, 2011.

4 Q Okay. And as of April 25, 2011, were you

5 aware of the attorney/client relationship between

6 Attorney Decker and Judge Bryan?

7 A No.

8 Q Now, in your experience, do these

9 settlement agreements that you are negotiating in

10 these mortgage foreclosure matters sometimes blow up

11 at the last minute?

12 A Yes, they do. It could be that the

13 borrower for whatever reason doesn't want to do the

14 deal, can't come up with a down payment. Could be

15 the borrower fails to give the lender or investor

16 some piece of information that they need for their

17 loan guidelines. So it's not atypical for it to

18 happen.

19 Q And was that a possibility in the case

20 you were negotiating with Andrew -- Judge Decker?

21 MR. TOZIAN: Speculation.


23 A Yes, it was a possibility. That's why I

24 asked for a 30- to 45-day continuance of the trial.

25 That's all I wanted to agree to.


Page 122

1 Q Now that -- when did you learn that -- of

2 this existence of this attorney/client relationship

3 between Judge Bryan and Attorney Decker?

4 A It was in approximately April of 2012.

5 Q A year after the final judgment, consent

6 judgment?

7 A Correct.

8 Q And how did that occur?

9 A We had another case in Columbia County,

10 our client assigned us a different case in Columbia

11 County. And we saw that Mr. Decker was on the other

12 side of that case as well. We contacted our local

13 counsel, who we'd used in this Cornell case, and

14 that was the first time that I learned of -- of that

15 relationship between Mr. Decker and Judge Bryan.

16 Q And now that you know the facts of the

17 matter, how did this nondisclosure affect you?

18 MR. TOZIAN: Objection to speculation.

19 THE CHAIR: Rephrase the question.

20 Q What impact did the nondisclosure have on

21 you at the time you were trying to negotiate this

22 settlement?

23 A Well, we expected the case would be

24 tried -- either settled or tried. We initially

25 expected it would be tried on January 25th. So we


Page 123

1 would either try the case in front of the judge, who

2 was being represented by opposing counsel, or if it

3 was disclosed to us before trial, then we would have

4 either asked the judge be recused and put in front

5 of another judge.

6 MR. TOZIAN: I'm going to move to strike

7 that as being nonresponsive. He asked him what

8 effect did it have, and he's going into the

9 what ifs.


11 A We -- we would -- if we would have been

12 advised of the relationship, we would have either

13 moved to recuse the judge or sought to try the case

14 in front of a different judge, and I don't know if

15 we -- I don't believe we would have been able to get

16 the same trial date.

17 MR. POPE: All right. I have no further

18 questions.

19 THE CHAIR: Cross-examination.

20 CROSS-EXAMINATION

21 BY MR. TOZIAN:

22 Q Good morning, sir.

23 A Good morning.

24 Q Your local counsel in Lake City was Kris

25 Robinson. Right?


Page 124

1 A Correct.

2 Q And when you called him to talk about

3 another case, he gratuitously told you that he had

4 learned Judge Decker is represented by -- or excuse

5 me, had represented Judge Bryan during the time of

6 your earlier foreclosure case?

7 MR. POPE: Object to gratuitous.

8 THE CHAIR: Gratuitous or fortuitous?

9 MR. POPE: Gratuitous, I believe he said.

10 MR. TOZIAN: If I can get the question,

11 I'll change it to fortuitous.

12 THE CHAIR: You said --

13 MR. TOZIAN: I said gratuitous. I'll

14 rephrase it.

15 BY MR. TOZIAN:

16 Q As I understand, you called Mr. Robinson

17 about another case?

18 A Correct.

19 Q Possibly retaining him as local counsel?

20 A Correct.

21 Q Okay. And in the course of that

22 telephone call, he offered up to you that he had

23 learned that Judge Decker had represented Judge

24 Bryan during the period -- during part of the period

25 of time of the earlier foreclosure case that you'd


Page 125

1 had?

2 A Correct. Because the context of the call

3 was, we knew Mr. Decker was on the other side. And

4 I think that's what prompted Mr. Robinson to say,

5 "Were you aware of" --

6 Q That's fine.

7 A Something like that.

8 Q But you learned it from him?

9 A Correct.

10 Q And the second case that you were calling

11 about was not in front of Judge Bryan?

12 A That's correct.

13 Q Okay. Now, in -- on January 5th of 2011,

14 Attorney Decker sent you a proposed final judgment.

15 Right?

16 A That sounds correct.

17 Q And you -- so that was the day after this

18 answer that he filed that was shown to you in the TD

19 Bank case where he represented Judge Bryan. Right?

20 If you know.

21 A I'd never seen the answer before, but I

22 can certainly look at the date.

23 Q That's fine. Everybody else can do that,

24 as well. And you responded, if you recall, on

25 January 11th to his final judgment?


Page 126

1 A I know that we were corresponding about

2 the settlement and the final judgment itself.

3 Correct.

4 Q It's a fair statement at that point in

5 time, you were close to settlement?

6 A We were certainly headed down the road

7 towards settlement.

8 Q And you were asked about Judge Bryan's

9 stipulated order on the continuance?

10 A Yes, I recall those questions.

11 Q And I think that's number 14, sir.

12 A Okay.

13 Q And the judge put in the box, "To be

14 set." Right?

15 A I believe that's the judge's handwriting.

16 I wasn't there when this order got signed.

17 Q I understand. But an order that he

18 signed that's written in there to be reset?

19 A Correct.

20 Q Okay. And when you saw that and wanting

21 to get your hearing within 30 to 45 days, as you had

22 agreed, you called Kris Robinson's office. Right?

23 A We either called or e-mailed his

24 secretary. Correct.

25 Q You asked them to get you a continued


Page 127

1 date within that 30 to 45 days?

2 A We asked his secretary. I know I have

3 the e-mail where we asked his secretary to reach out

4 to Judge Bryan's judicial assistant to find the

5 first available date.

6 Q Okay. And the date you were given was

7 March 2nd, 2011, which was 37 days after the

8 original trial date, and within the time period that

9 you had stipulated to?


11 Q I'm sorry?


13 Q Okay.

14 A I believe there was a date in March we

15 were considering.

16 Q And you never had to reschedule it to

17 March 2nd, because you got the deal done?

18 A Correct. I think we had reached a --

19 material terms of the agreement in early February.

20 Q Okay. In the past, you've had

21 situations, have you not, sir, where you learned of

22 some special relationship between a presiding judge

23 and opposing counsel. Right?

24 A Probably a handful of times. Correct.

25 Q We talked about this before. Right?


Page 128

1 A Yes, we did.

2 Q And on each of those prior occasions

3 where you learned of a special relationship between

4 presiding judge and opposing counsel, you were

5 advised of the special relationship by the presiding

6 judge?

7 A That's correct.

8 Q And when such a disclosure is made to

9 you, you have basically two options. Right? You

10 can say, "Judge, we're satisfied with your

11 impartiality"?

12 A Correct.

13 Q Or you can say, you know, "We're not

14 comfortable, and we'd like to get somebody else"?

15 A And I'd say there's a third, when the

16 judge just unilaterally decides he or she isn't

17 going to take the case, they advise us of their

18 conflict, and the judge puts us back into the

19 rotation.

20 Q Agreed. And when you -- when you learned

21 from Mr. Robinson about this relationship you

22 testified to, you didn't complain to anybody about

23 that. Right?

24 A No.

25 Q I mean, about the -- you didn't complain


Page 129

1 about the judge or about Attorney -- at that time,

2 Attorney Decker?

3 A No. Because at that point in time, we

4 were not in front of Judge Bryan again. And I

5 believe that in the case that we were coming in on,

6 I think Mr. Decker's -- for some reason, I think he

7 was exiting the case, and I don't recall the reason

8 why. So it -- we were more worried about just

9 getting that case moving and getting it set for

10 trial.

11 Q On to the next file?

12 A Correct.

13 Q And, in fact, you never contacted the JQC

14 about this situation?

15 A Correct.

16 Q You were contacted by the JQC?


18 Q And Mr. Robinson gave them your name?

19 A Mr. Robinson?

20 Q Yes.

21 A I don't know. The first person I was

22 contacted by was Mr. Pope.

23 Q Yeah. But he --


25 MR. TOZIAN: I didn't ask a question yet.


Page 130

1 THE CHAIR: Let me hear the question.


3 THE CHAIR: Let me hear the question,

4 please.

5 BY MR. TOZIAN:

6 Q Okay. You learned that Mr. Pope called

7 you by virtue of getting your name from Kris

8 Robinson?

9 A I don't know.

10 Q You don't know that Kris Robinson gave

11 him your name?

12 A I don't.

13 Q You went to a football game in Dallas to

14 see FSU play earlier this year?


16 THE CHAIR: Asked and answered.


18 THE CHAIR: Asked and answered.

19 MR. TOZIAN: I have nothing further.

20 Thank you.

21 THE CHAIR: Any questions from the panel?

22 EXAMINATION

23 BY DR. MAXWELL:

24 Q Yes. Good morning, Attorney Valdes.

25 A Good morning.


Page 131

1 Q Going back to the fact that you learned

2 of the fact that there was a relationship between

3 then Attorney Decker and Judge Bryan, what was the

4 thought that came into your head?

5 A When I first learned?

6 Q Yes.

7 A I was shocked, a little bit amazed. I'd

8 never had that situation before where opposing

9 counsel was representing the judge.

10 Q Did you report it to anyone?

11 A No, I did not.

12 Q Did you feel compelled that you should

13 have?

14 A I can tell you that, you know, I don't

15 know where I want to -- I'm at -- look at my counsel

16 for an answer, because I can tell you there were

17 discussions in my office about what our ethical

18 obligations were, but we didn't ultimately report

19 it, no.

20 Q Discuss it with your client under the

21 veil of confidentiality?

22 A Again, I don't know how far I can go into

23 discussions with my clients on these issues, but I

24 can tell you that it was something that we did

25 report to our client, because we deal with the


Page 132

1 general counsel of our client. And I don't think we

2 discussed this specific -- the details of the

3 settlement or anything like that, but we certainly

4 reported it to our client at some point.

5 Q What was your client's reaction?

6 MS. ASHTON: I'm going to object --

7 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. I need your

8 name, please.

9 MS. ASHTON: Amber Ashton. I'm the

10 attorney here on behalf of Mr. Valdes. I'm

11 going to object on the basis of attorney/client

12 privilege. Those discussions are privileged

13 communications.

14 A I don't know to what extent I can relate

15 to you the communications my client made to me.

16 THE CHAIR: I'm going to sustain the

17 objection. Any other questions?

18 DR. MAXWELL: Nope.

19 EXAMINATION

20 BY MR. WHITE:

21 Q One quick one. On Exhibit 14, the order

22 granting continuance signed by Judge Bryan on

23 January 24th, 2011, I'm trying to get my arms around

24 how that got over to the judge. Did you all have a

25 hearing where you went over and gave it to him? Did


Page 133

1 Mr. Decker send a cover letter to Judge Bryan

2 enclosing it, saying, "Please sign this. We've

3 agreed to it," or did you send a cover letter? I'm

4 trying to figure out how it got to Judge Bryan.

5 A Right. And what happened is Mr. Decker

6 e-mailed me a draft of the order.

7 Q Yes, sir.

8 A Which was sufficient to me, because it --

9 we had said it was going to be 30 to 45 days, and he

10 left a blank line. Whether Mr. Decker walked this

11 order over to the court or not, I don't know. We

12 weren't present. I believe it came back to me on

13 the -- it was faxed to us on the 24th of January.

14 So it was faxed to us from Mr. Decker's office on

15 the 24th.

16 Q Do you recall ever -- you know,

17 sometimes, as lawyers, we send a letter to the

18 judge, "Please sign the agreed order," and he'll CC

19 you as opposing counsel with the order. Do you

20 recall that?

21 A I don't. I don't recall that either way.

22 Q Okay. I'm just trying to figure out if

23 he walked over to Judge Bryan's chambers, dropped it

24 off, sent a letter. But you're not really sure how

25 it happened?


Page 134

1 A It looks like from the e-mails, that

2 Friday was January 21st, so that would have been the

3 next Monday. So when he says he's planning on --

4 planning on filing a motion for continuance was

5 Friday, the order was entered on Monday. I don't

6 recall there being a cover letter. There may have

7 been. I think it probably would have been walked

8 over, but I don't know for sure. We weren't --

9 there was no notice of hearing, so I'm not sure.

10 MR. WHITE: Thank you.

11 THE CHAIR: Redirect.

12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. POPE:

14 Q Mr. Valdes, I believe you testified that

15 you discussed or you investigated the next possible

16 trial date, which was in March. Correct?

17 A I believe that's correct.

18 Q Okay. And before whom was this trial to

19 take place in March?

20 A It would have been reset before Judge

21 Bryan.


23 THE CHAIR: Any recross based on the

24 panel's questions?

25 MR. TOZIAN: No, Your Honor.


Page 135

1 THE CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you, sir.

2 You may step down. You're released from your

3 subpoena.

4 THE WITNESS: And I'm released from the

5 subpoena. Thank you so much.

6 THE CHAIR: Thank you, sir.

7 Next witness.

8 MR. POPE: Our next witness will be Judge

9 Decker.

10 THE CHAIR: Okay. Anyone object to

11 releasing this witness from his subpoena?

12 MR. TOZIAN: Yeah. We're releasing him

13 from ours.

14 THE CHAIR: May we release him?

15 MR. POPE: Yes, Your Honor. Would it be

16 possible for a senior citizen to have a

17 short --

18 THE CHAIR: Comfort break?

19 MR. POPE: Yes.

20 THE CHAIR: I'm not releasing everybody.

21 We'll wait for you.

22 (Recess from 11:07 a.m. to 11:09 a.m.)

23 THE CHAIR: All right. If you raise your

24 right hand.

25 WHEREUPON,


Page 136

1 ANDREW J. DECKER, III,



4 THE CHAIR: Please take a seat, sir.

5 State your name and spell it for the record.

6 THE WITNESS: Andrew J. Decker, III.


8 BY MR. POPE:

9 Q Good morning, Judge Decker.

10 A Good morning, Mr. Pope.

11 Q I would like to focus in the first area

12 of questioning on the Job E. White issue, the

13 subject of Mr. Siegel's testimony. At the time of

14 the events that Mr. Siegel testified to -- and you

15 did hear his testimony?

16 A Yes, sir.

17 Q -- you were representing Jennifer Ellison

18 and her husband and their LLC. Correct?

19 A Yes, sir.

20 Q And Jennifer Ellison is a lawyer.

21 Correct?

22 A That is correct.

23 Q She has recently been elected a county

24 judge in Dixie County. Is that correct?

25 A Yes, sir. That is correct.


Page 137

1 Q To take office next month?

2 A Yes, sir.

3 Q You were defending them in the Compass

4 Bank foreclosure action. Correct?

5 A Yes, sir.

6 Q And there were other defendants to the

7 Compass Bank action, including Job E. and Frances

8 Grace White. Correct?


10 Q Mr. White is a CPA in Gainesville?

11 A He's a CPA and a member of the board of

12 directors of the bank in Gainesville, yes, sir.

13 Q All right. And that was the -- the name

14 of that bank again is?

15 A Alarion Bank, A-l-a-r-i-o-n.

16 Q Would you take a look at tabs 30 and 31.

17 MR. WHITE: Volume two?

18 MR. POPE: Volume two. I'm sorry.

19 Volume one, actually, only goes up through six

20 or seven or maybe a little more.

21 Q Did you find 30 and 31?

22 A Yes, sir. I have them before me right

23 now.

24 Q What are those?

25 A Tab 30 is Grace White's answer to


Page 138

1 complaint and affirmative defenses, and tab 31 is --

2 excuse me -- Job White's answer to complaint and

3 affirmative defenses.

4 Q Now, would you take a look at tab 33.

5 Before I get to that, who was the lawyer serving the

6 answer on behalf of Whites?

7 A Mr. Brent Siegel.

8 Q All right. Now, look at tab 33, if you

9 would, sir. That was the answer of the Ellisons and

10 Woods Marina that you served on June 3, 2010.

11 Correct?

12 A That is correct, yes, sir.

13 Q Your certificate of service shows service

14 on Brent Siegel. Correct?

15 A Yes, it does.

16 Q You understood Brent Siegel to be

17 representing the Whites in addition to several other

18 defendants. Correct?

19 A At that time, yes, sir.

20 Q All right. Now, look at tab 34. And

21 when you get to it, tell me what that is.

22 A This is notice of service of

23 interrogatories to defendant Woods Marina, LLC,

24 served September 23, 2010 by Scott Baker on behalf

25 of Compass Bank.


Page 139

1 Q And would you look at the first page of

2 the notice. It states there, does it not, that it

3 is served on Brent Siegel, Esquire, who was in the

4 case. Correct?


6 Q All right. Take a look, if you would, at

7 tab 35, which is the agreement between the Whites

8 and your clients, the Ellisons, and their entities,

9 Woods Marina, LLC and to-be-formed MJE Family

10 Investments, LLC. Correct?

11 A That is correct, yes, sir.

12 Q And MJE stands for Matthew, J stands for

13 Jennifer, and E for Ellisons. Is that correct?

14 A That is correct. Yes, sir.

15 Q Would you tell us exactly what you said

16 to Job E. White at the meeting of October 4 about

17 whether he was represented by legal counsel?

18 A Yes, sir. I'd be happy to. Before I

19 even agreed to have a meeting with Mr. Job E. White,

20 I had a discussion with my client, Jennifer Ellison,

21 who was also a member of The Florida Bar. She

22 informed me of something that I was not aware of

23 before, and that is that she and Mr. White had met

24 privately and had reached a settlement or agreement

25 on how they were going to resolve certain issues.


Page 140

1 And she wanted them to come to my office to prepare

2 an agreement to memorialize that. And I told her I

3 could have -- I could not have such a meeting,

4 because Mr. White was represented by -- by counsel,

5 by Mr. Siegel. And Mrs. Ellison, who is a member of

6 The Florida Bar and a person I respect, told me that

7 Mr. White had made it clear that Mr. Siegel was no

8 longer representing him, that he thought Mr.

9 Siegel's representation was not focused on his best

10 interest, and that he no longer had a lawyer.

11 MR. POPE: I'm going to -- excuse me.

12 I'm going to move to strike that portion of the

13 testimony on the basis that it's based on

14 hearsay from Jennifer Ellison to him.

15 A It's a basis -- excuse me.

16 THE CHAIR: I'll sustain that portion of

17 the response that was nonresponsive.

18 Q All right. Now --

19 A I had not finished my answer.

20 THE CHAIR: Well, it was getting to be a

21 bit of a narrative. I'll ask that you pose

22 your next question.


24 BY MR. POPE:

25 Q Now, at this point in time in the


Page 141

1 litigation, you had signed certificates of service

2 serving papers on Mr. Siegel. Correct?

3 A That's correct.

4 Q And at this point in time, you had not

5 seen any order from any court, especially this

6 court, before the -- had the Compass Bank pending

7 before it, relieving Mr. Siegel of any

8 responsibilities, had you?

9 A No, sir.

10 Q And, in fact, no such motion was ever

11 filed, was it?

12 A No, it wasn't.

13 Q All right. And -- and the general rule

14 is, as you know, that a lawyer can't just walk away

15 from a client that he's representing in a lawsuit.

16 Correct?

17 A The rules of judicial administration

18 require a lawyer to withdraw if he's no longer going

19 to represent that client. But under the

20 disciplinary rules, the client's reasonable

21 subjective expectations govern. Mr. White had said

22 he no longer had Mr. Siegel as his attorney,

23 Mr. Siegel was not his attorney, not representing

24 him. That's what I relied on.

25 Q And when -- when Mr. White -- was


Page 142

1 Mr. White -- he's been described as being very upset

2 about this pickle he was in. Do you remember that

3 testimony?

4 A Yes, I do.

5 Q Did you discern that he was upset?

6 A When he came to my office, no, sir, not

7 especially. I could tell that he was concerned

8 about his exposure. But in terms of outward

9 physical characteristics, no, sir.

10 Q All right. When -- when Job White made

11 this representation to you, why didn't you pick up

12 the phone and call Mr. Siegel and say, "I've got

13 your client in my office who's telling me you're not

14 his lawyer anymore. Is that true?" Why didn't you

15 do that?

16 A Number one, I was under no requirement to

17 do that under the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

18 And, number two, I would have been violating a

19 Disciplinary Rule of Procedure if I had violated a

20 client's instructions in confidence to me.

21 Q And Jennifer Ellison, I believe you said,

22 is a lawyer, too?

23 A Yes, sir.

24 Q And to your knowledge, bound by the Rules

25 of Professional Conduct, too. Correct?


Page 143

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q Okay. And she had direct contact with

3 Mr. Siegel's client before you ever did. Correct?

4 A Before I was aware of that, yes, sir.

5 Q All right. You don't believe that a

6 simple phone call to Mr. Siegel would have clarified

7 this entire matter?

8 A It would have risked great damage to my

9 client, and, ultimately, it would have risked great

10 damage to Mr. White, who was well served by the

11 settlement and his resolution and exposure of this

12 matter. So, no, sir, it would have been an

13 inappropriate thing for me to do.

14 Q So is it your view that because the

15 economic advantage for Mr. White was so great, that

16 any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct

17 are de minimis and can be ignored?

18 A No, sir. That's not what I said. I said

19 very clearly, distinctly, that there was no

20 violation whatsoever, because Mr. White had

21 explained that he had no lawyer, he was representing

22 himself, Mr. Siegel was no longer serving as his

23 attorney. And so based on that, I made the decision

24 that my communication with him was appropriate and

25 my duty of loyalty and -- to my client was served by


Page 144

1 not contacting Mr. Siegel.

2 Q So as I understand it, you met twice with

3 the Whites without their lawyer, once with -- on

4 October 4 and then October 5 when the agreement was

5 signed. Correct?

6 A I met with the Whites twice. I would not

7 agree that I met with them without their lawyer,

8 because they didn't have a lawyer at that time.

9 Q All right. And would you take a look at

10 paragraph seven of Exhibit 35.

11 A Yes, sir.

12 Q Let me -- let me get to the language. It

13 says, "White and Ellison shall not disclose the

14 terms of this Agreement to any person or entity

15 except to their respective legal counsel."

16 Now, if -- if they weren't represented,

17 would you explain to me why you gave them permission

18 to disclose the agreement to their counsel?

19 A This was referring to the Ellison's

20 counsel, not to Mr. White's counsel. It refers to

21 Mr. Ellison's friend, John Kurtz, who was the

22 president of the bank on which Mr. White served as

23 board of directors. That was the person he brought

24 for moral support and to help him with any financial

25 details or arrangements that might come out of this


Page 145

1 agreement.

2 Q So your -- your view is that "respective

3 legal counsel" referred only to the Ellisons. Is

4 that correct?

5 A That's correct. I prepared it. I know

6 what it means.

7 Q Let me read it to you again. "White" --

8 it says, "White and Ellison shall not disclose

9 except to their," plural, "respective legal

10 counsel." Is that not what it says?

11 A But Ellison is plural. Ellison refers to

12 Matthew and Jennifer Ellison. They had respective

13 counsel, me. It referred to the Ellisons, not to

14 Mr. White. Mr. White had no counsel.

15 Q Well, let me ask you this question.

16 Since you were there present, why did they need

17 permission to disclose the agreement to you?

18 A It would be a question of anyone

19 disclosing it outside that parameter. We were

20 attempting to negotiate with Compass Bank, which was

21 owed about two and a half million dollars, to try to

22 buy that at a discount for approximately $825,000.

23 And there were many people, besides Fred Shore, Ted

24 Burt, the Ellisons, and Mr. White, who were

25 interested in buying that note. The people in the


Page 146

1 homeowners' association, people who typically buy

2 commercial paper at discount we knew had been in

3 contact with Compass Bank to buy delinquent accounts

4 that might be available. We were afraid that

5 somebody might try to outbid us on that. So we

6 wanted to keep it quiet so we would not have

7 competition to bid with Compass Bank.

8 Q Would you take a look, please, sir, at

9 tab 36.

10 MS. DOWNS: Excuse me, Madame Chair,

11 could the court reporter read back the

12 question.


14 THE CHAIR: Thank you.

15 A I'm at tab 36.

16 Q Do you have tab 36, Judge Decker?

17 A Yes, sir.

18 Q What is that?

19 A This is my letter dated November 24th,

20 2010 to Brent Siegel communicating on behalf of MJE

21 Family Investments, proposed terms of settlement

22 with respect to this matter.

23 Q So the situation at that time was that

24 the Ellisons had bought the loan and mortgage from

25 Compass Bank. Correct?


Page 147

1 A MJE Family Investments bought the note.

2 Q Their LLC had bought it. So they, in

3 effect, were coming into the position of being the

4 plaintiff in the suit. Correct?

5 A That's correct.

6 Q And your letter advises that this new

7 plaintiff, MJE, is going to assert the loan claims

8 against the other co-defendants. Correct?

9 A Against Mr. Shore and Mr. Burt, yes.

10 Q But not the Whites?

11 A No, sir.

12 Q Right. They're out, per the agreement.

13 Correct?


15 Q All right. And correct me if I'm wrong,

16 but I don't see a mention anywhere in here of that

17 secret agreement between the Ellisons and the

18 Whites. Did you mention it?

19 A Did I mention the secret agreement?

20 Q Yeah.

21 A No, sir.

22 Q All right. And you never really ever

23 from that point to this point today had a

24 conversation with Brent Siegel about this agreement

25 and what led to it and its existence, did you?


Page 148

1 A No, sir. He was -- he ceased

2 representing Mr. White. He was not Mr. White's

3 attorney. I had not had any contact with him and

4 saw no need to do so.

5 Q You took that position, even though no

6 court released him from his lawyerly duties.

7 Correct?

8 A That's a requirement of the Judicial

9 Rules of Administration. That does not govern or

10 control the existence or continued existence of

11 attorney/client relationship. Mr. White terminated

12 that attorney/client relationship.

13 Q Take a look at tab 37, if you would,

14 Judge Decker. Got it?

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q That's Mr. Siegel's letter to you

17 January 11, 2011?


19 Q All right. It starts out, "Dear

20 Mr. Decker, As you know, this firm is counsel of

21 record for defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Job White, along

22 with Mr. Burt, Mr. Shore, Gulf Breeze Partners,

23 LLC."

24 Now, since you had concluded that there

25 was no attorney/client relationship between the


Page 149

1 Whites and Mr. Siegel, did this letter come as a

2 surprise to you?

3 A It didn't come as a surprise necessarily.

4 But I did not think the position -- I didn't agree

5 with Mr. Siegel's position. This is what he

6 asserted, but I don't agree with that. I did not

7 agree at the time.

8 Q Did you pick up the phone and say, "Mr.

9 Siegel, you really don't represent these people,

10 because I don't think you do"?

11 A I -- I -- I complied with his request. I

12 gave -- I provided the notice of partial dismissal

13 that he requested. He did not call me. I did not

14 call him. I saw no need to communicate. The only

15 thing we had pending was an agreement to resolve

16 this. The Whites had been released pursuant to that

17 agreement. As a matter of record, we filed a notice

18 of voluntary dismissal to conclude the matter.

19 Q And that was tab 38, was it not?

20 A Yes, sir.

21 Q That's your -- that was the sole response

22 to this letter from Mr. Siegel announcing to you

23 that he was their lawyer. Correct?

24 A That was the position he asserted.

25 Q And you -- did you not acknowledge that


Page 150

1 in your certificate of service of this voluntary

2 dismissal in which you say that you're serving it on

3 Mr. Siegel, as counsel, among others, for Frances

4 and Job White?

5 A Mr. Siegel was still in a mailing matrix

6 as counsel of record, so that's what we used. But,

7 in fact, I did not think he was still counsel of

8 record for the Whites, because the Whites had

9 discharged him in October.

10 Q Even though he had written you a letter

11 saying "I am counsel for them," you decided that he

12 wasn't?

13 A That was Mr. Siegel's position. And he

14 did not take or assert any other position or take

15 any other action or request any other response from

16 me, other than to provide the dismissal, which I

17 did.

18 Q Take a look at number 39. Now, that's

19 the -- I believe the complaint, first amended

20 complaint that you prepared and filed on behalf of

21 MJE Family Investments, LLC. Correct?


23 Q So you're representing the plaintiff

24 there, plus the named defendants, Jennifer Ellison,

25 Frederick -- and Matthew Ellison. Correct?


Page 151

1 A That's correct.

2 Q Okay. It didn't strike you as a little

3 odd that you were on both sides of the case?

4 A No. Because they had an identity of

5 interest, and we wanted to avoid a question of

6 merger of the mortgage into the title, so we kept

7 those entities distinct, so from a real property

8 point of view, there would be no question of

9 inadvertent merger of the mortgage with the title.

10 Q Tab 40, I believe, is their answer and

11 defenses to the first amended complaint. But I

12 believe, Judge Decker, that that was served in 2013,

13 and you had become -- you had been sworn in in

14 January of 2013?

15 A Yes, sir. And if memory serves, I

16 withdrew from representing the Ellisons in December

17 -- December of 2011 or January 2012 shortly after I

18 qualified for -- for -- to run as circuit judge.

19 Q And I believe you heard Mr. Siegel

20 testify that the -- this dispute involving his

21 clients and the Ellisons finally was solved

22 yesterday or day before yesterday?


24 Q Did you know that?

25 A I believe Mr. White referred to that in


Page 152

1 his deposition that we attended in Gainesville, yes,

2 sir.

3 Q All right. I would like to move from

4 this subject matter, Judge Decker, to the matter

5 involving Attorney Bart Valdes, Wells Fargo Bank,

6 and your clients, the Cornells. Are you oriented on

7 that now?

8 A Yes, sir. Thank you.

9 Q And you've just heard -- you were here

10 when Bart Valdes testified. Correct?

11 A Yes, sir.

12 Q To this day, you have not disclosed to

13 Attorney Valdes that the presiding judge in the

14 Wells Fargo case was your client, have you?

15 A That is not correct.

16 Q All right. When did you do it?

17 A In December of 2012 when this issue came

18 up, I sent Mr. Valdes a notice of representation. I

19 filed with the court and served on Mr. Valdes a

20 written notice of the fact that I had represented

21 Judge Bryan at the same time that I was also serving

22 as counsel for the Cornells in his foreclosure case,

23 so that he could take -- or his client could take

24 such action as they deemed appropriate.

25 Q Now, I believe you just identified the


Page 153

1 time you did that as December 2012. Correct?

2 A That's correct. Approximately a year and

3 eight months after the final judgment was entered.

4 Q Yeah. The final judgment was entered in

5 April of 2011. Correct?

6 A Yes, sir.

7 Q So a year and eight months later after

8 the final judgment is entered and the case is over,

9 you gave formal notice. Correct?


11 Q All right. Now, was it your anticipation

12 in January of 2011 when you and Mr. Valdes were

13 negotiating a settlement, was it your anticipation

14 that if the settlement didn't go through, the case

15 was going to be tried before Judge Bryan?

16 A Yes, sir.

17 Q You thought the case was going to be

18 tried before your client, Judge Bryan?

19 A At the time, there was no question in my

20 mind but that it was going to settle, because the

21 Cornells only had two options: reach a mortgage

22 modification, which Mr. Valdes performed yeoman work

23 and was a godsend in helping us, or lose their home.

24 There was no question of it going to trial, because

25 they would have lost and would have lost their home.


Page 154

1 If it had gone to trial as a disputed matter, at

2 that point, I would have made mention of that. But

3 at the time, Judge Bryan's role was strictly

4 ministerial. It didn't matter who the judge was,

5 somebody was going to be signing a consent final

6 judgment.

7 In hindsight, I regret not disclosing

8 that. At the time, I was not aware of JEAC

9 opinions, Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee

10 opinions. I did not know of a specific opinion from

11 1999 that I discovered later and learned more about

12 when I went to new judges college that dealt with

13 this issue. So to answer your question, it was

14 going to settle. It had, as a practical matter,

15 already settled. If it had gone to trial, I would

16 have disclosed that, because it would have come to

17 my attention and come to my awareness that we're

18 dealing with a disputed matter, not with a

19 ministerial matter.

20 Q And if it had gone to trial and you

21 disclosed it, it would have been delayed again

22 pending reassignment of a judge. Correct?

23 A That's speculative. I don't know. There

24 are other judges in Columbia County. There's four

25 circuit judges that sit there, and they typically


Page 155

1 are very able -- are good about being able to drop

2 in place and fill in on a docket.

3 Q Okay. Now, you just made reference to a

4 response to The Bar, I think, that you gave in

5 December of 2012. Correct?

6 A I don't recall the exact date.

7 Q Well, would you take a look at tab nine

8 in volume two. It's the very first -- it's the very

9 first tab in volume two.

10 A Yes, sir. I have that now.

11 Q All right. Now, The Bar asked you in a

12 letter dated December 6th, 2010, to provide a list

13 of each case between December 1, 2010 and

14 December 2012, about a two-year period where your

15 firm was counsel for a party, and the case was

16 assigned to Judge Bryan, your client. That was the

17 request of The Bar, wasn't it?


19 Q And this letter of December 10 that is

20 tab nine is your response. Correct?


22 Q You list eight cases. I think they're

23 numbered A through H. Correct?


25 Q That your firm had pending before your


Page 156

1 client, Judge Bryan. Correct?


3 Q All right. And only one of those cases,

4 which is G on Page 5, if you would look at that, did

5 you give even oral notice of your relationship with

6 Judge Bryan. Correct?

7 A That is correct. But on many of these

8 cases, if not the majority, there never was any

9 proceeding before Judge Bryan. He was

10 administratively, nominally the presiding judge.

11 But these cases were either dismissed before any

12 hearing was ever even scheduled or brought to Judge

13 Bryan's attention, or they were settled and

14 dismissed or the loan was modified. So Judge Bryan

15 never took any action in these cases. We never had

16 any hearings before Judge Bryan.

17 Q You mentioned a minute ago a -- some kind

18 of an ethics opinion that you've run across. Judge

19 Decker, did you need an ethics opinion to tell you

20 that your opposing counsel in a case might like to

21 know that the case is pending before your client,

22 the judge?

23 A I never made any connection between my

24 representation of Judge Bryan on something totally

25 unrelated to any of these cases, and my


Page 157

1 representation of clients that -- these cases before

2 him. In the cases we were talking about, the

3 Cornell case, it had been settled. It was a

4 ministerial matter. I just did not make that

5 connection. Judge Bryan did not bring this out or

6 disclose this to the parties. And I -- I was not

7 aware of that. I was not aware of the JEAC opinion.

8 As a judge now, I'm very sensitive to these things.

9 And I routinely disclose many different things that

10 potentially could be an issue. But at the time, I

11 simply did not make the connection. I did not feel

12 that I was getting any benefit or any advantage.

13 There was nothing about that representation that

14 helped me or that I was cognizant of.

15 Q Well, let me just get back to basics on

16 this. You entered into an attorney/client

17 relationship with Judge Bryan in December 2010.

18 Correct?


20 Q A confidential fiduciary relationship in

21 which you were telling him confidential things, and

22 he was probably telling you confidential things.

23 Correct?

24 A Not related to any cases before him.

25 Just his matter.


Page 158

1 Q A particularly -- the lawyer/client

2 relationship, when somebody's in trouble, is very,

3 very important to that client. Correct?


5 Q All right. And the client looks at you

6 to pull the chestnuts out of the fire some way.

7 Correct?

8 A Hopefully, yes, sir.

9 Q All right. And you didn't think that

10 that was worthy of disclosing to your opposing

11 counsel and all these cases you had pending before

12 Judge Bryan?

13 MR. TOZIAN: Judge, object. That's been

14 asked and answered.


16 A Well, Mr. Pope, in hindsight, being aware

17 of that JEAC opinion, certainly, I understand that

18 now. And in abundance of caution, at the time, I

19 should have disclosed all these things. I did not

20 do so, but I viewed Judge Bryan's role as strictly

21 ministerial. I believe he viewed it the same way,

22 because we submitted a consent final judgment.

23 There was no benefit, no advantage, no opportunity

24 for any gain whatsoever as a result of my

25 representation.


Page 159

1 Q Do you agree, Judge Decker, that

2 appearances sometimes count in matters of ethics and

3 professional responsibility?

4 A I do.

5 Q All right. Now, was there not in one of

6 these cases, A through H -- was there not a

7 contested proceeding held before Judge Bryan?

8 A There was, I believe, yes, sir.

9 Q Which one was that? So that wasn't a

10 ministerial matter, was it?

11 A That is on Page 4 of tab nine. And I

12 believe that is -- you're referring to paragraph F.

13 Is that correct?

14 Q The one that -- the one that had a

15 contested hearing.

16 MR. TOZIAN: Judge, may I object. This

17 is outside the four corners of the complaint.

18 We've gone outside what he's accused of. He's

19 accused of the Cornell.

20 THE CHAIR: Can I --

21 MS. DOWNS: Can I hear the question

22 again?

23 THE CHAIR: You're objecting to the

24 question because it's outside the four corners

25 of the complaint?


Page 160

1 MR. TOZIAN: Yes, ma'am. He's accused in

2 paragraph six of not having revealed his

3 relationship in that case, and I was prepared

4 to cross-examine witnesses and address that.

5 Now he's going into some other cases that I'm

6 not prepared to --

7 THE CHAIR: Well, I mean, this doesn't

8 really relate to BWD transactions, so how --

9 MR. POPE: This was not the BWD

10 transaction, Your Honor. This -- Judge Decker

11 voluntarily brought up the subject of his

12 response to The Bar, the letter in

13 December 2012. It's in evidence here. It

14 relates to the issue of nondisclosure of his

15 relationship to Judge Bryan in other cases that

16 he presented to The Bar, and The Bar found

17 probable cause on this and sent it to us.

18 THE CHAIR: Okay. I'm going to overrule

19 the objection.

20 MR. TOZIAN: May I be heard?

21 THE CHAIR: You can put it on the record,

22 but I'm going to overrule the objection. I

23 think the panel should hear this. Go ahead.

24 BY MR. POPE:

25 Q All right. Look at Page 8 of your letter


Page 161

1 to The Bar, paragraph four. The second paragraph

2 under four states, "First, all of the papers I filed

3 on behalf of Judge Bryan on March 13, 2012, were

4 filed on an emergency basis under very hurried

5 conditions." Correct?

6 A That's correct. We filed literally 7:00

7 or 7:30 that night on an emergency basis.

8 Q And would you -- would you agree with me,

9 Judge Decker, that one of the components of the

10 definition of an emergency is a serious situation or

11 occurrence that happens unexpectedly?

12 A That could be one way of looking at it.

13 Q And demands immediate action?

14 A Yes, sir.

15 Q Take a look, if you would, at tab 21.

16 A I'm at tab 21.

17 Q You got it. This is your e-mail dated

18 August 10, 2011, months before you filed a petition

19 on March 13, 2012. Correct?


21 Q And down -- you're e-mailing Scott

22 Thomas, who is your opposing counsel in the TD Bank

23 matter, that you are defending on behalf of Judge

24 Bryan and Mr. Dukes and Mr. Woodington. Correct?



Page 162

1 Q And in -- in that, in the middle

2 paragraph, you share with him Judge Bryan is a

3 defendant in a lawsuit in Georgia, which Prime South

4 is foreclosing approximately $1.4 million mortgage,

5 that you're trying to settle it, that Judge Bryan

6 owes a million-one, a totally unsecured debt to a

7 lender in Polk County who has provided us with

8 copies of the draft complaint, et cetera. And then

9 you say this, "I have begun work on draft bankruptcy

10 schedules if we are not successful in settling these

11 claims."

12 So Judge Decker, it was rushed to do it,

13 but it wasn't unexpected, was it?

14 MR. TOZIAN: Judge, may I object here?

15 Can we approach, or can I make a speaking

16 objection?

17 THE CHAIR: Go ahead.

18 MR. TOZIAN: This issue was brought

19 before the 6(b) panel that his statement that

20 it was an emergency was untruthful, and it did

21 not go forward. Now we're relitigating this.

22 This exact same issue was raised in a 6(b), and

23 it didn't get brought to you. We're just

24 plowing over ground that is -- that's my

25 objection. It's not in the complaint.


Page 163

1 Otherwise there's going to be no end, no

2 structure to what he can ask.

3 THE CHAIR: I think the door was opened,

4 so I'm going to allow the question. I'm

5 allowing the question. The objection is

6 overruled.

7 MR. POPE: All right. I believe that --

8 would you read my question back. I have the

9 same impairment that Mr. Tozian does.

10 THE CHAIR: And I have it as well.


12 A And my answer is, it was unexpected.

13 This e-mail dated August 10 to Mr. Thomas was about

14 30 days before we went to mediation with TD Bank,

15 his client on that matter. And this paragraph, I

16 am -- I am basically trying to set the table for a

17 negotiating ploy. I'm trying to explain to him all

18 the other very significant creditor issues that are

19 pending. I provided -- he knew about TD Bank. I

20 informed him about Prime South Bank. And I also

21 told him that the Leland Bryan Trust had not filed

22 suit yet, but they sent me a draft complaint, and

23 they were seeking, with interest, approximately 1.1

24 to 1.3 million.

25 And I also noted that I had begun working


Page 164

1 on bankruptcy schedules. I had not had actual

2 schedules, but I had begun the mental process of

3 preparing or thinking in my mind of what -- what the

4 bankruptcy process would look like for Judge Bryan.

5 We had no schedules, no petition, no papers of any

6 kind to file. Judge Bryan did not want to file

7 bankruptcy. That was the last thing he wanted to

8 do. And I wanted Mr. Thomas to have this to share

9 with his client before he went to mediation.

10 On March 12th, we learned for the first

11 time that the judge in Georgia, the presiding judge,

12 was on the verge of entering a summary final

13 judgment for $1.8 million. In fact, the bank's

14 counsel had submitted the judgment to the court, and

15 we -- it was just a matter of when the judge would

16 get to it and sign it. We had to scramble as fast

17 as we could to get Judge Bryan's Chapter 11 filed.

18 Normally, when you file a Chapter 11 case, there

19 are -- could be up to hundreds of pages of schedules

20 and documents, depending on the complexity of the

21 case that may go with that. We were nowhere near

22 that. All we filed was a skeletal petition and my

23 bare-bones application for employment. We did that

24 on a emergency basis after a four-hour meeting with

25 he and his wife where we went through all the


Page 165

1 analysis of whether there was any other way to avoid

2 doing this.

3 But if a judgment had been entered, it

4 would have been a lien on all Judge Bryan's assets

5 and would have kept us from being able to negotiate

6 and settle with TD Bank or Prime South or anyone,

7 because Prime South's $1.8 million judgment would

8 have liened up all of Judge Bryan's nonexempt

9 assets, and we'd be done. And so solely to stop

10 that did we file the bankruptcy case. But it was an

11 emergency, and it hit us out of the blue, and we

12 weren't prepared for it. We didn't have any

13 paperwork.

14 Q So, Judge Decker, in your August 10, 2011

15 e-mail, seven months before you filed the bankruptcy

16 petition, your statement, "I have begun work on

17 draft bankruptcy schedules if we are not successful

18 in settling these claims" was just puffery to the

19 opposing counsel. Is that correct?

20 A It was an attempt to negotiate and have

21 his client more receptive to settling at mediation

22 if they understood that there were a total of about

23 $4.5 million in claims against Judge Bryan and that

24 the filing bankruptcy was a possibility. Yes, sir.

25 I hoped that his client would take that and be more


Page 166

1 receptive to settlement at the mediation conference.

2 Q Well, let's shift gears, Judge Decker, to

3 your representation of Judge Bryan, Daniel Dukes,

4 and Billy Woodington. Okay? Judge Bryan retained

5 you to represent him and Mr. Dukes and Mr.

6 Woodington, and that occurred in mid December, 2010.

7 Correct?

8 A Yes, sir. That's correct.

9 Q And Judge Bryan and Messrs. Dukes and

10 Woodington were the trustees and the beneficiaries

11 of the BWD Land Trust agreement dated January 21,

12 2004. Correct?

13 A Yes, sir, that's correct.

14 Q That is at tab 16. And BWD, I believe --

15 correct me if I'm wrong -- stands for Bryan,

16 Woodington, and Dukes. Is that correct?

17 A That's my understanding. Yes, sir.

18 Q All right. So TD Bank sued the three of

19 them to foreclose a loan secured by a real property

20 in Bradford County. Correct?

21 A Yes, sir. That's at tab 17.

22 Q That's at tab 17. That's the TD Bank

23 complaint against the individuals as trustees of the

24 BWD Land Trust, and then, individually, Paul Bryan,

25 William Woodington, Daniel Dukes, and they also


Page 167

1 joined Bass and Higginbotham, Limited. Correct?


3 Q Because Bass and Higginbotham, Limited

4 held a judgment for about $25,000 against Mr.

5 Woodington. Correct?


7 Q And it had been recorded in Bradford

8 County. Correct?


10 Q And it had to be extinguished, so TD Bank

11 joined them?


13 Q All right. And the principal amount

14 claimed in round numbers was $1,074,000?

15 A That's the principal amount.

16 Q That's the principal amount. That's what

17 I said. That's minus interest and penalties and

18 attorneys' fees and costs, et cetera. There was a

19 lot more than that. Correct?


21 Q And the three individuals, Bryan, Dukes,

22 and Woodington, had individually guaranteed the

23 loan. Correct?


25 Q And the BWD trust agreement, which is tab


Page 168

1 16, I believe, if you look in paragraph 13 of that,

2 paragraph 13 is an indemnification provision so that

3 if one of the trustees pays out more than its share,

4 the others owe the paying trustee pro rata.

5 Correct?

6 A I think that's a fair summary of that

7 paragraph.

8 Q All right. Now, with regard to your

9 representation of these three individuals -- and you

10 also represented the BWD Trust. Correct?


12 Q Insofar as it might be considered an

13 entity?

14 A Yeah.

15 Q Was the title to the property in BWD

16 Trust?

17 A At the time, it was in the -- it was in

18 the name of BWD Land Trust. At the time, I did not

19 have a copy of this land trust agreement. I got

20 that several months later or maybe a year later.

21 Q Was it in the names of Bryan, Woodington,

22 and Dukes, as trustees of the BWD Trust?

23 A Yes, sir.

24 Q Because a trust is unlike a corporation

25 or an LLC, it's not an artificial entity, is it?


Page 169

1 A I believe under the Florida land trust

2 law, it is considered a separate entity. There are

3 provisions, I believe, under Chapter 48 for serving

4 such an entity.

5 Q Okay. So it may be treated as an entity

6 for mortgage foreclosure purposes?

7 A That's correct.

8 Q All right. And with regard to your

9 representation of the trust and the three

10 individuals, you had no written fee agreement with

11 any of the three clients?


13 Q And the mechanics of the representation

14 were that you discussed matters with Judge Bryan,

15 and he communicated with Mr. Dukes and

16 Mr. Woodington. Correct?

17 A Yes, sir.

18 Q So that the flow of advice from you was

19 from you, as the lawyer, to the judge, and the judge

20 passed it on to the two lay people. Correct?

21 A That's what the three of them agreed to.

22 Q All right. And you did not have an

23 initial personal conference with either Mr. Dukes or

24 Mr. Woodington to assess each of their personal

25 situations, did you?


Page 170

1 A No, sir, I did not.

2 Q In fact, the only personal contact you

3 had with them was just before the mediation that

4 occurred and at the mediation. Correct?

5 A No, sir. That's not correct.

6 Q What's correct?

7 A I had communication with them through

8 Judge Bryan forwarding e-mails. I had a specific

9 telephone conversation with Mr. Dukes at the time

10 that he was presenting himself to the Bradford

11 County Courthouse to record certain quitclaim deeds,

12 because he had an issue with the clerk of the court

13 regarding the correct amount of the documentary

14 stamps to be affixed to the quitclaim deeds. And I

15 discussed with Mr. Dukes then directly what we were

16 doing and how to explain to the clerk of the court

17 that this would be followed by a deed in lieu of

18 foreclosure to TD Bank with respect to which we

19 would pay the doc stamps, but we did not believe doc

20 stamps were required for this transaction. I

21 discussed with Mr. Dukes what he was already aware

22 of from his discussions with Judge Bryan, and that

23 is the strategy, the objectives, and the means by

24 which we would pursue their interests.

25 Q My question was inartfully formed. What


Page 171

1 I wanted to know was not personal contact, like you

2 would have on a telephone call, but in-person

3 contact. Your in-person contact with these two

4 gentlemen was just before the mediation and at the

5 mediation. Correct?

6 A Talking about face to face?

7 Q Yes.

8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q All right. And the -- the general

10 agreement of the three clients and the trust at the

11 outset was to try to settle with the TD Bank by

12 giving the bank a deed in lieu of foreclosure and

13 hoping to eliminate or reduce a deficiency.

14 Correct?


16 Q That was the unity of the interest of the

17 people when they started. Correct?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q All right. So Rule 4-1.7(c) provides as

20 follows, and I'll read it: "When representation of

21 multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken,

22 the consultation must include an explanation of the

23 implications of the common representation and the

24 advantages and risks involved."

25 Now, Judge Decker, you did not have that


Page 172

1 discussion with these three clients at the outset,

2 did you?

3 A I believe I did satisfy that requirement,

4 yes, sir.

5 Q How did you do that?

6 A I satisfied it in this means. Judge

7 Bryan was the spokesperson or the representative of

8 the investment group. It's not unusual at that time

9 when you have LLCs with many members, sometimes ten

10 or 15, where the managing member or single person

11 will be -- will be in my office to discuss

12 representation on behalf of the group. I discussed

13 with Judge Bryan the strategy that you just referred

14 to about offering a deed in lieu of foreclosure,

15 minimizing any possible deficiency judgment

16 exposure. We discussed with Judge Bryan the fact

17 that Mr. Dukes and Mr. Woodington had almost no

18 funds whatsoever to contribute to any type of

19 settlement of a deficiency and that Judge Bryan

20 would be paying everything. I discussed this with

21 Judge Bryan. I explained that there -- the

22 respective interest of the parties, and I relied on

23 Judge Bryan, who I've known for 20 years as a -- as

24 an impeccably ethical lawyer, assistant state

25 attorney and judge, to communicate this with his


Page 173

1 clients, with his fellow investors. He did so. He

2 responded to me that they had understood that. They

3 were on board with it. And I confirmed this later

4 in my conversation with Mr. Dukes and my conference

5 with Mr. Dukes, Mr. Woodington. There was never any

6 question or doubt that -- about this common

7 representation about their common goals and

8 interest, and they -- they never diverged in that.

9 Q So I -- I understand, Judge Decker, that

10 everybody agreed on the common course of action,

11 which was going to be deed in lieu, minimize the

12 deficiency. Correct?


14 Q Everybody was in agreement on that.

15 Correct?

16 A Absolutely.

17 Q And -- but you didn't take it a step

18 further and disclose to them that there was a

19 possibility that there were going to be some real

20 conflicts that came up down the line, did you?

21 A There were no conflicts. There could not

22 be a conflict in a situation like this where one

23 party, Judge Bryan, was going to be paying

24 everything and these two individuals were never

25 going to pay anything; in fact, have never paid


Page 174

1 anything. Judge Bryan has paid almost $300,000 or

2 more settling these things. They paid nothing.

3 Q Let's go to tabs 44 and 45.

4 THE CHAIR: You know what, it's noon

5 straight up, and I bet you have a good bit of

6 direct left. So why don't we break for an

7 hour, and we'll reconvene at one o'clock. I

8 don't want to rush you, and I'm sure you have

9 plenty of direct left.

10 MR. POPE: That's fine. Thank you.

11 THE CHAIR: We'll reconvene at one

12 o'clock. We're in recess. Thank you.

13 (Recess from 11:58 a.m. to 1:01 p.m.)

14 MR. TOZIAN: Your Honor, could we take up

15 one thing that I should have mentioned before

16 we got started relative to the stipulation

17 Mr. Pope and I agreed to?

18 THE CHAIR: Sure.

19 MR. TOZIAN: On number five, this is the

20 issue of Judge Bryan calling Mr. Robinson,

21 saying he expected the grievance being dropped

22 as a condition of the sale of the Hamilton

23 County property. The parties have stipulated

24 that Mr. Decker didn't do anything to interfere

25 with the sale of that Hamilton County property.


Page 175

1 THE CHAIR: So stipulated?

2 MR. POPE: We -- our stipulation is that

3 we do not blame Judge Decker, Attorney Decker

4 for the inability to close on the Hamilton

5 County property. We're not blaming that on

6 him.

7 THE CHAIR: Okay.

8 MR. POPE: All right.

9 THE CHAIR: That's the stipulation.

10 MR. TOZIAN: Yeah. I mean, is that the

11 same thing?

12 THE CHAIR: I don't know. It's your

13 stipulation.

14 MR. TOZIAN: Didn't sound like my

15 stipulation. That's why I asked.

16 MS. DOWNS: The words didn't match

17 exactly.

18 THE CHAIR: We might want to agree on

19 what your stipulation is. Why don't we do

20 that. The two of you just want to agree on

21 what the exact wording is for the stipulation?

22 MR. TOZIAN: That would be that the phone

23 call that allegedly was made did not interfere

24 with the sale of the property.

25 THE CHAIR: Does that work for you?


Page 176

1 MR. POPE: That works.

2 THE CHAIR: Perfect. Okay.


4 THE CHAIR: Thank you. Whenever you're

5 ready.


7 BY MR. POPE:

8 Q Judge Decker, I believe we were -- we

9 were at the point where we're talking about the TD

10 Bank foreclosure suit and your representation of the

11 trust and the three individuals and that there was,

12 at the outset, an agreement among the four

13 defendants that you would see if you could

14 compromise with TD Bank, give a deed in lieu of, and

15 either eliminate or diminish the deficiency. Is

16 that fair?


18 Q All right. Now, it didn't happen, did

19 it?

20 A Part of that eventually did happen.

21 Q But not -- not as a consequence of the

22 mediation. That was what you were trying to

23 accomplish at the mediation?


25 Q And it failed?


Page 177

1 A We were not successful at the mediation.

2 Q All right. Now, let's go back to the

3 outset of the representation of the three. Weren't

4 each of your three clients in different situations

5 from the other?

6 A In what sense?

7 Q Well, Woodington, for example, had two

8 final judgments against him totaling over $200,000,

9 didn't he?

10 A Yes, that's correct.

11 Q And would you take a look at tabs 44 and

12 45?

13 A I reviewed 44 and 45.

14 Q All right. Now, you were aware, at

15 least, of the Bass and Higginbotham judgment,

16 because they'd been named as a defendant in the TD

17 Bank suit. Correct?

18 A Bass and Higginbotham had been. But

19 Capital City Bank had never been named as a party

20 defendant, because their judgment was recorded after

21 the lis pendens had been filed.

22 Q You knew of the existence of Capital City

23 Bank judgment --

24 A Certainly.

25 Q -- at the outset, didn't you?


Page 178

1 A Not at the outset. I learned that

2 subsequently from TD Bank's counsel, and he did an

3 updated title search on the property.

4 Q So you didn't sit down with Mr.

5 Woodington and review with him what his personal

6 financial situation was. Correct?

7 A Did not meet face to face with Mr.

8 Woodington and have him discuss his financial

9 situation. He and Mr. Woodington had substantial

10 financial liabilities --

11 Q He and Mr. Dukes, you mean?

12 A Excuse me, Mr. Dukes had substantial

13 financial liabilities that rendered them judgment

14 proof and bankruptcy eligible.

15 Q Okay. And you knew they were bankruptcy

16 eligible, didn't you?

17 A Absolutely, yes, sir.

18 Q And on the other hand, Judge Bryan was

19 not judgment proof, was he?

20 A No. Judge Bryan had the substantial

21 means of responding to TD Bank, and that's what was

22 understood and agreed upon by all the parties from

23 the beginning, that Judge Bryan would be funding any

24 payment or settlement with TD Bank on a deficiency

25 judgment. Those two individuals were never going to


Page 179

1 be paying anything.

2 Q Well, let me -- let me ask you a

3 question. Does that -- does that mean in some

4 fashion that because they weren't ever going to

5 mean -- be paying anything, that they're not

6 entitled to conflict-free counsel?

7 A They're entitled to conflict-free

8 counsel, and they received conflict-free counsel.

9 Q All right. Now, Woodington actually

10 owed, at that time, your other client, Judge Bryan,

11 $456,000, didn't he?

12 A He did. He did. He owed that money,

13 yes, sir.

14 Q And that dated back to sometime in 2009.

15 Correct?

16 A That's correct. I was not involved in

17 that matter, though. I did not represent Judge

18 Bryan or Mr. Woodington or either one of them with

19 respect to that. That was a debt Judge Bryan knew

20 he was never going to see, he never going to

21 collect. And I was not asked to take any action on

22 that. Never did.

23 Q Well, now, take a look at tab 47, if you

24 would. And probably before tab -- let's go to 47

25 since I mentioned that one first. Is that 47, are


Page 180

1 those documents purporting to evidence the debt that

2 Judge -- that Mr. Woodington owed to Judge Bryan?

3 A Yes, sir. I believe there's three

4 different agreements here where Mr. Woodington

5 acknowledged his various debts to Judge Bryan.

6 Q Now, would you please take a look at tab

7 22. I think I've got a mistake in my book. What --

8 what do you have in there? Mine shows "Amendment

9 Schedule B."

10 THE CHAIR: We have "United States

11 Bankruptcy Court Voluntary Petition."

12 MR. POPE: Okay. That's not what I

13 wanted to be at that point. I apologize.

14 BY MR. POPE:

15 Q Let me ask it this way to you, Judge

16 Decker. You prepared and filed the bankruptcy

17 petition for Judge Bryan. Correct?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q And in one of the schedules to that,

20 which is in our materials here, I just haven't been

21 able to put my hand on it just yet, you listed an

22 indebtedness that -- that Mr. Woodington owed Judge

23 Bryan in the amount of $456,000. Correct?


25 Q Okay. So at the outset of the


Page 181

1 representation, you had a situation where one of

2 your clients had -- was indebted to another of your

3 clients for $456,000, plus he had over $200,000

4 worth of final judgments against him. Correct?

5 A Tell me --

6 Q Woodington. Right?

7 A He had well over 200,000, yes, sir.

8 Q And some in the pipeline?

9 A Yes, sir.

10 Q Okay. So Woodington, as compared to

11 Judge Bryan, was broke, insolvent, couldn't even

12 participate in paying your fees. Correct?


14 Q All right. And I believe you did say

15 this a minute ago, he was a candidate for

16 bankruptcy. Correct?

17 A He told me he had, in fact, consulted

18 with a bankruptcy attorney, because he thought his

19 situation was dire.

20 Q Okay. Well, you're a bankruptcy attorney

21 too, aren't you?

22 A Yes, sir.

23 Q Okay. So -- but if you had filed a

24 bankruptcy petition for him, that would have either

25 diminished or wiped out the debt he owed to your


Page 182

1 other client, Judge Bryan. Correct?

2 A That's correct. It would have legally

3 discharged what was an uncollectible debt at that

4 time.

5 Q Well, don't you think that that is a bit

6 of a conflict?

7 A No, sir. Because Judge Bryan did not

8 take any action to collect that. He did not ask me

9 to do anything with respect to that. That is

10 totally, has nothing to do with my representation of

11 TD Bank. My representation of TD Bank was to --

12 Q Against TD Bank, you mean?

13 A My representation of Bryan, Dukes, and

14 Woodington with respect to TD Bank was to as quickly

15 as possible get a deed in lieu of foreclosure to

16 them to cut off and abate default interest at

17 18 percent, minimize attorneys' fees, and then

18 negotiate a settlement of what was going to be a

19 substantial deficiency. Neither Mr. Dukes nor

20 Mr. Woodington were ever going to pay any part of

21 that. It was always understood, agreed, and known

22 from the outset that only Judge Bryan would be

23 paying that. I never was asked to take any action

24 with respect to any debt Mr. Woodington owed Judge

25 Bryan. Judge Bryan regarded that as uncollectible.


Page 183

1 It was -- it was never -- he was never going to see

2 it. He had to list it in his bankruptcy schedules,

3 because it is not only a debt, but it's not

4 something he's going to see. And I was never hired,

5 Mr. Pope, to take any action on that or to enforce

6 that. So I never had a conflict with respect to

7 that.

8 Q So notwithstanding the fact that you are

9 a bankruptcy specialist, and notwithstanding the

10 fact that these clients hired you to advise them on

11 what do I do to defend this mortgage foreclosure,

12 and notwithstanding the fact that bankruptcy is

13 always an option for a mortgage foreclosure

14 defendant, you didn't feel the obligation to counsel

15 either Dukes or Woodington on bankruptcy. Is that

16 correct?

17 A Because they had their own counsel.

18 Q Was that --

19 A I didn't feel --

20 Q Is that correct?

21 A Because they didn't have their own --

22 they had their own counsel.

23 Q And who was that?

24 A Well, there was Todd Doss, an attorney in

25 Lake City who Mr. Woodington consulted with. And


Page 184

1 Mr. Dukes was represented by a gentleman in -- in

2 the Atlanta area who did bankruptcy work and

3 represented Mr. Dukes in a bankruptcy filing

4 involving one of his entities in Georgia. So I was

5 not asked to give to counsel on that. My

6 representation was limited to effecting a deed in

7 lieu of foreclosure and minimizing the deficiency

8 and negotiating on behalf of all three for the

9 lowest possible amount that Judge Bryan would have

10 to pay.

11 Q And when that failed, when -- and that

12 strategy failed, didn't it?

13 A It didn't work on mediation, but

14 ultimately we succeeded, yes, sir. We ultimately

15 got it settled.

16 Q You succeeded when you filed the petition

17 for bankruptcy for Judge Bryan. Correct?

18 A The filing of bankruptcy had very little,

19 if anything, to do with settling Judge Bryan's debt.

20 Judge Bryan's timing of the bankruptcy was intended

21 to solely stop Prime South from getting a blanket

22 lien on all of his assets that would make it

23 impossible to settle with anyone. He did eventually

24 settle with TD Bank and agreed to pay a substantial

25 amount, which he was able to negotiate and conclude.


Page 185

1 Q Well, now, the filing of bankruptcy

2 didn't just stop Prime South, it stopped everybody,

3 didn't it?

4 A It stopped everyone. But this is not a

5 typical Chapter 7 consumer bankruptcy where someone

6 is going to file, wipe out credit card debt,

7 MasterCard, Visa. Judge Bryan had substantial

8 debts, but he had probably close to two, 2.5 million

9 in assets. So he definitely was going to be paying

10 a substantial amount to these folks, and he has.

11 Q He was in a completely different position

12 from Dukes and Woodington, wasn't he?

13 A But it was not an adverse position.

14 Q You didn't see any divergence of interest

15 between Judge Bryan on one hand and your other two

16 clients on the other?

17 A Judge Bryan was interested in minimizing

18 what he had to pay to settle these folks, and Mr.

19 Dukes and Mr. Woodington were in agreement where Mr.

20 -- Judge Bryan to pay as little as possible to do

21 that. They were never going to pay anything, Mr.

22 Pope. It was all Judge Bryan who was going to pay

23 everything. And he has. He's resolved a $1.8

24 million judgment with Prime South Bank for 75,000.

25 That was his money -- or he and his wife's money.


Page 186

1 He paid TD Bank. He's on the verge of settling with

2 Leland Bryan Trust. None of these -- Mr. Dukes and

3 Woodington have paid nothing, because they

4 understood -- and Judge Bryan understood he was

5 going to be paying, Judge Bryan. And all he wanted

6 to do was just minimize what he had to pay. And

7 Mr. Dukes and Mr. Woodington were totally pleased

8 with that. They said, "Maybe one day, somehow, some

9 way, we might be able to come up between the two of

10 us with $10,000." But that day has not -- never

11 come. And Judge Bryan has funded all these

12 settlements, which has enured to their benefit.

13 Q Isn't TD Bank now pursuing deficiencies

14 against Dukes and Woodington, the judgment-proof

15 guys who will never have a dime to pay it?

16 A They are.

17 Q Why are they doing that?

18 A Mr. Woodington has filed bankruptcy, so

19 that's brought that to an end. Mr. Dukes, I don't

20 know what his long-term strategy is going to be or

21 what he's going to eventually file. But Mr. Dukes

22 is not in a position to pay anything with close to

23 $15 million of judgments already against him.

24 Q And he hasn't filed for bankruptcy, has

25 he?


Page 187

1 A No, sir. He has not yet.

2 Q But --

3 A I would be happy to explain to you why I

4 don't -- why he has not done that.

5 Q I didn't ask that question. Mr.

6 Woodington, however, filed just this past year.

7 Correct?


9 Q Four years after you started representing

10 him?

11 A Yes, sir. I think that's right. Yes,

12 sir.

13 Q All right. Now, would you take a look,

14 please, at tab 24 in the book. You got it?

15 A Yes, sir, I do.

16 Q That's your e-mail to your opposing

17 counsel, Scott Thomas, the day after you filed the

18 bankruptcy petition for Judge Bryan. Correct?


20 Q And what you tell Mr. Thomas -- I'll

21 leave out the first sentence -- says, "We will

22 consent to relief from stay if you think you need to

23 obtain such relief. The property is titled in the

24 BWD Land Trust and not Judge Bryan. Of course, the

25 action on the guaranty would be stayed as Judge


Page 188

1 Bryan, but TD Bank can pursue its remedies against

2 the other two defendants."

3 Now, Judge Decker, aren't you inviting

4 your opposing counsel to pursue your other two

5 clients for a deficiency?

6 A No, sir. Absolutely not.

7 Q That's not what that says?

8 A No, sir. That is simply declarative of

9 the law. When I talked to Mr. Thomas on the phone

10 and we exchanged e-mails, he wanted to get a comfort

11 order so that his client would be assured that they

12 could continue with the in rem action as to the real

13 estate. I was just telling him what he already

14 knew, that the stay did not apply to them, it only

15 applied to Judge Bryan. I was not inviting them to

16 do that. Mr. Thomas already knew that. He didn't

17 need me to explain anything. I was simply saying

18 that the stay did not apply, so that there's no

19 question that we weren't taking a different

20 position. That is not an invitation to go after

21 them. He was already going after them.

22 Q And he continues to go after them,

23 doesn't he?

24 A Yes, sir.

25 Q All right. And then I believe it was the


Page 189

1 next day -- if you'll turn to tab 25 -- that the

2 Bradford County Court entered an order relieving you

3 of further responsibility for defending either Dukes

4 or Woodington in that matter. Correct?

5 A That's correct.

6 Q So you defended them from December 2010

7 to March 15, 2012. They were your clients?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q All right. But you continued to

10 represent Judge Bryan in both the Bradford suit and

11 the TD Bank suit and the -- and in the bankruptcy

12 petition. Correct?

13 A That's correct. And the Polk County

14 litigation.

15 Q And did that not put you in direct

16 conflict with your immediate former clients, Dukes

17 and Woodington?

18 A No, sir. With all due respect, I don't

19 believe it did. Because what I continued to do were

20 things that were consistent with the original plan

21 that -- and, in fact, enured to their benefit. It

22 was to try to minimize legal fees and interest,

23 minimize the deficiency judgment, and do those

24 things so that Judge Bryan could pay them, not them.

25 They have not been damaged or hurt by anything I've


Page 190

1 done, and I had no conflict with them.

2 Q Now, in the Polk County suit, that was a

3 separate suit from TD Bank, that was a suit by the

4 Leland Bryan Trust, which was Judge Bryan's father,

5 against -- three suits against Judge Bryan, and one

6 against Judge Bryan, BWD Trust, and the three

7 individuals. Correct?

8 A Yes, sir, that's correct.

9 Q And as a consequence of that suit, Mr.

10 Dukes claimed that the promissory note on which the

11 suit was based had a forged signature. Correct?

12 A He -- he did assert that, yes.

13 Q And the minute he asserted that, that put

14 him into conflict with Woodington and with Bryan,

15 did it not?

16 A No, sir. Because -- I don't know whether

17 he had any conflict with Woodington, because he was

18 accusing Woodington at one point of having forged

19 his signature. But Judge Bryan's -- Judge Bryan's

20 goal in that litigation was to satisfy and pay the

21 trust from funds and assets that Judge Bryan owned

22 alone, that none of those two had any interest in.

23 There was nothing Judge Bryan was going to do.

24 There's no position Judge Bryan took or could have

25 taken in that litigation while I was representing


Page 191

1 him that was adverse to Mr. Dukes.

2 Q Did -- when -- Mr. Dukes first suggested

3 that it was Woodington who had forged his signature.

4 Correct?

5 A Yes, sir.

6 Q And then he suggested it was Judge Bryan

7 who did it, didn't he?

8 A That's my understanding, but I don't know

9 that directly.

10 Q Well, all we're -- all I'm interested in

11 is, didn't they get themselves into an adverse

12 position with one another just then?

13 A Judge Bryan and Mr. Dukes were not in an

14 adverse position with respect to that litigation.

15 Judge Bryan was going to settle it and pay. Mr.

16 Dukes was either going to be found to have actually

17 signed that note contrary to his allegations or the

18 judge in Polk County would determine he did not sign

19 it, in which case he would have no liability.

20 Q Shouldn't you -- the moment that

21 promissory note forgery issue popped up, shouldn't

22 you have withdrawn from all three clients as their

23 counsel?

24 A Well, Mr. Pope, I'll be honest with you,

25 in light of everything that's happened and the


Page 192

1 allegations and the charges been filed against me

2 and the things that have been said about me, yes,

3 sir, I sure wish I had. I would have avoided a lot

4 of difficulty. But I continued to work to try to do

5 what was best for all three of those gentlemen. And

6 I believe I did.

7 Q Now, the reason you should have withdrawn

8 is that there was a conflict. Correct?

9 A I don't believe there was a conflict. I

10 think that Mr. Dukes has asserted that and alleged

11 that, but there was no action taken or contemplated

12 by Judge Bryan or by me that was inconsistent or

13 different with what Mr. Dukes -- that we weren't

14 trying to -- nothing we would do would impair or

15 hurt Mr. Dukes.

16 Q Would you look at volume one of the

17 volumes in front of you, tab one. That's the

18 transcript of the 6(b) hearing. I would like for

19 you to turn to Page 63. This is a hearing that took

20 place before the investigative panel of the JQC on

21 August 22, 2013.

22 MR. TOZIAN: Is that six two, Wally?

23 MR. POPE: Yes, sir. Six three. I'm

24 sorry. 63.



Page 193

1 BY MR. POPE:

2 Q Let me go over that with you. On --

3 beginning at Line 11, I asked you this question,

4 "Now, you spend a lot of time attempting to show

5 Mr. Dukes, in fact, executed and -- the questioned

6 promissory note. But don't you agree that the

7 minute Dukes asserted that one or the other

8 defendants had forged his name on the note, that a

9 conflict arose completely apart from the truth of

10 the matter?"

11 And your answer, "Yes, I do. I should

12 have withdrawn from representing all three at the

13 time."

14 Question, "And that's correct. You

15 should have withdrawn from representing all three of

16 them. Right?"

17 Answer, "Yes, sir, absolutely."

18 You gave that answer that time?

19 A Yes, sir.

20 Q All right. But you're saying here today

21 that the reason you should have withdrawn was not

22 because there was a conflict but because it's just

23 rained down trouble on your head. Is that right?

24 A This question conjoins two different

25 things that are not related. For one thing, it


Page 194

1 suggests that I spent lot of time in the litigation

2 representing Judge Bryan, questioning that

3 promissory note. I did not. I did spend

4 considerable amount of time and evidence gathering

5 in responding to the JQC investigative panel,

6 explaining and showing why I thought that that

7 allegation was false. But that was in connection

8 with my position vis-a-vis the JQC. I never took

9 that position or asserted that in the state court

10 litigation. There was no conflict there, Mr. Pope.

11 I didn't do that on that occasion.

12 And I agree a hundred percent, as I said

13 earlier, I should have withdrawn from representing

14 all three to avoid any question or appearance or

15 potential allegation of a conflict. I don't believe

16 there was, because I don't believe their interests

17 were adverse, and I believe that the things I did on

18 behalf of Judge Bryan and these matters enured to

19 everyone's benefit. But I certainly, in hindsight,

20 agree that I should have withdrawn. And if there

21 was any question, I think the correct thing to do,

22 the better thing to do would have been to withdraw.

23 I don't argue with you about that.

24 Q Would you take a look at tab 48, please,

25 sir, which is in volume two.


Page 195

1 A You say 48?

2 Q 48, yes, sir.

3 A Okay.

4 Q You got it?

5 A Yes, sir.

6 Q It says, "Default Judgment Against

7 Defendant William E. Woodington." And it's -- if

8 you add it all up, it's a little over $1.8 million.

9 Correct?


11 Q It was entered into February 27, 2012.

12 Correct?


14 Q Now, you obviously were not representing

15 Mr. Woodington in connection with this matter in

16 Georgia. Correct?


18 Q But you were representing him still in

19 the defense of the TD Bank litigation. Correct?

20 A Yes, sir.

21 Q As of February 27th?


23 Q All right. So Mr. -- did you get notice

24 of this issue of this judgment?

25 A I think this is the first time I've seen


Page 196

1 this actually. I may have seen it before, but it's

2 been within the past year maybe. I didn't see this

3 at the time. I didn't know this at the time.

4 Q Now, in connection with his settlement of

5 the Prime South Bank claim against him, didn't Judge

6 Bryan -- his -- Judge Bryan's wife become the owner

7 of this judgment?

8 A That's correct. He settled approximately

9 $500,000 resulting deficiency for 75,000. And his

10 wife now holds this judgment. That's correct.

11 Q Against your former client, Mr.

12 Woodington?


14 Q Now, at this same time, we're talking

15 about at the outset of the case, as it went along,

16 when you were still representing these folks, you'll

17 agree with me that Mr. Woodington's financial

18 circumstance was pretty bad, wasn't it?

19 A It was very bleak.

20 Q Hopeless?

21 A It was bleak or hopeless.

22 Q He was surely a candidate for bankruptcy?

23 A And he did file, yes.

24 Q Ultimately, four years later?

25 A Yes, sir.


Page 197

1 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Dukes wasn't in quite

2 that same bad shape, was he?

3 A I think he was in worse shape. He had

4 almost $15 million in judgments against him.

5 Q So he was an even greater candidate for

6 bankruptcy?

7 A I would think so.

8 (Proceedings continued in Volume 2.)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


Page 198

1

2

3

4 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

5

6 STATE OF FLORIDA:

7 COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH:

8

9 I, Rebekah M. Lockwood, RPR, Notary Public

10 in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby

11 certify that I reported in shorthand the foregoing

12 proceedings at the time and place therein designated;

13 that my shorthand notes were thereafter reduced to

14 typewriting under my supervision; and that the

15 foregoing pages are a true and correct, verbatim

16 record of the aforesaid proceedings.

17 Witness my hand and seal January 8, 2015, in

18 the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of

19 Florida.

20

21

22

23 Rebekah M. Lockwood, RPR

24 Notary Public

25 State of Florida at Large

RICHARD LEE REPORTINGRICHARD LEE REPORTING

Page 1

AA-l-a-r-i-o-n

137:15a.m 1:15 17:5

90:8,8 135:22135:22 174:13

abate 182:16Abele 13:14ability 43:1

49:6 66:8able 24:25

44:20 47:855:1 82:196:22 99:10,23104:12 123:15155:1,1 165:5180:21 184:25186:9

absolutely 31:554:13 56:1162:9 74:2076:13 173:16178:17 188:6193:17

abundance158:18

ACAP 55:1056:1

acceptable29:1

accepted 19:23accommodate

30:9,15accomplish

29:14 63:21,21176:23

accomplished29:17

account 54:23accountant

60:6 63:2accountants

51:5accounts 146:3accurate 19:23accusation

65:16accused 159:18

159:19 160:1accusing 47:13

48:1 107:20190:18

acknowledge149:25

acknowledged180:5

Acknowledg...16:3

Acknowledg...8:21 10:6

acquired 88:10acting 75:20action 42:23,24

59:25 81:1189:13 110:13137:4,7 150:15152:24 156:15161:13 173:10179:21 182:8182:23 183:5187:25 188:12192:11

active 71:2475:13

actively 71:2397:10

activities 97:9actual 164:1add 195:8addition 19:20

52:20 88:6138:17

additional25:14

address 26:1535:17 55:870:11,12 114:7160:4

addressed29:24

administration141:17 148:9

administrati...156:10

admissibility20:11

admission21:20,23

admit 98:17admitted 5:1

6:1 7:1 8:1 9:110:1 11:1 12:113:1 14:1 15:116:1 19:16,1821:19 37:8

Adrian 13:7adv 12:8advance 76:9

98:25advantage

58:15,22143:15 157:12158:23

advantages73:13 171:24

adverse 32:12185:13 191:1191:11,14194:17

advertises39:17

advice 169:18advise 128:17

183:10advised 98:14

123:12 128:5advises 147:6Advisory 154:9affect 49:5

122:17affidavit 5:17

10:3,4,8 11:1836:21 37:238:9 39:21,2239:25 40:9,1254:3

affidavits 16:2568:25

affirmative7:10,11 8:387:13,16,21108:1,16110:16 138:1,3

affirmatively94:25

affixed 170:14aforesaid

198:16afraid 146:4ago 156:17

181:15agree 24:22

57:16,21,2493:25 104:8,18107:15 119:1121:25 144:7149:4,6,7159:1 161:8175:18,20193:6 194:12194:20 196:17

agreed 43:645:21,22 63:1463:15,23 64:1991:8 126:22128:20 133:3133:18 139:19169:21 173:10174:17 178:22182:21 184:24

agreeing 50:10agreement 6:4

7:18 16:2425:20 30:1650:2 54:9 55:461:24 63:1776:4,6 77:1677:24 78:2579:2,21,2580:3,11,15,1681:4,12 83:383:20 87:2289:14 98:4127:19 139:7

139:24 140:2144:4,14,18145:1,17147:12,17,19147:24 149:15149:17 166:11167:25 168:19169:10 171:10173:14 176:12185:19

agreements10:6 23:2479:22 121:9180:4

ahead 19:2101:11,14160:23 162:17

AJ 33:6al 5:19 6:9

11:14,16,22,2412:4 13:9,1113:16,20 14:514:8,12,21,2315:4 16:6,8,1016:11,15,17,1816:19,20

Alachua 8:14Alarion 80:19

137:15ALEXANDER

3:2allegation 21:8

21:13 25:2236:15 39:847:21 52:658:13,16 194:7194:15

allegations23:25 24:1925:7 27:2140:20 115:23191:17 192:1

allege 25:2138:10 108:1

alleged 19:2119:24 20:21


Page 2

24:9 27:1750:7 192:10

allegedly175:23

alleges 38:951:6 52:7

allow 63:20112:25 163:4

allowed 53:987:25 99:13

allowing 163:5amazed 131:7Amber 3:5

132:9ambitious

18:19amend 52:7amended 6:23

7:25 8:3,411:15 15:919:22 26:1927:23 31:987:16 110:19150:19 151:11

Amendment180:8

amount 8:10,158:18 50:4167:13,15,16170:13 180:23184:9,25185:10 194:4

analysis 165:1Andrew 1:4

2:14 3:9 4:125:9,12,14,165:23 6:15,196:21 7:20,229:3 11:3,5,711:14,16,1912:5,7,9,1813:7,10,12,1413:17,19,2214:6,10,13,1614:18,20 15:1415:17,20,21

16:6,22 17:1418:15 88:13117:11 118:6121:20 136:1,6

Andy 18:1771:25

Angelina 2:718:10

Annex 1:1617:4

announcing149:22

answer 6:8 7:97:11,14 8:310:17,23 21:1824:8,17 57:1058:17 59:1974:4,7,8,2475:22 87:1699:7 100:23,25101:11 103:5103:10,24,25108:22 117:10125:18,21131:16 137:25138:2,6,9140:19 151:10154:13 163:12193:11,17,18

answered103:25 130:16130:18 158:14

answers 10:1674:12,15,18

anticipate30:10 85:11

anticipating96:17

anticipation153:11,13

anybody 26:14128:22

anymore142:14

anyway 59:18101:1,2

apart 193:9apologies 105:7apologize

180:13apparently

77:24 78:379:9 84:5,15

appear 28:2429:4 38:3,348:16

appearance12:3 14:5,2229:8,11 115:12194:14

appearances2:1 3:1 159:2

appeared 2:92:13,16 3:821:18 51:23

appears 71:974:24 75:7,1776:3 87:6115:6

applause 38:1739:5

application6:18,23 15:7,950:22 52:8164:23

applied 188:15apply 188:14,18appointed 34:2appointee

17:24appraisers 51:5appreciate

18:25approach

102:16 112:17162:15

approaching52:2

appropriate102:13 143:24152:24

approval 12:21

110:1approximately

122:4 145:22153:2 162:4163:23 196:8

April 5:11 6:311:3 12:2213:18,19 14:2315:16 16:6115:12 117:19121:3,4 122:4153:5

Archie 8:16area 33:12,16

69:1 136:11184:2

argue 19:2520:7 35:20194:23

argumentative107:22,24111:13

arguments20:11

arms 132:23arose 93:17

193:9arrange 29:10

29:13 96:797:11

arrangements144:25

arrest 53:11artificial 168:25Ashton 3:5

132:6,9,9asked 28:24

37:21,23 38:443:8 64:2366:10 67:1368:11 81:2182:14 98:5103:15 105:10105:17 106:4106:21 107:11111:8 113:6

121:24 123:4,7126:8,25 127:2127:3 130:16130:18 155:11158:14 175:15179:21 182:23184:5 193:3

asking 76:2484:24 103:16107:9 118:9,10118:14

aspect 34:23assert 53:4

147:7 150:14190:12

asserted110:16 149:6149:24 190:13192:10 193:7194:9

asserting108:16

assess 169:24assets 49:10

60:14 64:1092:25 93:9,13102:6 165:4,9184:22 185:9190:21

assigned122:10 155:16

Assistance55:11

assistant 3:4127:4 172:24

association13:8,15,2014:4,8,11,2215:3 146:1

assume 37:6assumption

37:8assurance

112:11assured 188:11Atlanta 184:2


Page 3

attachments14:3 15:16

attempt 32:20165:20

attempted82:17

attempting46:17 145:20193:4

attendance105:14

attended 152:1attention 31:23

105:15 109:8154:17 156:13

attests 50:22attorney 5:23

6:20 7:20,2113:7,10,12,1913:22 14:13,1614:18,20 32:939:16 55:1166:18 69:1270:15 71:2572:8 75:176:10,15 78:1382:12,16,2586:1 89:1112:12 113:17114:10 117:11117:20,23118:7 120:16121:6 122:3125:14 129:1,2130:24 131:3132:10 141:22141:23 143:23148:3 152:5,13172:25 175:3181:18,20183:24

attorney's 32:640:1

attorney/cli...86:16 90:20121:5 122:2

132:11 148:11148:12,25157:16

attorneys 7:850:25

attorneys'167:18 182:17

atypical 119:21121:17

audio 9:6August 5:3,6,18

6:15 11:1714:3,7 15:1215:25 161:18163:13 165:14192:21

authorization80:23

Authorizing11:10 15:3,11

available 127:5146:4

Avenue 1:24avoid 43:24

151:5 165:1194:14

avoided 192:3avoiding 53:3aware 23:18

26:5 27:728:18 82:19121:5 125:5139:22 143:4154:8 157:7,7158:16 170:21177:14

awareness154:17

Bb 11:18 15:5

16:9 180:9B-a-r-t 114:3B-r-e-n-t 70:7back 26:24

27:25 41:248:10 63:6,7

69:4 77:1579:12 86:495:7,9 102:21104:24 108:11108:24 109:2119:4,18128:18 131:1133:12 146:11157:15 163:8177:2 179:14

backing 40:12backwards

101:20bad 196:18

197:2Baker 138:24bank 5:19 6:6,9

7:3,5,16 8:1611:20,22,2412:3,8,10,1312:16,19,21,2413:7,8,10,1113:12,13,15,1813:19,23 14:414:7,11,14,1714:21,22 15:315:14 16:1424:19 25:2342:22 43:15,2344:19 45:146:23,24 47:449:7,22 50:2,653:4 61:4,1772:11,11 76:1678:1,1,5,6,1380:19 81:184:8,16 87:1889:14 96:6,797:12 110:5125:19 137:4,7137:12,14,15138:25 141:6144:22 145:20146:3,7,25152:5 161:22163:14,19,20

165:6 166:18166:22 167:10170:18 171:11171:12 176:10176:14 177:17177:19,23178:21,24182:11,11,12182:14 184:24185:24 186:1186:13 188:1189:11 190:3195:19 196:5

bank's 43:19164:13 178:2

Bank-Blacks...16:8,9,11

bankrupt 42:18bankruptcy

6:18,23 33:1934:4,20 49:1250:8,20,2251:9,11,13,1651:22,23 52:6162:9 164:1,4164:7 165:10165:15,17,24178:14,15180:11,16181:16,18,20181:24 183:2,9183:12,15184:2,3,17,18184:20 185:1,5186:18,24187:18 189:11196:22 197:6

Bar 5:11,13,145:16 15:16,1715:18,20,22,2215:24 18:528:19,23 32:235:12,13 55:1055:18,24 56:265:24 66:1767:18 108:11

139:21 140:6155:4,11,17160:12,16,16161:1

bare-bones164:23

bargain 99:6,18100:5

Bart 3:8 4:75:23 11:1912:5,7,9,18113:16,22114:2 152:5,10

based 34:1148:13 69:4107:1,6 134:23140:13 143:23190:11

basically 77:9128:9 163:16

basics 157:15basis 39:11

54:4 132:11140:13,15161:4,7 164:24

Bass 8:13 13:444:13 167:1,3177:15,18

Beach 17:1718:4

bearing 8:8,1140:17

beg 33:5beginning 17:5

37:16 102:1178:23 193:3

begun 162:9163:25 164:2165:16

behalf 6:1757:10 59:2062:15,15 74:574:25 75:2278:11 84:20,2187:17 99:25108:14 132:10


Page 4

138:6,24146:20 150:20161:3,23172:12 184:8194:18

belief 107:7beliefs 21:9,11believe 27:3

31:17,18 41:1946:10 48:1153:14 78:1490:21 91:593:11 94:2296:17 98:20100:18,21101:3 107:1112:10,11123:15 124:9126:15 127:14129:5 133:12134:14,17142:21 143:5150:19 151:10151:12,19,25152:25 158:21159:8,12 163:7166:14 168:1169:1,3 170:19172:3 176:8180:3 181:14188:25 189:19192:6,9 194:15194:16,17

believed 47:2448:17 60:23101:1

bench 30:6 35:256:15 68:21

beneficiaries166:10

benefit 99:6,18100:5 110:25157:12 158:23186:12 189:21194:19

Beranek 2:18

17:21,21 29:20best 31:24

43:21 48:2154:3,8,1669:15 72:19108:15 140:9192:5

bet 174:5better 194:22beyond 95:3

119:23bid 146:7big 18:21 39:1

72:13,15bigger 35:8bill 11:9 75:18bills 48:7 75:15Billy 10:11,22

13:17 16:344:11 166:4

binders 18:24bit 22:2,9,10,25

25:13 58:2463:11 91:9131:7 140:21174:5 182:5

blame 175:3blaming 175:5blank 133:10blanket 184:21bleak 196:19,21blow 121:10blue 165:11board 34:13

37:12,13,15,1738:20 70:20137:11 144:23173:3

boat 77:14 83:784:4

Bokor 2:7book 44:14

52:15 180:7187:14

borrowed41:21,24

104:12borrower

121:13,15bottom 118:8bought 41:24

47:18 63:24110:18 146:24147:1,2

bound 94:24142:24

box 2:15,19,223:3 126:13

boy 83:9Bradford 6:7,10

6:11,13,2213:3 41:7 42:342:24 46:748:4 65:15166:20 167:7170:10 189:2189:10

branch 55:17Brantley 16:15break 26:10

90:5 135:18174:6

Breeze 77:22148:22

Brent 4:4 7:207:22 59:1069:11 70:2,7138:7,14,16139:3 146:20147:24

brief 31:2238:21 54:18

briefly 35:18119:15

bring 116:8,9157:5

bringing 21:9brings 57:4broke 181:11brought 56:21

56:22 111:18116:1 117:3

144:23 156:12160:11 162:18162:23 186:19

Bruce 8:16Brush 2:12Bryan 5:17 6:3

6:5,6,8,9,178:5,9,11,20,228:22 9:4 10:1210:13,17,20,2210:24 11:6,8,811:11 13:8,1113:15,17,2014:4,6,8,10,1114:14,22 15:415:6,7,10,1216:13,17,1931:15,18 40:2441:3,13,22,2342:1,8,10,2443:3,8,12 44:444:7 45:9,2346:2,6 47:7,1247:19,21 48:2249:2,14,18,2550:9,10,13,1452:13 56:1658:4 67:8,1267:20 117:12117:16,20,23118:16 120:25121:6 122:3,15124:5,24125:11,19129:4 131:3132:22 133:1,4134:21 152:21153:15,18155:16 156:1,6156:9,14,16,24157:5,17158:12 159:7160:15 161:3161:24 162:2,5163:21 164:4,6165:23 166:3,4

166:9,15,24167:21 168:21169:14 170:8170:22 172:7172:13,16,19172:21,23173:23 174:1174:20 178:18178:20,23179:10,18,19180:2,5,17,23181:11 182:1,7182:13,22,25182:25 184:9184:17 185:7185:15,17,20185:22 186:2,4186:5,11187:18,24188:1,15189:10,24190:4,5,6,14190:21,23,24191:6,13,15192:12 194:2194:18 196:6

Bryan's 41:2244:21 45:1947:20 49:6,10126:8 127:4133:23 154:3156:13 158:20164:17 165:4,8184:19,20190:4,19,19196:6

build 59:3 96:18Builders 16:8building 8:17

77:11bumped 24:11bunch 22:22

24:4 49:2386:25

burden 40:18Burns 2:7


Page 5

Burt 59:7,9 64:364:11 71:1472:5,7,17 77:881:19 90:17,1890:23 93:4,1197:21 99:5107:6,7,16145:24 147:9148:22

Burt's 60:19business 70:12

70:23 71:1,3114:19

buy 61:3,16,1761:19 84:8104:12 145:22146:1,3

buying 145:25buyout 97:12BWD 6:4 10:23

13:13,23 14:1414:17,18,2115:5,15 23:2541:12 42:1152:10,12 57:10160:8,9 166:11166:14,24167:25 168:10168:15,18,22187:24 190:6

BWD's 43:21

Cc 16:10 49:13call 20:23 22:8

22:15 28:2031:2 32:2440:5,7 53:1954:6 55:961:25 62:1669:9,11 85:16105:18 106:2108:10,18109:24 112:19113:7,14,16124:22 125:2142:12 143:6

149:13,14171:2 175:23

called 30:1 41:653:21 70:377:17 83:11106:10,19108:6 113:23119:20 124:2124:16 126:22126:23 130:6136:2

calling 30:1131:17,19 99:2125:10 174:20

calls 64:2,2,3campaign 5:7

23:22 34:2336:2 40:2067:3 69:5

campaigning20:22

candidate181:15 196:22197:5

candidates36:11

candor 50:1951:6,20,2552:3,18 53:15

canons 20:2126:21 27:16,1827:22

capable 38:15Capital 8:16

45:1 177:19,22card 185:6care 44:17 45:4

49:6 62:1,12carefully 66:7carrying 111:9case 1:6 5:19

5:21,24 6:6,96:9,22 7:310:14,18,2111:11,14,17,2111:22,23,24

12:4,11,14,1712:22,25 13:513:9,16,2014:5,8,12,2315:4,8,10,1216:6,8,10,1116:15 23:1428:11 30:732:1,3 34:2135:3 43:17,1943:20 46:1547:16 48:3,352:25 53:2,2056:17,19,20,2356:24 57:3,658:9,11,1665:12,15 69:371:10,17 72:572:14 73:1778:11,15 79:879:14 84:14,1886:14 89:2191:10,13 95:995:20 101:22101:24 104:19104:23 106:21110:9 112:14112:15 115:10115:18,20,22116:2,4,10,14116:17,21117:3,14,19,21118:17 119:21121:19 122:9122:10,12,13122:23 123:1123:13 124:3,6124:17,25125:10,19128:17 129:5,7129:9 139:4151:3 152:14152:22 153:8153:14,17155:13,15156:20,21

157:3 160:3164:18,21165:10 191:19196:15

cases 67:1071:2 72:8 87:6119:16,24,25120:1,4,11155:22 156:3,8156:11,15,25157:1,2,24158:11 159:6160:5,15

catechism 34:7Catholic 34:6cause 160:17caution 23:13

158:18CC 133:18ceased 148:1Central 1:24certain 79:22

139:25 170:11certainly 29:16

30:9 82:1585:7 92:7 95:1102:8 120:4125:22 126:6132:3 158:17177:24 194:19

certificate 75:386:7 138:13150:1 198:4

certificates141:1

certified 70:20certify 198:11cetera 80:1

162:8 167:18chain 9:3 11:3,5

11:7 13:2214:20 118:5

Chair 2:3 17:1018:8,18 19:1520:3,13 21:721:17 22:6,10

22:15,21 23:523:10,21 24:224:6,25 25:1625:19 26:2,1726:25 27:2,1227:15 28:529:10,21 30:1430:21,24 31:131:5 33:1 69:869:19,22,2470:5 76:2178:19 81:683:18 85:988:2 90:3,999:16 100:24101:9,11,14102:17 106:15106:17,25107:23,25109:5,11,13,16111:4,16,23112:7,25113:11,14,18113:20,25121:22 122:19123:10,19124:8,12 130:1130:3,16,18,21132:16 134:11134:23 135:1,6135:10,14,18135:20,23136:4 140:16140:20 146:10146:14 158:15159:20,23160:7,18,21162:17 163:3163:10 174:4174:11,18175:1,7,9,12175:18,25176:2,4 180:10

chairman 33:25chambers

133:23


Page 6

chance 54:7chances 84:12change 96:20

124:11changes 12:20Chapter 6:16

11:6 49:8,2552:24 164:17164:18 169:3185:5

character 16:2530:1

characteristics142:9

charge 24:1138:7 45:2553:16 54:2,556:14 58:23,23

charged 23:16charges 19:23

21:10 24:825:21 26:2027:19,22 31:10192:1

charging 25:3Chastain 10:7cheaply 44:6

45:20check 7:12

10:10,12 75:1175:19

checked 85:23Chestnut 2:8chestnuts

158:6chief 28:14

68:24 80:19choose 32:18Christian 21:9

21:11Church 34:6circuit 5:19,20

6:7,10 7:4 8:68:14 12:1117:17 28:1434:1 40:25

89:18,24151:18 154:25

circumstance196:18

circumstances32:9

cited 26:2162:21

citizen 135:16City 8:16 16:23

36:9 45:156:20 123:24177:19,22183:25 198:18

civil 33:16 71:1claim 38:16

53:4 67:14196:5

claimed 167:14190:10

claims 39:2554:19 147:7162:11 165:18165:23

clarification20:14

clarified 143:6classified 18:21CLE 34:3clean 116:18clear 22:11 25:3

28:4 40:1843:13 44:1847:1 53:1258:20 64:20101:23 140:7

Cleared 29:2clearinghouse

55:15clearly 143:19Clearwater 2:8

18:10clerk 170:12,16client 76:23

82:6 93:1894:4 100:4

110:9 112:13115:19,22116:8,23 117:1118:16 120:3122:10 131:20131:25 132:1,4132:15 139:20141:15,19142:13 143:3,9143:25 152:14152:23 153:18155:16 156:1156:21 158:3,5163:15 164:9165:21,25179:10 182:1188:11 196:11

client's 62:1465:8 132:5141:20 142:20

clients 46:449:14 60:1,262:18 73:1074:12 76:677:2,8,2278:12 79:7,1179:17 80:981:16,24 82:1382:18 83:5,1484:4,6,11,2585:23 86:1187:7,8,1789:18 91:1392:3,13 93:1793:23 94:1,1595:5,21 96:496:13,17 97:2198:21 99:5,2299:23 100:1105:12 106:22107:3,21108:15 109:25110:2,11,14,15110:25 112:17117:12 119:19131:23 139:8

151:21 152:6157:1 169:11171:10,21172:1 173:1177:4 181:2,3183:10 185:16188:5 189:7,16191:22

clients' 94:13clip 30:8clobbered

60:17close 57:1

118:13 126:5175:4 185:8186:22

closed 67:18cloud 45:3co-defendants

76:23 77:1147:8

coerced 89:8,1089:10 100:19101:4 103:2,15103:17,20104:4,5 108:2

coercion 101:13101:15 102:8,9

coercive 102:14cognizant

157:14coincidence

87:2colleague 18:9collect 179:21

182:8collected 65:19college 154:12Columbia 12:11

41:7 48:466:19 115:8122:9,10154:24

come 28:1037:24 38:2039:3 46:14

59:13 63:6,769:3 79:585:20 91:21,2494:16 99:2115:17,19116:16 117:15121:14 140:1144:25 149:1,3154:16,17186:9,11

comes 36:2139:12 57:1,562:5

comfort 90:4135:18 188:10

comfortable128:14

coming 28:1328:14,15 45:1469:12 85:8129:5 147:3

comment 38:2239:4 40:14

comments53:11

commercial46:24 114:19146:2

Commission1:1,13 2:9,202:22,24 3:2,417:2,13

Commission's16:21

committee 9:733:20,22,2436:14,16,1837:1,5,9,11,1738:8 108:9154:9

Committees33:23

Commodore16:11

common 45:1973:12 107:1


Page 7

112:21 171:23173:6,7,10

communicate82:7 149:14172:25

communicated86:4 169:15

communicati...146:20

communicati...5:22 62:2586:5 118:23143:24 170:7

communicati...132:13,15

company 16:1577:17

compared181:10

Compass 7:3,57:16 24:1925:23 72:1176:16 78:1,1,578:6,13 81:184:8,16 87:1889:13 96:6,797:12 110:5137:3,7 138:25141:6 145:20146:3,7,25

compelled131:12

competition146:7

complain128:22,25

complainant56:9

complainants55:21 56:3

complained67:7

complaint 5:115:13,19 6:67:3,9,11,258:4,5 10:13

11:13,15 15:1615:21 26:2235:12,12 42:2355:13 56:165:25 71:974:5 110:19115:6,7 138:1138:2 150:19150:20 151:11159:17,25162:8,25163:22 166:23

complaints68:12

completed84:11

completely20:11 93:3185:11 193:9

complex 115:25116:3 119:23120:3

complexity164:20

compliance73:24

complicated31:12,16 58:24

complied149:11

comply 112:2components

34:22 36:6161:9

Composite 15:516:7,23,25

compound76:18

compromise176:14

concern 45:360:19

concerned42:25 49:4101:24 104:6110:10,10

142:7concerning 1:4

16:21 17:14concerns 85:2conclude

149:18 184:25concluded

148:24concludes

40:20condition 56:12

174:22conditioned

54:21conditions

161:5condo 77:5,6,11

77:20 96:21condominium

59:3 61:16,1961:22 104:13

condominiums96:19

conduct 30:532:16 35:155:7 73:9 82:589:3 112:3142:25 143:16

conducted67:20 106:12

confer 102:11conference

11:21 18:3166:1 169:23173:4

confidence142:20

confidential7:18 50:1281:4 93:1894:5 157:20,21157:22

confidentiality63:17 94:1,494:15,22107:20 131:21

confirm 105:11confirmed

173:3conflict 21:2

31:13 32:3,643:18 46:1147:25 48:13,2349:13 50:7,1753:9 59:14,1459:18,19 61:761:8 65:1672:22 73:1874:13 92:3,893:17 106:13107:12,13128:18 173:22182:6 183:6189:16 190:1190:14,17192:8,9 193:9193:22 194:10194:15

conflict-free179:6,7,8

conflicting32:10,19,20

conflicts 173:20173:21

conformed103:14

confusion20:16

conjoins 193:24connection

50:24 51:3156:23 157:5157:11 194:7195:15 196:4

cons 73:20consent 6:3

12:21 82:10,1282:15 110:1122:5 154:5158:22 187:22

consequence176:21 190:9

consider 37:1152:1 73:2374:17 86:1394:19

considerable194:4

consideration34:11

considered51:20 168:12169:2

considering127:15

consisted 34:15consistent 53:5

189:20constitutes

53:24construction

77:10construed 80:1consultation

73:11 171:22consulted

181:17 183:25consumer

55:11 185:5contact 82:18

82:19 87:2290:17 108:12143:2 146:3148:3 170:2171:1,3,3

contacted51:18 56:172:4,9 107:4122:12 129:13129:16,22

contacting82:18 112:21144:1

contemplated192:11

contest 21:12contested 24:4

159:7,15


Page 8

context 102:8125:2

continuance5:24 12:12,1657:22,25118:10,14,25119:1,3,9120:15 121:24126:9 132:22134:4

continuation89:21

continue 38:1053:10 120:16188:12

continued 3:152:11,23126:25 148:10189:9,19 192:4197:8

continues188:22

continuing96:18,20110:11

contrary 191:17contribute

172:18contributed

77:7control 148:10convene 26:11conversation

39:11 54:18,1965:3 80:8147:24 170:9173:4

conversation's64:1

convert 96:21convincing

40:19 47:153:12 58:21

copies 79:7,10162:8

copy 10:10,12

71:9 72:2474:24 75:1176:3 80:2102:18 168:19

Cornell 5:1911:20,22,2412:3,6,8,10,1112:13,13,16,1612:19,21,22,2412:24 56:19115:8 122:13157:3 159:19

Cornell/Wells117:14

Cornells 152:6152:22 153:21

corners 159:17159:24

corporation12:14,17,22,2534:12 168:24

correct 19:1420:2 21:4,1321:14,16 25:825:18,25 29:2536:20 91:493:20 94:2108:3 114:24116:4,24117:25 122:7124:1,18,20125:2,9,12,16126:3,19,24127:10,12,18127:24 128:7128:12 129:12129:15,17134:16,17136:18,21,22136:24,25137:4,8,9138:11,12,14138:18 139:4,5139:10,11,13139:14 141:2,3141:16 142:25

143:3 144:5145:4,5 146:25147:4,5,8,13147:14,15148:7,18149:23 150:21150:22,25151:1,23152:10,15153:1,2,5,9,10154:22 155:5155:18,20,21155:23,24156:1,2,6,7157:18,19,23158:3,4,7159:13 161:5,6161:19,20,24161:25 165:19166:7,8,12,13166:15,16,20167:1,2,5,6,8,9167:12,19,20167:23,24168:5,10,11169:7,12,16,20170:4,5,6,13171:5,14,15,17173:12,13,15176:17,24177:10,17178:6 179:15179:16 180:17180:23,24181:4,12,13,16182:1,2 183:16183:20 184:17187:7,8,18,19189:4,5,8,12189:13 190:7,8190:11 191:4192:8 193:14194:21 195:9195:10,12,13195:16,17,19195:22 196:8

196:10,13198:15

corresponding126:1

costing 104:14costs 43:24

167:18counsel 2:20,23

3:4 6:18,21,2411:10 15:3,7,915:12 17:2228:23 56:2157:5 62:23,2463:18 66:2267:7,21 74:1880:18,24 86:1088:18,19102:10 112:17117:20 118:1122:13 123:2123:24 124:19127:23 128:4131:9,15 132:1133:19 139:17140:4 144:15144:18,20,20145:3,10,13,14148:20 150:3,6150:7,11152:22 155:15156:20 158:11161:22 164:14165:19 178:2179:6,8,8183:14,17,22184:5 187:17188:4 191:23

count 20:2521:8,11,2122:16 24:14,1624:18 25:4,1926:1,23 28:2031:14 39:750:18 56:18159:2

counter-claims

115:24 116:7119:22

Counter/Pro...12:6

counterprod...91:20

Counties 41:7country 38:16counts 20:18,20

20:23 23:2124:10,12,2327:17 34:23,2435:4

county 1:16 6:76:10,12,14,227:4 8:6,14,188:24 9:6 11:413:3 17:3,1718:1,1,2,541:18 42:3,2447:15,17 53:2354:7 59:165:15 66:18,19115:8 122:9,11136:23,24154:24 162:7166:20 167:8170:11 174:23174:25 175:5189:2,13 190:2191:18 198:7198:18

couple 22:1523:3 38:2559:6,7 106:8111:5 112:16114:21

course 23:1529:3 41:1342:19 47:1148:2 62:16124:21 173:10187:24

court 1:6 5:195:24 8:6,14,188:24 15:24


Page 9

32:1 49:951:22,24 52:869:25 80:2086:24 88:21108:23 109:1133:11 141:5,6146:11 148:6152:19 164:14170:12,16180:11 189:2194:9

courthouse39:2 170:11

courtroom23:13

cover 133:1,3134:6

covering 7:6CPA 137:10,11created 45:2

49:13 65:16106:13

credit 185:6creditor 51:4

163:18creditors 50:24cross 90:3

113:2cross-claims

115:24 116:8119:22

cross-exami...4:5,9 23:290:12 111:21123:19,20

cross-examine160:4

cross-exami...66:5

CUB 41:6 48:3,4curious 110:17current 86:21

86:22currently 89:20cut 20:10 61:20

64:5,22 97:18

100:6 101:4104:8 109:23182:16

cutting 100:19103:2,20105:23

cycle 77:14

DD 8:16Dallas 130:13damage 143:8

143:10damaged

189:25Daniel 2:11,11

5:11 6:5,118:5,8,11,229:4 10:7,9,1410:16,17,20,2311:11,13,1613:8,15,17,2014:4,7,8,10,1214:23 15:4,1615:18,21 16:516:8,10,1118:13,13 33:635:11 41:252:23 53:665:13,14 166:3166:25

date 1:14 58:158:3,6,6,965:20 73:2,475:23 104:19117:1 119:12123:16 125:22127:1,5,6,8,14134:16 155:6

dated 5:5,6,155:16 6:4,157:7,12,18,207:21,23 8:7,108:19,21 9:3,510:3,4,6,8,1010:12,14,18,2110:23,24 11:3

11:5,7,9,12,1411:17,18,20,2211:24 12:4,5,712:10,14,17,1912:22 13:3,6,713:10,12,14,1713:19,22 14:314:7,10,14,1614:18,20,2315:5,6,8,10,1215:14,16,19,2115:25 16:3,6,916:10,12,13,1516:18,20,2247:22 118:8146:19 155:12161:17 163:13166:11 179:14

daughter 34:16Davis 2:11day 17:3 57:12

57:20 62:263:6,7 68:1780:10 81:1586:5 98:21103:10 105:22121:2 125:17151:22 152:12186:8,10187:17 189:1

days 57:25 83:2126:21 127:1,7133:9 163:14

de 111:10143:17

deal 20:2122:12 29:2234:25 60:1761:15 62:1,1763:4,6,10,1363:16 64:6,1464:21 72:13,1582:13 97:1898:19 99:13,24100:7,10,14,19101:4 103:2,20

104:9 107:18111:10 115:2121:14 127:17131:25

dealing 69:14154:18

dealings 78:12deals 41:4 46:1

53:17dealt 50:21

78:23 154:12Dear 148:19debate 5:9

20:24,25DeBeaubien

3:6 114:16debt 99:10

162:6 179:19180:1 181:25182:3,24 183:3184:19 185:6

Debt/Transfer16:3

debtor 15:7,951:3 52:2453:6

Debtor's 15:12debts 49:6

180:5 185:8December 1:14

5:16 8:1410:10,12 11:1212:4 13:3,615:6,14 17:342:3,22 57:5117:18 151:16151:17 152:17153:1 155:5,12155:13,14,19157:17 160:13166:6 189:6

decide 34:2decided 34:14

108:14 110:23150:11

decides 128:16

decision 26:1262:13 143:23

Decker 1:4 2:142:15 3:9 4:125:5,9,12,14,236:15,19,217:20,22 9:311:3,5,7,14,1611:19 12:5,712:10,18 13:713:10,12,14,1713:19,22 14:614:10,13,16,1814:20 15:3,7,915:11,14,17,2115:21,23 16:616:22 17:1418:12,14,15,1518:16,17 23:127:19 33:6,7,935:5 36:8,1736:19 37:1438:4,12 39:439:23 40:1442:13 43:9,1044:5,10,1745:4 46:1547:12,24 48:1448:25 50:1851:2,21 53:1053:15,18 54:654:13,23 55:456:6,14 57:1057:15,22 58:1458:15 59:2161:25 62:4,1063:12 65:6,1368:12,21 71:2575:1,4 76:1076:15 78:1379:24 82:12,1782:25 83:1184:3,19 85:1686:1 87:888:13,25 89:889:19 105:4,18


Page 10

105:22 106:5109:24,24110:19 117:11117:24 118:6120:16 121:6121:20 122:3122:11,15124:4,23 125:3125:14 129:2131:3 133:1,5133:10 135:9136:1,6,9146:16 148:14148:20 151:12152:4 156:19159:1 160:10161:9 162:12165:14 166:2171:25 173:9174:24 175:3,3176:8 180:16188:3

Decker's 5:6,75:16 15:1935:1 36:1,2240:24 52:11,2055:6 56:958:25 60:162:3,13 110:15118:7 129:6133:14

declarative188:8

declared 51:2deed 6:11,13

8:19 10:2513:3 16:1343:23 47:4170:17 171:12172:14 173:11176:14 182:15184:6

deeded 45:8deeds 45:23

46:5 170:11,14deemed 115:21

115:25 119:25120:2 152:24

default 8:23182:16 195:6

defend 60:2461:1 95:24183:11

defendant 7:1610:16 15:5,644:15 61:2077:23 84:1888:16 138:23162:3 177:16177:20 183:14195:7

defendant's119:9

defendants 6:871:11,12,16,1871:19,22,2473:17 110:21120:10 137:6138:18 148:21150:24 176:13188:2 193:8

Defendants'8:3 12:12,15

defended 189:6defending 97:4

97:8 137:3161:23 189:3

defense 30:276:9 87:13,21108:1,16110:16 195:19

defenses 7:107:11 8:3 74:2587:16 110:13116:6 119:23119:23 138:1,3151:11

deference28:16

deficiencies186:13

deficiency

43:25 48:1953:4 171:13172:15,19173:12 176:15178:24 182:19184:7 188:5189:23 196:9

definitely 30:10185:9

definition161:10

delay 120:12delayed 154:21delinquent

146:3delivered 46:5Della-Donna

32:2demand 11:15

83:14demands

161:13denial 24:14,18denies 54:13denomination

34:12denying 25:6department

55:11depending 40:7

164:20depends 23:1depo 48:7deposed 36:23deposing 66:15deposition

16:17,19 37:640:8 101:17102:19 152:1

described142:1

describing 95:2DESCRIPTION

5:2 6:2 7:2 8:29:2 10:2 11:212:2 13:2 14:2

15:2 16:2designated

32:14 198:12desperate

60:23despite 25:20

88:18detail 106:6,9details 57:21

132:2 144:25determine

191:18determined

108:2develop 65:9developed

33:17 59:4developers

16:9 59:8development

72:10 77:6dictate 19:1difference

52:13different 35:24

76:19 91:2193:3 96:13122:10 123:14157:9 177:4180:4 185:11188:19 192:13193:24

difficulty 192:4dime 65:19

186:15diminish 176:15diminished

181:25dire 181:19direct 4:5,8,14

21:19 26:670:9 114:5136:7 143:2174:6,9 189:15

directed 52:2581:13

directly 36:2137:1 82:1388:22 109:25170:15 191:9

Director 2:23directors

137:12 144:23disadvantage

46:8disagreed

107:14disbursed

55:17discern 142:5discharged

150:9 182:3disciplinary

141:20 142:17142:19

disclose 67:980:16,23144:13,18145:8,17 157:6157:9 173:18

disclosed 123:3152:12 154:16154:21 158:19

disclosing145:19 154:7158:10

disclosure72:23 73:18117:24 118:15128:8

discount 145:22146:2

discovered154:11

discovery 79:10116:19,19

discuss 23:1426:13 131:20172:11 178:8

discussed132:2 134:15169:14 170:15


Page 11

170:21 172:12172:16,20

discussion139:20 172:1

discussions91:16 118:12131:17,23132:12 170:22

dishonest32:15

disintereste...51:1

dismiss 26:1927:16 54:1084:24

dismissal 7:2316:5 86:6105:13,23149:12,18150:2,16

dismissed86:14 120:2156:11,14

disposal 29:3dispute 21:6

22:19 25:1135:16,19 36:19151:20

disputed 154:1154:18

disputes 71:3disregarded

20:10distinct 151:7distinctly 83:5

143:19distressed

79:16 81:22100:3

District 34:351:11

disturb 82:2diverged 173:8divergence

185:14divesting 46:6

Dixie 136:24doc 170:19,19docket 7:5

155:2dockets 42:20document

10:23 20:858:2 66:1,387:11

documentary31:8 170:13

documents20:5 47:1466:6 164:20180:1

doing 46:1666:10 83:1297:7 165:2170:16 186:17

dollars 42:5,7145:21

door 163:3Doss 183:24doubt 51:25

173:6Downs 2:4 18:6

18:6 108:21109:1,4 146:10159:21 175:16

Dr 2:5 4:9 17:2317:23 130:23132:18

draft 26:22133:6 162:8,9163:22 165:17

drew 38:1739:5

drive 29:5drop 155:1dropped 53:22

133:23 174:21dropping 54:21

56:13due 189:18Dukes 5:12 6:5

6:9,11,21 8:5

8:8,11,14,168:22 9:5 10:710:9,12,14,1610:17,20,23,2411:11,13,1613:5,9,15,1713:20 14:4,7,814:10,12,2315:4,17,18,2115:22 16:5,816:10,11 31:1531:19 35:11,1541:2,5,13 42:843:2,4,6 45:845:9,12,2246:2,4,19 47:647:12,20,2548:1,10,1550:16 52:10,2353:7 54:9,1155:5,13 65:1365:14,17,20,2366:21,23,2367:6 161:24166:3,5,9,16166:25 167:21168:22 169:15169:23 170:9170:15,21172:17 173:4,5178:11,12182:13,19183:15 184:1,3185:12,19186:2,7,14,19186:21 189:3189:16 190:10191:1,2,13,16192:10,13,15193:5,7 197:1

Dukes' 5:1344:23 48:565:16

duly 70:4113:24 136:3

duties 32:19

148:6duty 94:24

143:25DVD 67:19

EE 3:5 8:5,5,14

8:14,17,2310:7,9,14,1410:17,18,20,2011:11,11,13,1613:5,5,8,15,2014:4,8,11,2315:4 16:3,552:22 53:671:14 72:1873:1 74:7 76:676:8 79:12136:12 137:7139:13,16,19195:7

e-mail 5:226:15,19 9:3,410:22,24 11:311:5,7 12:5,712:9 13:10,1213:22 14:13,1614:18,20 15:1447:21 57:1479:11,12 118:5118:8 119:2127:3 161:17163:13 165:15187:16

e-mailed126:23 133:6

e-mailing161:21

e-mails 134:1170:8 188:10

earlier 26:2227:15 29:2448:3 118:19124:6,25130:14 194:13

early 34:8 75:1178:16 100:9

127:19easiest 115:2economic 77:13

93:8,12 101:25102:2 143:15

economically101:19

economy 120:7Edwin 7:8 71:14effect 123:8

147:3effected 77:25effecting 184:6effort 29:17

82:19efforts 52:21egregiousness

69:5eight 22:23

24:9,10,13,1424:16,16,18,2224:23 25:5,825:10,19,21,2526:1 34:2535:4 40:2158:23 62:21153:3,7 155:22

Eighth 6:7,9either 29:7

46:23 72:579:1 90:1896:5 97:12117:4 118:1,21119:3,22 120:3122:24 123:1,4123:12 126:23133:21 156:11169:23 176:15179:18 181:24183:15 189:3191:16

elected 136:23election 5:10

35:2elicit 30:18eligible 178:14


Page 12

178:16eliminate

171:13 176:15Elise 16:19Ellison 7:19

59:23,23,2461:11,13,1562:2 63:8,2076:11 79:2380:15 88:2598:13,15 101:5104:22 136:17136:20 139:20140:5,14142:21 144:13145:8,11,11,12150:24,25

Ellison's 62:19144:19,21

Ellisons 7:1425:23 58:2559:2 74:2576:7,15 77:777:20,20,2579:13 84:888:7,9,11 89:6100:20 104:11138:9 139:8,13145:3,13,24146:24 147:17151:16,21

Ellisons' 89:12email 1:24Emails 13:17embellishment

22:2embraced

36:19emergency

161:4,7,10162:20 164:24165:11

employ 6:2315:7,9

employed 6:18employment

15:11 164:23enclosing 133:2enclosures

5:16encompasses

25:22encountered

81:8encourages

56:2ended 60:21

64:24 97:13104:13

enforce 32:21183:5

enforced 80:1engaged 50:19Engagement

7:7enter 61:24

102:7entered 6:3,21

8:24 50:1116:17 120:13120:25 121:2134:5 153:3,4153:8 157:16165:3 189:2195:11

entering 164:12entire 24:4 27:6

95:14 143:7entities 75:1

88:7 89:7139:8 151:7184:4

entitled 179:6,7entity 59:22

77:22 78:3,480:17 144:14168:13,25169:2,4,5

entrance 19:3enured 186:12

189:21 194:18envelope 37:4

equipped 29:18equitable

110:13,13,24equity 43:14erroneous 55:7error 27:1,4,24

28:1especially

141:5 142:7Esquire 2:4,4,6

2:7,10,11,142:18,21 3:2,512:3 13:14139:3

essence 83:13established

34:8estate 33:17

42:16 188:13et 5:19 6:9

11:14,16,22,2412:3 13:9,1113:15,20 14:414:8,12,21,2315:4 16:6,8,1016:11,15,17,1716:19,19 80:1162:8 167:18

ethical 111:10131:17 172:24

ethically 99:22106:18

ethics 33:20,2233:23 106:24154:9 156:18156:19 159:2

eucharistic34:6

event 40:16103:9,23 110:8

events 57:8136:14

eventually33:17 37:6,848:9 72:16176:20 184:23

186:21everybody

17:19 18:1842:16,17 59:1860:1 125:23135:20 173:10173:14 185:2

everybody's54:8

everyone's194:19

evidence 5:16:1 7:1 8:1 9:110:1,20 11:112:1 13:1 14:115:1 16:119:12,17,1920:6,7,12 31:831:8 35:3,1040:19 53:1256:8 58:12,2188:3 117:10160:13 180:1194:4

evidentiary26:9

exact 155:6162:22 175:21

exactly 27:328:5 29:2191:7 139:15175:17

Examination4:5,6,6,8,9,104:10,14 70:9109:20 111:6114:5 130:22132:19 134:12136:7

example 177:7exceed 104:20exceeding

45:16exceptional

32:9excess 51:16

exchange 9:444:20

exchanged188:10

excuse 47:20124:4 138:2140:11,15146:10 178:12

execute 46:572:22 73:17,2174:13

executed 5:186:11,13 16:1372:25 73:278:25 193:5

executive 2:239:6 36:14,1636:18,25 37:1037:17 38:880:19

exhibit 10:2116:23,25 44:1447:22 52:1556:8 74:1477:24 79:1883:4 106:7132:21 144:10

exhibited 52:18exhibits 5:1,17

6:1 7:1 8:1 9:110:1 11:1 12:113:1 14:1 15:116:1,17,1918:24 19:2,419:16,18 71:688:3

existed 67:24existence 52:9

83:20 122:2147:25 148:10148:10 177:22

existing 78:10115:14

exiting 129:7expect 54:9expectations


Page 13

141:21expected 53:21

85:4 105:18122:23,25174:21

experience69:14 91:12115:1 119:14119:15 120:9121:8

expertise 77:10explain 31:20

66:8 94:4,17144:17 163:17170:16 187:3188:17

explained59:17 63:19143:21 172:21

explaining194:6

explains 66:13100:23

explanation73:11 85:21107:2 171:22

exposed 92:25exposure 99:24

101:25 102:2142:8 143:11172:16

extent 23:232:21 59:17132:14

extinguished167:10

extreme 99:8extremely

75:13eyes 50:9

FF 159:12face 171:6,6

178:7,7faced 44:9

92:13 110:7

Facsimile 12:18fact 25:20 27:25

30:12 44:1246:12 48:549:18,20,2376:5 88:6,18129:13 131:1,2141:10 150:7152:20 164:13170:2 172:16173:25 181:17183:8,10,12189:21 193:5

facts 19:21 20:121:6,15 22:1,425:9,9,14 31:831:20 95:8122:16

factual 31:12factually 31:16failed 47:11

67:8 176:25184:11,12

fails 121:15failure 52:1,11fair 126:4 168:6

176:16fairly 110:17false 40:9 194:7family 7:5

77:17 78:387:18 96:21139:9 146:21147:1 150:21

far 85:2 86:18131:22

Fargo 5:19,215:24 6:3 11:2011:22,24 12:312:8,8,10,1112:13,16,19,2112:24 115:7117:14,19,21152:5,14

fashion 82:12179:4

fast 164:16faster 56:25fat 69:15father 41:22

47:20 67:5190:4

favor 8:2199:17,25 100:4

favored 50:9faxed 133:13,14fear 89:9February 8:21

8:24 12:1913:12 16:3,916:10,12 47:10127:19 195:11195:21

federal 28:1333:18 49:9

fee 169:10feel 26:11 99:12

102:9 103:1,19104:4 131:12157:11 183:14183:19

fees 43:24104:18 167:18181:12 182:17189:22

fell 77:14fellow 56:22

173:1felt 55:5 64:17

97:7 102:6104:4 110:13

fiduciary157:20

Fifth 87:13,20figure 29:15

50:11 110:22133:4,22

file 11:20 12:1915:22 74:8,1279:8 86:2488:21 115:11129:11 164:6,6

164:18 165:10185:6 186:21196:23

filed 5:11 6:166:18,24 7:38:6 15:2226:19,20 35:1142:22 44:1347:3 49:854:11 55:2358:17 59:2566:17,23,2567:4 74:5,7,2575:22 87:1791:6 105:22110:19 125:18141:11 149:17150:20 152:19161:2,4,6,18163:21 164:17164:22 165:15177:21 180:16181:23 184:16186:18,24187:6,17 192:1

files 48:1457:10

filing 49:1150:19 51:974:18 105:12134:4 165:24184:3,18 185:1

fill 155:2filter 46:23final 8:13,16

12:20,21,2413:4 57:12117:18 120:24120:25 122:5125:14,25126:2 153:3,4153:8 154:5158:22 164:12177:8 181:4

finalize 119:3finally 151:21

financial 99:9144:24 178:6,8178:10,13196:17

financing 97:11find 43:5 76:4

96:5 97:11107:19 127:4137:21

finds 63:25fine 100:15

107:5 125:6,23174:10

finest 51:23finished 140:19finishing 102:4fire 158:6firm 2:15 15:7,9

15:12 33:12,1450:23 79:25114:15 115:15148:20 155:15155:25

first 7:25 8:326:20 31:232:25 36:741:5,17 44:944:16 62:469:9 70:379:19 80:287:1,14 91:2,592:10 102:20112:22 113:23116:17 122:14127:5 129:21131:5 136:2,11139:1 150:19151:11 155:8,9161:2 164:10179:25 187:21191:2 195:25

five 23:23 24:325:11 28:21,2128:22 34:2435:4 40:21,2240:23 53:16


Page 14

90:6 120:8174:19

five-minute90:4

flesh 22:9,10flexibility 28:10

28:13,17 29:8flip 69:15 115:3Florida 1:1,17

1:19,25,25 2:82:13,16,19,233:3,7 5:13,145:16 6:7,10,126:14 15:16,1715:18,20,22,2415:24 17:5,718:5 28:1932:1,1,2 33:1151:12 55:1070:13,18 79:2589:2 108:11114:8,11 115:8139:21 140:6169:1 198:6,10198:19,25

Florida-educ...63:2

flow 169:18focus 136:11focused 140:9folks 23:10 90:3

185:10,18196:16

follow 62:1471:7

followed 27:1265:8 170:17

following 27:1357:16

follows 70:4113:24 136:3171:20

football 130:13forced 48:9

120:13forcing 102:7

foreclose166:19

foreclosed72:11

foreclosing162:4

foreclosure 7:37:5 42:20,2344:12,16 56:1859:25 60:12,2561:2 74:476:16 95:2596:3 110:12116:4 119:16119:21 120:11121:10 124:6124:25 137:4152:22 169:6170:18 171:12172:14 176:10182:15 183:11183:13 184:7

foreclosures42:19 97:5,8

foregoing198:11,15

Foreman 66:1966:21,22 67:267:8,11,21

forge 48:5forged 190:11

190:18 191:3193:8

forgery 48:1191:21

forging 47:13forgot 109:8

113:4form 55:20

82:11 102:3formal 19:23

21:10 24:8,1125:20 27:2231:10 153:9

formed 41:1241:17 77:21,22

78:3 84:9170:25

former 18:589:13 189:16196:11

formidable19:9

forming 42:11forms 101:15Forrest 16:11forth 25:24fortuitous

124:8,11Forum 9:7forward 33:8

99:24 110:5162:21

forwarding170:8

found 27:878:16 83:2,698:22 113:7160:16 191:16

four 20:2022:16 33:1334:24 35:17,1735:23,24 36:639:7 45:1280:4 154:24159:17,24161:1,2 176:12187:9 196:24

four-hour164:24

four-page 66:1Fourteen

114:14FRAM 46:23frame 119:19Frances 7:8,9

7:18,23 59:571:15 72:1873:1 74:5 76:776:8 88:14137:7 150:3

Francis 34:5

frantic 60:2364:8

fraud 115:23fraudulent

32:16Fred 2:6 59:6

71:13 72:5,672:17 77:881:19 145:23

Frederick 5:910:3 15:2436:1,23 150:25

Freeman 2:317:25,25

Friday 87:1,5134:2,5

friend 80:18144:21

friends 39:1557:1

front 38:1067:20 114:21123:1,4,14125:11 129:4192:17

FSU 130:14full 32:21fully 85:4function 36:9

36:10,12fundamentally

58:9funded 186:11funding 178:23funds 46:21

88:10 172:18190:21

further 23:7109:15 112:24123:17 130:19173:18 189:3

future 34:17

Gg 2:4 52:6 53:13

156:4Ga 10:23

gain 158:24Gainesville

59:12 70:13101:20 137:10137:12 152:1

game 130:13gather 118:19gathering

194:4Gator 16:9GB 88:16gears 166:2Gene 5:19

11:20,22,2412:3,8,10,1312:16,19,21,24115:8

general 2:233:4 24:14,1825:16 28:2332:11 33:16132:1 141:13171:9

generally 29:1129:19 80:1091:18 98:3

generated104:19

gentleman36:3 66:1968:6 184:1

gentlemen18:23 171:4192:5

geographical33:15

Georgia 8:2445:12 49:1162:3 164:11184:4 195:16

get-go 61:6getting 45:10

64:17 99:18100:4 101:24118:12 129:9,9130:7 140:20


Page 15

157:12 184:21give 33:1 36:11

37:21 61:282:12 121:15156:5 176:14184:5

given 42:145:19 47:792:25 127:6

gives 61:15giving 171:12glad 18:25 83:9Glenn 51:10

52:16,19 68:23Glenn's 53:11go 19:1 23:6

24:23 31:1160:3 63:1464:14 81:2585:2 87:1289:23 95:299:24 101:11101:14 107:8110:5 111:1131:22 153:14160:23 162:17162:21 164:21174:3 177:2179:24 188:20188:22 193:2

goal 44:5 45:1996:19 190:20

goals 53:1,596:12 173:7

godsend 153:23goes 55:21

63:12 71:14137:19

going 18:2022:12 24:225:13 29:1530:1,6 31:1035:3,9,10 37:745:6 46:2549:3,5,24 50:450:7,11 51:17

51:21 53:1,253:19 54:155:8 57:3,1859:10 60:1761:17 62:11,1963:8,10,1365:12 66:16,2068:5,6,20 69:469:12 72:1283:12 84:2485:16,17 87:487:11 90:494:14 95:797:9 101:1102:18 107:5107:18 112:12112:20,25119:18 123:6,8128:17 131:1132:6,11,16133:9 139:25140:11,12141:18 147:7153:15,17,20153:24 154:5154:14 160:5160:18,22163:1,4 173:11173:19,23,25178:25 179:4179:20,20182:18,20183:1,4 185:6185:9,21,22186:5,20,21188:21 190:23191:15,16

good 17:10,1118:18 30:2440:15 43:869:23 100:6111:10 113:20123:22,23130:24,25136:9,10 155:1174:5

goodness 104:2gosh 85:18gotten 50:6

67:10 99:6govern 141:21

148:9grab 58:6Grace 7:8,9,13

7:18,23 72:1873:1 74:5 76:776:8 137:8,25

graduated33:10

granted 120:15granting 5:24

10:19 12:15119:8 132:22

gratefully53:16

gratuitous124:7,8,9,13

gratuitously124:3

great 19:1522:12,19 104:9106:9 143:8,9143:15

greater 197:5greatly 104:19grievance

33:24 53:2254:10,12,2255:23 56:1365:24 66:23,2467:1,4 108:9174:21

grievances66:18

ground 162:24group 26:12

37:3 39:9,2341:6,10,1748:9 59:8 60:2172:8,12

groups 59:12guarantee

60:10guaranteed

92:17 167:22guarantees

42:7guaranties

93:5,7guarantor

60:15,16guaranty 42:23

92:14 93:199:14 187:25

gubernatorial17:24

guess 36:740:10 56:2375:12

guidelines121:17

guilty 64:1799:12

Gulf 77:22148:22

guy 39:13 63:2guys 99:2

186:15Gwen 18:13GWENDOLYN

2:11

HH 8:16 155:23

159:6half 65:21 69:16

77:13 145:21Hamilton 41:18

47:15,17 53:2354:7 174:22,25175:4

hammered57:21

hand 38:1169:24 102:18109:18 135:24178:18 180:21185:15 198:17

handful 127:24

handle 91:13handled 55:13handles 55:14handling 46:15

62:9hands 45:19

88:10 101:20handwriting

126:15Hang 105:5happen 79:8

110:8 121:18176:18,20

happened81:19 83:997:25 98:4100:4 104:6106:2 107:10110:6 133:5,25191:25

happens 57:867:2 68:1776:11 118:16161:11

happy 26:230:15 92:13100:10,11139:18 187:3

hard 85:7112:10

harm 112:3,8Harmless 10:6he'll 46:18 48:6

52:3,5 53:1354:16,22 59:1564:7 66:968:18 100:17100:17 133:18

head 131:4193:23

headed 78:21126:6

hear 35:9 37:740:11 46:1048:2 49:2453:2,20 54:1


Page 16

57:2 58:1359:16 64:1665:23 68:5,668:20,22108:22 130:1,3136:15 159:21160:23

heard 40:3,10101:8 151:19152:9 160:20

hearing 1:132:20 5:3 17:217:22 31:2467:20 126:21132:25 134:9156:12 159:15192:18,19

hearings156:16

hearsay 78:18140:14

heck 81:2283:11

held 79:23159:7 167:4

help 34:1061:19 66:1084:7 104:11144:24

helped 34:7157:14

helpful 113:9helping 33:22

34:2 153:23Hey 55:24Higginbotham

8:13 13:544:13 167:1,3177:15,18

high-dollar120:4

high-dollar-v...120:1

high-risk115:22,25120:3

Hill 28:24Hillsborough

198:7,18hindsight 104:9

154:7 158:16194:19

Hinson 55:956:7

hired 43:1065:17 71:1090:16 183:4,10

hit 165:11hold 10:6 77:21

108:21Holdings 16:11holds 196:10home 57:18

120:14 153:23153:25

homeowners'146:1

homes 96:22honest 32:17

52:4 191:24honestly 83:21Honor 19:6

20:5 21:2522:24 26:16,1827:9 28:2 29:769:21 111:5113:19 134:25135:15 160:10174:14

hoops 49:23hope 94:17hoped 77:11

165:25hopefully 79:6

96:22 158:8hopeless

196:20,21hoping 72:12

171:13hopper 45:14Horatio 3:7

114:8

hotly 24:4hour 36:5 174:7housekeeper

61:10housekeeping

20:19 24:7Hughes 7:8,13hundred 38:25

194:12hundreds 40:16

164:19Hunter 16:8hurried 161:4hurt 50:17

189:25 192:15husband

136:18husband's

62:15

Iidea 53:12ideas 55:6identified 36:25

86:8 152:25identify 55:20identity 151:4ifs 123:9ignore 19:1ignored 143:17III 1:4 3:9 4:12

5:15 7:20 11:311:5,7,14,1611:19 12:5,712:10,19 13:713:10,12,1714:6,10,13,1614:18,20 15:1415:17,21,2216:6,22 88:13118:6 136:1,6

image 101:18imagine 29:18

38:17 85:20immediate

161:13 189:16immediately

49:15 119:10impact 122:20impair 192:14impairment

163:9impartiality

128:11impeccably

172:24implication

111:9,15implications

73:12 171:23important 42:9

45:7 65:6116:25 117:2158:3

impose 69:6impossible

184:23impropriety

111:10in-person 171:2

171:3inability 175:4inadvertent

151:9inappropriate

143:13inartfully

170:25inch 69:16

115:3inches 37:25include 52:11

73:11 171:22included 95:18including 49:7

80:9 86:11137:7

inconsistent192:12

incredible 87:2indebted 181:2indebtedness

8:21 180:22

indemnificat...168:2

INDEX 4:1indicate 19:9

19:10indicated 30:3individually

75:21 166:24167:22

individuals166:23 167:21168:9 169:10173:24 176:11178:25 190:7

indulgence33:5

inform 76:879:1

information66:13 67:1482:16 91:2594:6 121:16

informed139:22 163:20

initial 5:4,655:12 90:17169:23

initially 56:267:18 72:4122:24

initiate 108:11inquiry 1:4

15:22 16:2117:13

Insofar 168:12insolvent

181:11instance 45:11instruction

62:14instructions

116:22 142:20insulating

49:19integral 89:11integrity 51:25


Page 17

intend 106:20intended 79:21

184:20intends 22:7interest 21:2

31:13 32:7,1332:22 50:2551:4 54:8107:2 140:10151:5 163:23167:17 171:16172:22 173:8182:16 185:14189:22 190:22

interested 61:6145:25 185:17191:10

interesting63:5

interests 32:1032:20 48:2153:5 108:15170:24 194:16

interfere174:24 175:23

intermediary61:12

interrogatori...7:16 10:16,17138:23

interrupt 28:1164:21

interruption109:5

introduce 17:1517:20

introduced56:7

investigated134:15

Investigation5:4,6 16:21

investigative2:9 5:3 192:20194:5

investment

41:4,9 48:4172:8

investments7:5 77:17 78:384:9 87:1996:23 139:10146:21 147:1150:21

investor 42:1760:7,7 121:15

investors119:20 173:1

invitation188:20

invited 23:1236:11 37:20

inviting 188:3188:15

invocation37:21,22 38:538:12,21 39:5

invoice 11:9invoke 23:7invoked 23:11

23:19involve 40:23involved 24:19

41:3,6,8 71:2373:13 75:1478:16 88:2297:10 115:9,24171:24 179:16

involvement42:10,11 84:5112:15

involves 25:2358:23

involving 31:1452:12 151:20152:5 184:4

irreconcilable106:13 107:12107:13

irrelevant101:7 109:10

issue 22:17

29:24 55:887:21 108:7110:3 116:18136:12 152:17154:13 157:10160:14 162:18162:22 170:12174:20 191:21195:24

issued 49:2052:14,14

issues 55:187:4,6 108:17131:23 139:25163:18

items 105:3IV 2:14 10:3

15:24 18:15,15

JJ 1:4 2:14 3:9

10:3 11:14,1612:5,7,9 13:713:12,14 15:2015:21 16:6,22136:1,6 139:12

Jacksonville18:7 46:1449:9 51:14,15

jams 69:18January 5:21

5:22,24 6:47:21,24 8:7,109:5 10:6,8,2412:5,7,10,1412:17 13:7,1014:16 47:10,2357:7,9,11,1984:15 86:15117:11 118:8118:11 122:25125:13,25132:23 133:13134:2 148:17151:14,17153:12 166:11198:17

Jasper 16:2341:19

Jay 2:4 18:4JEAC 154:8

157:7 158:17Jennifer 7:19

59:23,24 61:1176:11 88:2598:13,15104:22 136:17136:20 139:13139:20 140:14142:21 145:12150:24

jeopardize64:13

jeopardizes62:17

JNC 34:1Joan 12:13,16

12:22,24job 7:8,11,13,18

7:23 59:561:13,15 63:163:7,16 64:5,764:13,22,2568:22 71:14,1472:18 73:174:7 76:6,879:12 80:981:20 84:6,2188:14 96:298:18 99:21101:18 105:23136:12 137:7138:2 139:16139:19 142:10148:21 150:4

Joel 66:19John 2:4,18 8:5

10:13,17,2011:11 15:2416:17,19 17:2180:18 144:21

Johnson 2:7joined 167:1,11

joint 73:20 88:892:24 93:9,1394:7 95:697:11 98:20

jointly 60:1495:4 96:7107:3

Joseph 15:17JQC 1:5 17:24

19:11 35:10,1235:24 49:1151:5,18 52:753:24 54:463:18 65:25108:6,12,18129:13,16192:20 194:5,8

JQC's 5:1,3 6:17:1 8:1 9:119:16 28:1140:18 50:9

JR 2:6judge 1:4 2:3,3

3:9 5:4,6,7,176:3,17 9:414:3 16:2217:16,18,2518:1,12,14,1618:17 19:12,1420:2 21:2123:1,6 24:5,2126:7 27:19,2028:13,14,1529:20 31:14,1731:18 33:3,7,934:14,21,2535:5 36:19,2237:14 38:1239:3,22 40:1440:23,24,2541:3,22 42:1042:13,24 43:343:8,9,10,1244:4,4,7,10,1744:21 45:4,945:18,23 46:2


Page 18

46:6,15 47:747:11,12,19,2147:24 48:13,2248:25 49:2,5,949:14,18,2550:9,10,13,1450:18 51:2,951:10,11,16,2152:10,16,1953:8,10,11,1453:18 54:6,1354:23 55:4,656:6,9,14,1657:10,24,2558:4,14,2559:21 61:2462:3,4,10,1363:12 65:6,1367:8,9,12,2068:21,23,24,2476:18 83:1685:5 89:18109:12 111:12117:12,13,16117:20,21,23118:1,16,16120:25 121:6121:20 122:3122:15 123:1,4123:5,13,14124:4,5,23,23125:11,19126:8,13 127:4127:22 128:4,6128:10,16,18129:1,4 131:3131:9 132:22132:24 133:1,4133:18,23134:20 135:8136:9,24146:16 148:14151:12,18152:4,13,21153:15,18154:3,4,22

155:16 156:1,6156:9,10,12,14156:16,18,22156:24 157:5,8157:17 158:12158:13,20159:1,7,16160:10,15161:3,9,23162:2,5,12,14164:4,6,11,11164:15,17165:4,8,14,23166:2,3,4,9169:14,19,19170:8,22171:25 172:6172:13,16,19172:21,23,25173:9,23 174:1174:20 175:3176:8 178:18178:20,23179:10,17,19180:2,2,5,15180:17,22181:11 182:1,7182:22,24,25184:9,17,19,20185:7,15,17,20185:22 186:4,5186:11 187:18187:24,25188:3,15189:10,24190:4,5,6,19190:19,21,23190:24 191:6191:13,15,18192:12 194:2194:18 196:5,6

judge's 18:258:19 126:15

judges 27:1928:8,16 29:2330:12 42:20

86:25 154:12154:24,25

judgeships34:3

judgment 6:38:13,16,2312:20,21,2413:4 16:7,1444:1,10,2548:20 49:1,357:13 92:14120:13,24122:5,6 125:14125:25 126:2153:3,4,8154:6 158:22164:13,14165:3,7 167:4172:15 177:15177:20,23178:13,19,25185:24 189:23195:6,24 196:7196:10

judgment-pr...186:14

judgments45:12,16 177:8181:4 186:23197:4

judicial 1:1,121:16 2:9,20,222:24 3:2,45:10,20 6:916:21 17:2,417:12,17 36:2127:4 141:17148:8 154:9

judicially 108:3July 5:9 7:12

8:17 10:14,1811:9 15:21

jump 49:22juncture 23:15June 7:15 8:4

9:3,6 10:23

11:5,9 13:2216:15 138:10

junior 71:20jurisdiction

35:13jurist 69:2Jury 11:15justified 103:9

103:23justifies 103:7

111:20

KK 2:10 8:5 10:13

10:17,20 11:1116:17,19

keep 42:1057:18 94:5146:6

Kelly 59:6 71:1372:17

Kenneth 13:14kept 48:8 151:6

165:5kill 107:18kind 43:3 85:25

91:20 110:8119:15 120:11156:17 164:6

knew 45:1483:9 90:2398:18,22,23,2499:1,3 125:3146:2 163:19177:22 178:15179:19 188:14188:16

Knight 3:6114:16

know 25:1 26:429:16 31:7,2542:20 47:1655:19 58:1959:16 61:2562:23 63:964:3,16,2566:7,15 67:15

67:17,25 68:671:15 72:1374:11 77:1978:2 81:19,2282:14 85:793:7 94:10,1198:6,23,2499:1 100:11,13102:6,12,15104:22 107:5,6107:10,17112:19,20122:16 123:14125:20 126:1127:2 128:13129:21 130:9130:10 131:14131:15,22132:14 133:11133:16 134:8141:14 145:5148:20 151:24154:10,23156:21 171:1174:4 175:12186:20 190:16191:8 196:3

knowledge43:6 105:2112:16 142:24

known 7:525:15 34:948:25 72:6112:19 172:23182:21

knows 42:1662:22 82:8

Kris 9:3 11:3,511:7,18 12:314:3,22 15:1435:14 53:1954:2 57:265:17,25 66:266:3,25 67:568:1,4,10,11108:19 123:24


Page 19

126:22 130:7130:10

Krista 2:3 17:16Kurtz 80:18

144:21

Llack 50:19

51:20 52:2,1769:5

lacked 53:15Lafayette 9:6Lake 36:9 56:20

123:24 183:25land 6:4,11,13

13:13,23 14:1414:18,21 15:515:15 16:1541:3,12,14,1577:8,21 166:11166:24 168:18168:19 169:1187:24

landowners77:3

language144:12

languished56:20

Large 1:19 17:7198:10,25

late 77:13 81:21law 2:15 15:7,9

15:11 33:9,1168:17 79:2480:20 81:899:21 115:15169:2 188:9

lawsuit 78:8,1088:17 115:7141:15 162:3

lawsuits 45:652:12

lawyer 34:1635:1,14 43:4,543:16 55:9,1358:19 59:12,24

60:6 62:6,8,1162:22 63:365:2,7 76:1282:8,9,9,1085:18 102:11102:12,12112:1,9 136:20138:5 140:10141:14,18142:14,22143:21 144:3,7144:8 149:23169:19 172:24

lawyer/client158:1

lawyerly 148:6lawyers 51:23

56:3 69:1 82:6112:2 133:17

lay 169:20lead 120:18leading 35:2

111:22learn 99:4

117:17 122:1learned 26:3

69:14 80:781:4,11 97:1797:21 108:19115:1 122:14124:4,23 125:8127:21 128:3128:20 130:6131:1,5 154:11164:10 178:1

learning 109:22leave 11:10

15:3 187:21led 32:19

147:25Lee 1:23 10:4left 64:18

133:10 174:6,9legal 43:7 72:7

77:10 80:18,24139:17 144:15

145:3,9 189:22legally 182:2legitimate

45:17 60:1992:24

Leland 10:1211:8 41:22,2342:1 47:1952:13 163:21186:2 190:4

lender 56:24115:23 121:15162:7

length 70:24108:14

Leon 8:18Leslie 16:17let's 30:8 44:5

45:20 63:1471:21 79:18,18166:2 174:3177:2 179:24

letter 5:13,147:7,20,2110:10 11:1913:7,14,1914:3,6,1015:16,18,19,2055:20 56:659:14,18,1961:8 72:22,2373:4,18,2274:14 82:2483:1,1,7,8,1483:16,19 84:284:18 85:3,1085:14,20 105:4107:2 133:1,3133:17,24134:6 146:19147:6 148:16149:1,22150:10 155:12155:19 160:12160:25

letters 68:13

liabilities178:10,13

liability 49:1971:2 104:16115:23 191:19

Licensed 70:18114:11

lien 44:18 165:4184:22

liened 165:8lienors 71:20lieu 170:17

171:12 172:14173:11 176:14182:15 184:7

lifting 49:21light 191:25Lim 2:7 18:10limine 29:25limited 28:22

46:21 167:1,3184:6

line 102:24119:11 133:10173:20 193:3

lis 177:21list 19:10 52:1

155:12,22183:2

listed 23:12,17180:21

listen 66:7,12literally 161:6litigate 116:1,9litigation 11:4

52:9 70:2371:1 75:1381:2 82:186:19,21 87:1887:19 88:2096:25 97:2,1399:25 104:10110:18,24114:19,20141:1 189:14190:20,25

191:14 194:1194:10 195:19

litigations76:17

litmus 103:6little 20:14,16

20:18 22:2,922:10,25 24:725:1,2 33:457:20 58:2463:10 131:7137:20 151:2184:18 185:20195:8

live 1:17 2:1617:4 68:2276:10 79:25101:20

LLC 7:6,16 8:1716:8,10,11,1576:16 77:1778:4 136:18138:23 139:9139:10 147:2148:23 150:21168:25

LLCs 172:9LLP 2:7 3:6loan 60:10,11

60:12 78:1,584:8 88:9,1189:12,16 92:1796:6,7 97:12102:3 110:5116:9 121:17146:24 147:7156:14 166:19167:23

local 34:1 36:439:13 57:4122:12 123:24124:19

locally 33:24Lockwood 1:18

17:6 198:9,23logic 56:4


Page 20

long 51:12,1570:16 114:13120:12

long-term186:20

longer 33:461:20 75:14140:8,10141:18,22143:22

longstanding40:25 69:190:20

look 45:25 52:571:6,7 75:277:15 80:1482:21 83:21,2486:3 87:10115:12 119:5120:21 125:22131:15 137:16138:4,8,20139:1,6 144:9146:8 148:13150:18 155:7156:4 160:25161:15 164:4168:1 177:11179:23 180:6187:13 192:16194:24

looked 33:8looking 49:12

161:12looks 73:3

134:1 158:5loose 105:23lose 102:5

153:23losing 89:9lost 35:13

153:25,25lot 19:1 33:15

33:18 38:1,247:16 77:1290:5 101:15,16

167:19 192:3193:4 194:1

lots 41:16Love 34:9low 43:3Lowell 8:14

13:5lowest 43:25

184:9loyal 39:8,25

40:15loyalty 143:25LRB 10:23

MM 1:18 17:6

80:18 198:9,23M.M 10:7ma'am 160:1Madame 146:10Mahon 2:5 18:7

18:7mailing 150:5major 34:22majority 156:8making 23:16

42:25 50:253:18 108:22

Management11:21

manager 34:18managing

172:10Mantzaris 3:6

114:16March 6:11,13

6:16,18,19,217:3,6 8:1911:14 13:1414:18,20 15:849:7 58:7127:7,14,17134:16,19161:3,19164:10 189:7

marching 60:2495:24

Marina 7:14,1659:22 76:1577:21 88:889:7 138:10,23139:9

marked 18:23market 42:16married 59:5,6Marx 2:3 17:16MasterCard

185:7match 175:16material 127:19materials

180:20matrix 150:5matter 8:13,16

17:12 19:820:4 32:1146:12 52:1672:21 73:1082:9 88:21,2389:20 95:3115:25 122:17143:7,12146:22 149:17149:18 152:4,4154:1,4,14,18154:19 157:4157:25 159:10161:23 163:15164:15 171:21179:17 189:4193:10 195:15

matters 18:2156:16 72:7121:10 159:2169:14 194:18

Matthew 59:2363:8 139:12145:12 150:25

max 115:3Maxwell 2:5

4:9 17:23,23130:23 132:18

Mayanne 2:4

18:6mean 25:12,12

35:7 55:373:19 85:4,19101:13,16103:1,14,19128:25 160:7175:10 178:11179:3,5 182:12

meaning 19:25means 103:7

111:20 145:6170:23 172:6178:21

measure 91:2392:1

mechanics169:13

mediation14:15 47:5,647:11 105:14163:14 164:9165:21 166:1170:3,4 171:4171:5 176:22176:23 177:1184:13

meet 61:1479:17 81:1595:10 106:20178:7

meeting 61:1376:9 79:9,1479:23 80:781:14,17 83:385:1,23 88:2289:1,6 98:1498:21 101:21102:9 105:10106:7,11,12109:23,25139:16,19140:3 164:24

meetings 91:591:16

member 33:19

33:23,25 34:536:16,17 37:137:16,18 38:8137:11 139:21140:5 172:10

members 2:237:13 38:2088:15 172:9

memorialize54:17 79:22140:2

memorialized83:3

memory 151:15men 91:15mental 101:18

164:2mention 83:19

105:10 147:16147:18,19154:2

mentioned78:17 156:17174:15 179:25

merely 19:4merger 151:6,9message 6:15Messrs 46:4

166:9met 72:19 78:14

79:13 80:981:16 83:588:13 98:12106:5 110:9139:23 144:2,6144:7

MICHAEL 2:21mid 117:17

166:6middle 34:3

51:11 118:12162:1

miffed 65:2million 42:4,6

45:13,16 49:460:11,12,17


Page 21

104:16 145:21162:4 163:24164:13 165:7165:23 185:8185:24 186:23195:8 197:4

million-one162:6

mind 40:1742:10 111:19153:20 164:3

Mine 180:8minimis 111:11

143:17minimize

173:11 182:17186:6 189:22189:23

minimizing53:3 172:15184:7 185:17

minister 34:738:2

ministerial154:4,19 157:4158:21 159:10

minus 167:17minute 79:19

101:10 121:11156:17 181:15190:13 193:7

minutes 28:2281:21 90:6

mishmash110:24

mistake 52:3,452:4 180:7

MJE 7:5,2577:17 78:3,584:9 87:1888:7,12 89:7110:18,19139:9,12146:20 147:1,7150:21

mode 97:15

modification12:6 57:17153:22

modified156:14

moment 108:21109:12 191:20

momentarily18:22

Monaco 14:3Monday 134:3,5money 41:20

42:5 43:3 44:644:7,8,2246:17,25 47:947:19 48:850:5 61:1877:9,12 84:7179:12 185:25185:25

month 39:1950:3 75:18137:1

monthly 50:1,375:15

months 35:154:11 153:3,7161:18 165:15168:20

moral 144:24morning 17:10

17:11,12,1818:18 69:22,2390:14,15113:20 123:22123:23 130:24130:25 136:9136:10

morphed 35:1265:24

mortgage12:14,17,22,2541:25 42:676:16 84:17104:12 110:12110:18 119:16

120:11 121:10146:24 151:6,9153:21 162:4169:6 183:11183:13

motion 10:1912:12,15,2126:19 29:2548:14,24 49:1119:9 134:4141:10

motions 27:15motive 32:12move 56:18,23

56:25 120:13123:6 140:12152:3

moved 33:11123:13

moves 40:21moving 47:3,16

129:9multiple 72:20

73:10,16 91:1393:17 171:21

NN.A 12:13,16,21

12:24name 36:3 41:9

47:13 51:1453:19 56:2257:2 70:5108:20 114:1,2114:3,15129:18 130:7130:11 132:8136:5 137:13168:18 193:8

named 44:1566:19 150:24177:16,19

names 52:1168:21

Nancy 2:5 18:7narrative

140:21

nasty 35:7National 13:8

13:15,20 14:414:7,11,2215:3

nature 70:25114:18 116:2,6

Neal 3:6 114:17near 37:3 39:22

164:21nearly 19:8

25:10 95:11necessarily

149:3necessary

84:14 89:1195:5

need 25:1526:11,13 28:1034:10 38:1443:4 62:872:11,14 83:23107:5 121:16132:7 145:16148:4 149:14156:19 187:22188:17

needed 63:2174:13 79:16

needs 29:530:18

negotiate 43:2544:20 46:22122:21 145:20165:5,20182:18 184:25

negotiated45:5

negotiating46:8,20 58:1558:21 77:25121:9,20153:13 163:17184:8

negotiation120:16

neither 117:23182:19

nervous 60:4,864:8 92:11,1292:15,16,22,2496:10,12

Nessmith 16:19never 51:18,24

58:10 64:2366:21,22 67:667:6 82:1493:21 106:4108:2,6 110:6110:8,22117:25 118:22125:21 127:16129:13 131:8147:22 156:8156:15,15,23173:5,8,24,25177:19 178:25179:20,20,22182:23 183:1,1183:4,6 185:21186:10,15194:8

new 56:21147:6 154:12

Newberry70:12

nice 61:11night 87:3

161:7nine 77:16

155:7,20159:11

nominal 71:21nominally

71:19 156:10non-jury 11:23

12:12 116:15116:20

nondisclosure122:17,20160:14

nonexempt


Page 22

165:8nonprofit 34:8nonresponsive

123:7 140:17noon 174:4Nope 132:18normally 73:19

112:20 164:18North 1:24 2:12Notary 1:18

17:6 198:9,24note 8:7,10

10:12 41:2547:14 61:3,1763:22,24 65:6145:25 147:1190:10 191:17191:21 193:6,8194:3

notebook 19:1271:5

notebooks19:11 69:15114:22 115:2

noted 34:2192:10 163:25

notes 10:23198:13

notice 5:4,67:16,23 10:1612:3 14:2216:21 19:2231:10 86:15105:22 115:12116:20 119:24134:9 138:22139:2 149:12149:17 152:18152:20 153:9156:5 195:23

noticed 27:2notices 86:5notified 88:24notwithstan...

183:8,9,12November 5:15

5:21 7:2010:21 11:7,2211:24 16:1397:17 146:19

number 11:2034:13 62:2167:10 72:7126:11 142:16142:18 150:18174:19

numbered155:23

numbers 105:5167:14

Oo'clock 174:7

174:12Oak 1:17 2:16

17:4 76:1079:25 101:20

oath 38:11 40:140:12 93:25107:21

object 85:5124:7 132:6,11135:10 158:13159:16 162:14

objecting159:23

objection 26:929:6 78:1881:5 99:15101:6,9 109:10111:12,22112:5 122:18129:24 130:15132:17 160:19160:22 162:16162:25 163:5

objections 26:626:8

objective 48:18objectives

170:23obligation

183:14

obligations131:18

obliged 112:2obstacles 44:9obtain 187:23obviously 56:4

195:14occasion

194:11occasionally

89:17,25occasions

95:16 128:2occupation

70:14 114:9occur 122:8occurred 21:3

27:21,24 64:184:16 112:3166:6 170:4

occurrence161:11

occurring 84:13October 7:6,18

8:6 15:5 16:1816:20 78:2579:24 81:282:17 88:1189:1 139:16144:4,4 150:9

odd 151:3offensive 38:18offered 58:6

85:22 104:22124:22

offering 172:14offhand 74:10office 5:7 34:18

58:5 62:3 66:166:2,4,25 68:468:11 76:1079:6,15,2499:2 102:21126:22 131:17133:14 137:1140:1 142:6,13

172:11Officer 80:19offices 55:17

68:17Oh 79:13 85:17oil 46:23Okay 19:15

20:3 22:6,1122:21 23:5,1924:6 26:1727:5 28:530:14 31:157:15 74:2,2275:9 78:22,2479:4,20 82:2288:4 92:2 94:894:13,19 95:797:3,20 98:1298:24 100:2101:3 103:1,19104:8,15 105:1106:1 107:1117:6 118:3120:22 121:4124:21 125:13126:12,20127:6,13,20130:6 133:22134:18 135:10143:2 151:2155:3 160:18166:4 169:5175:7 176:2178:15 180:12180:25 181:10181:20,23195:3 197:1

once 49:2178:24 110:6113:7 120:2144:3

one-third 75:18one-word 26:8ones 48:16

102:20ongoing 89:21

open 114:22opened 33:14

71:4 163:3opening 31:4

33:2,3 36:1336:16

opinion 43:1751:19 154:10156:18,19157:7 158:17

opinions 154:9154:10

opponent 36:236:23

opportunity82:3 88:8102:11 104:23158:23

opposed 102:5opposing 66:22

67:7 102:9,10112:17 117:19118:1 123:2127:23 128:4131:8 133:19156:20 158:10161:22 165:19187:16 188:4

option 12:13,1612:22,24183:13

options 128:9153:21

oral 118:22156:5

order 5:21,246:21 10:1911:10,21,2312:15 15:3,1116:7 52:1458:3 80:21116:14,16119:8 126:9,16126:17 132:21133:6,11,18,19134:5 141:5


Page 23

188:11 189:2orders 60:24

95:24organization

34:9oriented 152:6original 13:3

35:11 127:8189:20

Orlando 18:6outbid 146:5outlined 31:9outright 41:24

47:18outset 43:12

96:1,2 171:11172:1 176:12177:3,25 178:1180:25 182:22196:15

outside 23:1397:16 145:19159:17,18,24

outstanding68:22

outward 142:8overheard

39:24overlooked

111:11overrule 160:18

160:22overruled

76:21 106:25111:16 112:7121:22 123:10158:15 163:6

owe 168:4owed 145:21

179:10,12180:2,22181:25 182:24

owes 162:6owned 59:22

60:14 77:7190:21

owner 196:6owners 59:2

88:12ownership 16:3

46:7

PP 13:14p.m 1:15 174:13P.O 2:15,19,22

3:3PA 2:11 15:7,9

15:12 79:25page 4:2 5:2

6:2 7:2 8:2 9:210:2 11:2 12:213:2 14:2 15:216:2 27:939:17 75:280:15 87:12102:24 139:1156:4 159:11160:25 192:19

pages 69:16164:19 198:15

paid 44:21 48:750:15,15 61:1865:21,22173:25 174:1,2186:1,3

Palm 17:16 18:4panel 1:13 2:2,9

2:20 5:3 17:217:22 27:729:2 33:537:14 42:987:25 100:18105:18 109:17109:17,19113:3 130:21160:23 162:19192:20 194:5

panel's 134:24paper 146:2papers 19:9

141:2 161:2164:5

paperwork165:13

paragraph 25:825:10 28:2131:14 35:23,2477:16 79:1980:14 88:1105:11 144:10159:12 160:2161:1,1 162:2163:15 168:1,2168:7

paragraphs19:21 20:17,2023:22 24:9,1124:13,16 25:525:21 87:13

paralegal 79:1079:15 81:14

parameter145:19

parcel 41:2042:2

parcels 41:15Parker 68:24Parshley 1:16

17:4part 36:6 37:9

39:7 40:948:10 77:2489:11,21 120:6124:24 176:20182:20

partial 7:2344:20 45:546:3 105:23149:12

participate101:21 181:12

particular 20:820:9 22:2244:18 56:1772:24 85:11117:7

particularly73:16 158:1

parties 19:321:3,12 24:1550:24 61:272:21 73:1675:16 84:17157:6 172:22174:23 178:22

partner 33:1346:13

partners 77:2378:17,23 88:16148:22

parts 47:17party 22:16

23:16 36:9,1436:18,25 37:337:13,18 38:438:7,20 51:478:7 91:19102:10 155:15173:23 177:19

passed 84:3169:20

Paul 5:17 6:3,56:6,9,17 8:5,98:11,20,22,2210:13,17,20,2210:24 11:5,1113:8,15,17,2014:4,6,8,10,1114:14,22 15:415:6,7,9,1216:13,17,1928:23 40:24117:12,16,20166:24

pay 31:23 46:2446:24 48:950:4 170:19173:25 182:20184:10,24185:18,20,21185:22 186:6186:15,22189:24 190:20191:15

payable 7:12paying 168:4

172:20 173:23179:1,5 181:12182:23 185:9186:5

payment 10:1249:19 50:1,375:17 121:14178:24

payments 8:88:11 43:1,2

pays 168:3penalties

167:17penalty 50:23

51:2pendens 177:21pending 48:24

56:19 85:6116:5,19 141:6149:15 154:22155:25 156:21158:11 163:19

penny 50:1565:22

people 19:133:15 34:1038:1,14,18,2539:10,24 40:1741:8 50:6,1657:18 59:461:7 69:171:15 91:14,23106:20 145:23145:25 146:1149:9 169:20171:17

perceives 48:14percent 120:8

182:17 194:12Perfect 176:2perfectly 60:18performed

153:22period 7:6


Page 24

33:13 58:863:23 124:24124:24 127:8155:14

perjury 50:2351:2

permission144:17 145:17

permitting 6:21Perry 59:4person 39:2

61:11 62:2274:9 80:1782:8 91:14129:21 140:6144:14,23172:10

personal 42:760:15,15 93:193:5,7 99:14169:23,24170:2 171:1178:5

personally60:10 64:1892:17

perspective82:25 103:8,22104:1,2

persuade 55:5pertain 27:18Petersburg

1:24,25petition 6:16

49:12 50:21161:18 164:5164:22 165:16180:11,17181:24 184:16187:18 189:12

petty 35:7phone 11:9

29:5 53:1883:10 85:16106:1 108:18112:18 142:12

143:6 149:8175:22 188:9

phrase 111:19physical 142:9pick 106:1

142:11 149:8picked 83:10pickle 142:2piece 31:12

121:16pike 45:15Pinellas 18:1pipeline 181:8place 1:16

27:10 134:19155:2 192:20198:12

plaintiff 56:2478:7 88:1289:13 110:15110:21 147:4,7150:23

Plaintiff's 7:237:25 8:3,1310:16 13:4

plan 189:20planning 33:17

134:3,4play 110:25

130:14pleading

115:11 117:8pleadings 91:6please 17:20

70:6 71:6 72:174:1,21 82:2189:5 105:11109:6 116:11117:5 118:2130:4 132:8133:2,18 136:4146:8 180:6187:14 194:24

pleased 186:7pleasure 66:15plenty 174:9

plots 96:21plowing 162:24ploy 163:17plural 145:9,11plus 112:10

150:24 181:3pocket 104:14point 32:3

42:14 50:1162:13 84:2586:16 91:14110:20 126:4129:3 132:4140:25 141:4147:23,23151:8 154:2176:9 180:13190:18

point-blank46:19 53:14

political 36:1038:13,22 39:467:3

politics 35:6Polk 8:6 11:3

162:7 189:13190:2 191:18

poor 42:18Pope 2:6,7 4:5

4:6,8,10,1418:8,9,9 19:619:20 20:421:14,24,2522:9,14,2324:20 25:2527:1 29:2,630:16,22 31:131:3,6 36:2239:21 69:9,1169:21 70:1087:24 90:199:15 101:6102:19 106:14106:23 107:22108:19,20109:10 111:5,7

111:15,17,24112:24 113:14113:16,19114:6 123:17124:7,9 129:22129:24 130:6130:15 134:13134:22 135:8135:15,19136:8,10137:18 140:11140:23,24158:16 160:9160:24 163:7174:10,17175:2,8 176:1176:6,7 180:12180:14 183:5185:22 191:24192:23 193:1194:10

Pope's 33:4popped 191:21portion 120:5

140:12,16pose 140:21posed 113:2position 32:18

56:5,9 93:19107:19 147:3148:5 149:4,5149:24 150:13150:14 185:11185:13 186:22188:20 190:24191:12,14194:8,9

positions 76:14positively

56:12 62:10possession

45:24possibility

121:19,23165:24 173:19

possible 81:14

105:12 116:21134:15 135:16172:15 182:15184:9 185:20

possibly 49:3124:19

potential 16:2456:3 59:13194:15

potentially96:6 107:17157:10

power 46:20pp 1:10practical

154:14practice 33:16

33:18 34:4,1534:19,20 70:2571:2 73:1579:6 89:23110:7 112:17114:18 119:18120:6,6,8

practiced 81:7practicing 33:9

51:22 112:9practitioner

32:15,17prayer 38:22prearranged

29:12preceded 75:19preclude 32:16precluded

55:22predicated

112:18predict 68:7preface 73:7Prejudice 16:5preliminaries

23:7premark 19:2premarked

19:5


Page 25

preparation66:6

prepare 140:1prepared 40:5

65:23 66:1,266:24 68:3,1072:14 92:2145:5 150:20160:3,6 165:12180:16

preparing164:3

present 2:1792:4,6 102:20133:12 145:16

presented160:16

presenting170:10

president 18:538:4 80:19144:22

presidents55:18

presiding 17:1826:6 51:9 53:8117:13,21118:17 127:22128:4,5 152:13156:10 164:11

presume 75:18pretty 31:9

53:17 83:4100:6 196:18

prevent 32:15previously

95:24price 42:4 89:16primarily 34:19

71:1Prime 16:7,9,10

162:3 163:20165:6,7 184:21185:2,24 196:5

principal120:10 167:13

167:15,16prior 37:15

56:15 78:12,15106:7 128:2

private 39:10privately

139:24privilege 33:7

132:12privileged

132:12pro 168:4pro-life 21:22probable

160:17probably 24:3

29:1 48:1055:5 65:974:14 80:485:17 108:4119:18 120:4,7127:24 134:7157:22 179:24185:8

probative 20:9problem 105:8problems 38:2

72:10Procedure

142:17,19proceed 90:9

109:6proceeding

33:8 39:144:16 49:851:10 65:5156:9 159:7

proceedings1:11 4:3 17:117:9 37:16197:8 198:12198:16

process 43:7164:2,4

products 71:2professional

33:20,21,2273:8 82:5 89:3112:3 142:25143:16 159:3

Program 55:12progressed

42:15Progressive

8:17project 44:8

59:3 61:3,462:19 77:5,1177:20 96:9,1596:16,20 102:4

promissory 8:78:10 10:1241:25 47:14190:10 191:21193:6 194:3

prompted125:4

promptly 79:7proof 40:14,18

47:1 178:14,19proper 32:7properties

42:13 120:1property 13:3

41:18,21,2443:13,23 45:845:18 46:7,2147:15,18 48:1853:23 54:756:10,13 59:259:5 151:7166:19 168:15174:23,25175:5,24 178:3187:23

proposed 12:2057:12 125:14146:21

propositions29:7

pros 73:20prosecuting

119:16prosecution

22:7protect 49:9protection 50:8

94:14provide 38:5

45:22 84:7150:16 155:12

provided 36:2239:21 77:980:13 89:15149:12 162:7163:19

provides112:11 171:19

providing 8:88:10 79:7

provision 168:2provisions

169:3public 1:18

15:24 17:669:6 88:21108:17,23198:9,24

publicly 21:22publish 87:25puffery 165:18pull 158:6purchase 16:24

41:14,21 42:442:12 63:2278:1,5 88:1089:12,15 96:7110:5

purchased41:18,19 42:2

purchasing88:9

purporting180:1

purpose 41:14106:11

purposes 65:5169:6

pursuant 89:14116:22 149:16

pursue 170:24188:1,4

pursuing186:13

put 18:24 26:2427:25 40:1142:5 54:1566:8,14 67:1471:4 90:6104:11 123:4126:13 160:21180:21 189:15190:13

puts 58:1128:18

putting 32:1746:7

QQuali 16:8Qualifications

1:1,12 2:9,202:22,24 3:2,416:21 17:2,13

qualified151:18

quarter 89:15quarterly 8:8quarters 69:17question 21:1

30:4 51:2466:11 73:8,1476:19,22 80:2282:11 85:699:8 101:2,12102:25 103:3103:16,18106:24 109:8111:25 113:1,5122:19 124:10129:25 130:1,3140:22 145:15145:18 146:12151:5,8 153:19153:24 154:13


Page 26

159:21,24163:4,5,8170:25 173:6179:3 187:5188:19 193:3193:14,24194:14,21

questioned193:5

questioning136:12 194:2

questions 90:2109:15,16,17109:18 111:9112:24 113:2123:18 126:10130:21 132:17134:24

quick 53:17132:21

quickly 56:1856:23 57:9182:14

quiet 59:11146:6

Quit-claim10:25

quitclaim 6:116:13 8:1916:13 45:2346:5 170:11,14

quite 25:1356:19 90:2391:9 197:1

quotation31:25

quote 73:9 82:482:5

quotes 54:15

RR 12:5,7,9radio 36:5

39:13rain 37:25rained 193:23raise 69:24

109:18 135:23raised 116:7

162:22rally 36:9 39:1range 89:23rata 168:4Rauch 10:4

36:4 39:12,1239:13,20 40:740:8

Rauch's 39:1639:17,19

reach 54:9 55:3127:3 153:21

reached 43:979:23 127:18139:24

reaction 81:3132:5

read 88:4 89:4108:23 109:1,3109:9 110:16145:7 146:11146:13 163:8163:11 171:20

reading 21:17reads 46:3ready 176:5real 42:16 97:9

151:7 166:19173:19 188:12

realize 24:10realized 72:20really 18:21,25

24:1 36:7 43:245:7,17 54:460:4,4,7,8,1360:16 61:1164:23 71:2381:24 85:492:11 96:3,1096:12 100:24100:25 110:22133:24 147:22149:9 160:8

reason 37:22

45:18 48:1151:24 60:561:1 84:392:24 117:2121:13 129:6,7192:7 193:21

reasonable52:4 141:20

reassignment154:22

Rebekah 1:1817:5 198:9,23

recall 26:1854:3 68:15,1868:19 75:1580:12 96:8,1096:11,11,12,1498:5,7,10,16102:22 125:24126:10 129:7133:16,20,21134:6 155:6

received 54:582:24 83:1,1179:8

receptive165:21 166:1

recess 90:7,8135:22 174:12174:13

reciting 73:8recognized

92:7 100:9,12recollection

72:19 81:2092:6

recommenda...43:9

reconcile 32:20103:12

reconvene174:7,11

record 70:674:18 88:21108:17,23110:17 114:1

136:5 148:21149:17 150:6,8160:21 170:11198:16

recorded 44:12167:7 177:20

recording 9:667:19,22

recoup 96:23recovered

120:7recross 112:25

134:23recuse 123:13recused 123:4Redacted 11:9

16:21redirect 4:6,10

111:4,6 134:11134:12

reduce 171:13reduced 198:13refer 21:11 74:1

74:21 75:8,25116:11 117:5118:2

reference 36:1877:16 155:3

referred 36:1797:4 145:3,13151:25 172:13

referring 20:17102:24 105:3144:19 159:12

refers 144:20145:11

refiled 26:23refinance 96:6refinancing

102:3reflected 88:20refutes 37:1regard 20:5,16

20:22,24 21:2122:3,17 23:2524:7 29:23

47:15 168:8169:8

regarded182:25

regarding 5:126:11,13 15:5,521:1 22:20170:13

regards 21:7105:13

regret 154:7relate 23:22

132:14 160:8related 40:23

87:6,6 157:24193:25

relates 28:2091:10 95:6160:14

relationship86:16 90:21121:5 122:2,15123:12 127:22128:3,5,21131:2 148:11148:12,25156:5 157:17157:20 158:2160:3,15

relative 69:5174:16

relatively 57:9relay 91:24release 44:20

45:5 135:14released 135:2

135:4 148:6149:16

releasing135:11,12,20

relevance112:6

Relevancy 81:5relevant 30:4

100:25relied 141:24


Page 27

172:22relief 187:22,23relies 35:25relieving 141:7

189:2relitigating

162:21rely 91:23rem 188:12remaining

96:21 108:15110:11,14,25

remedies 188:1remember

47:17 51:1367:23 74:1080:5,7 83:4,885:15 91:796:24 102:25111:21 142:2

remembers54:16

Remittitur16:14

remod 57:17rendered

178:13repeatedly

53:2,20rephrase 85:9

101:2 106:15106:17 122:19124:14

report 131:10131:18,25

reported 1:1817:5 132:4198:11

reporter 69:25108:23 109:1,3109:9 132:7146:11,13163:11 198:4

REPORTING1:23

represent

18:11 32:10,2343:10 71:10,1283:23 89:1894:3 110:11141:19 149:9166:5 179:17189:10

representation40:24 49:1652:12,22,2453:10 58:2567:11 72:1273:9,12,2175:12 82:788:20,23 94:795:6 102:1140:9 142:11152:18 156:24157:1,13158:25 166:3168:9 169:9,13171:20,23172:12 173:7176:10 177:3181:1 182:10182:11,13184:6

representative18:2 172:7

represented56:15 59:962:5,22,2466:21 67:6,871:16,24 82:887:8 88:17,1993:16 95:15123:2 124:4,5124:23 125:19139:17 140:4144:16 152:20168:10 184:1,3

representing18:14,16 33:759:21 72:16,2073:15 74:975:16 82:6

95:3 110:20131:9 136:17138:17 140:8141:15,23143:21 148:2150:23 151:16187:9 190:25193:12,15194:2,13195:14,18196:16

represents35:14

reprimand15:24 69:6

Republican 9:621:22 39:9,2540:15,15

reputation 26:3request 87:24

105:21 118:24149:11 150:15155:17

requested109:3,9 146:13149:13 163:11

require 141:18required 32:18

80:20 94:595:1,4 105:14170:20

requirement142:16 148:8172:3

reschedule127:16

rescheduled58:10

reserve 16:920:6 35:20

reserves 19:25reset 119:10,12

119:13 126:18134:20

residential41:16

resolution117:18 143:11

resolve 117:15139:25 149:15

resolved 118:13185:23

resolving118:13

respect 32:14140:6 146:22170:18 179:19182:9,14,24183:6 189:18191:14

respectfully87:24

respective50:25 51:580:17,24144:15 145:2,9145:12 172:22

respond 116:18responded

105:22 125:24173:2

Respondent2:13,16 3:1018:17

Respondent's5:13 10:1 11:112:1 13:1 14:115:1 16:119:18

respondents55:21

responding178:21 194:5

responds 57:13response 5:6

5:13,16 15:1954:19 85:11,25105:21 118:24140:17 149:21150:15 155:4155:20 160:12

responsibiliti...

86:18 141:8responsibility

44:23,24 159:3189:3

responsive91:6

rest 48:8restate 108:25result 35:5 49:3

158:24resulted 42:12

50:10resulting 196:9retained 107:3

115:19,21166:4

retaining124:19

revealed106:18,21160:2

review 68:12178:5

reviewed177:13

RICHARD 1:23rid 48:18right 17:10,19

18:19 19:2520:6,13 21:522:11 23:1024:21 26:230:14,24 35:2038:11 39:269:20,24 73:773:23 75:6,878:24 80:581:3 83:1984:23 86:13,2090:1,9,18,2191:3 92:5,8,1192:18,23 93:1494:11 95:12,1696:9,25 97:5100:6,10103:21 104:3


Page 28

104:20 105:15105:16,19,24106:5 108:6111:18 115:5115:17 116:25117:10 123:17123:25 125:15125:19 126:14126:22 127:23127:25 128:9128:23 133:5135:23,24137:13,22138:8,20 139:6140:18 141:13142:10 143:5144:9 147:12147:15,22148:19 152:3152:16 153:11155:11 156:3158:5,9 159:5160:25 163:7166:18 167:13168:8 169:8,22171:9,19 175:8176:18 177:2177:14 179:9181:6,14187:11,13188:25 189:9193:16,20,23195:23

rights 32:22rigid 32:14risk 92:8 93:8,9

93:12,13 99:9risked 143:8,9risks 73:13

171:24rlr@richardle...

1:24road 70:13

126:6Robinson 9:3

11:3,5,7,18

12:3 14:3,2215:14 35:1453:19 54:2,1454:15,17 55:257:2,4,5 65:1865:18 66:10,1168:1,11 108:20123:25 124:16125:4 128:21129:18,19130:8,10174:20

Robinson's54:23 58:565:25 66:2,366:25 67:568:4,11 126:22

rock 83:7 84:4Rogers 46:13role 154:3

158:20rolls 57:19room 94:21Ross 7:8,13rotation 128:19round 167:14routinely 157:9RPR 1:18 17:6

198:9,23rule 23:8,10,18

26:9 32:1346:9 51:653:25 62:20,2073:8,24 82:489:2 141:13142:19 171:19

rules 82:5 89:2112:2 141:17141:20 142:17142:24 143:16148:9

ruling 27:16run 34:14

151:18 156:18running 38:16

43:24 67:4

Ruppel 2:7rush 174:8rushed 49:8

162:12Rust 13:7

SS 6:5 8:5,20

10:13,17,2011:5,11 13:813:15,20 14:414:8,11,2215:4,6,7,10,1216:13,17,19

S-i-e-g-e-l 70:8sale 16:23

56:12 174:22174:25 175:24

salvage 44:861:3,4 62:1896:9,15

salvaging 96:16Samuel 7:18satisfied 102:2

128:10 172:6satisfy 172:3

190:20saving 46:16saw 80:11 91:8

91:9 95:15122:11 126:20148:4 149:14

saying 38:1355:24 57:2479:12 96:9,1096:11,14,2499:2 133:2150:11 174:21188:17 193:20

says 40:8 50:1855:22 57:1561:10 64:380:15 119:13134:3 144:13145:8,10187:21 188:7195:6

scared 60:5,13101:18

schedule 18:1981:14 180:9

scheduled 38:347:5 49:2156:12

schedules28:17 30:9,1550:20 162:10164:1,2,5,19165:17 180:19183:2

Scheduling11:21

SCHNEIDER2:21

School 33:11Schutte 5:9

10:3 15:2436:1,23,24,2438:9,16 39:639:14,16,17,18

Scott 2:10 6:156:20 13:10,1213:19,22 14:1414:16,18,2018:11 43:15138:24 161:21187:17

scramble164:16

scrape 47:8scrivener's

27:1,3,24 28:1seal 198:17search 178:3seat 136:4second 19:22

27:23 31:942:2 44:2566:25 105:11125:10 161:1

secret 83:2087:21 88:13,2289:6,14 147:17

147:19secretary

126:24 127:2,3Secure 10:19secured 166:19see 18:23,25

26:23 30:844:14 48:2258:2 60:3 80:291:2,24 98:4103:3 117:6119:6 130:14147:16 176:13179:20 183:1,4185:14 196:2

seek 51:18seeking 120:10

163:23seen 110:22

112:22 117:7125:21 141:5195:25 196:1

sell 41:15 53:2254:7 61:2196:22 104:13

semi-annual8:11

seminars 34:334:4

send 57:2275:15 133:1,3133:17

sending 79:1085:14

sends 57:12senior 135:16sense 177:6sensitive 157:8sent 79:11 84:2

84:18,21 85:385:10 125:14133:24 152:18160:17 163:22

sentence187:21

separate 74:8,9


Page 29

74:15 169:2190:3

September7:17 10:3,411:18 14:11,14102:21 103:19138:24

sequence 57:8sequestration

23:11series 111:8serious 161:10served 7:10,11

7:14,16 8:433:24 34:1375:4 108:16117:11 138:10138:24 139:3143:10,25144:22 151:12152:19

serves 151:15service 7:16

75:3 86:7138:13,13,22141:1 150:1

servicer 116:9services 75:23serving 10:16

138:5 141:2143:22 150:2152:21 169:3

set 31:13 34:1034:12 41:2350:3 57:3,658:1,1,8 86:25116:21 117:3118:11 126:14129:9 163:16

sets 61:12setting 5:21

11:23 116:14settle 153:20

154:14 162:5165:6 171:11184:23,24

185:18 191:15settled 32:8

58:9,10,17,1879:14 87:489:22 95:19110:9 117:4122:24 154:15156:13 157:3184:15 196:8

settlement 6:346:3 57:1276:4,6 81:2584:7 87:7 89:889:9,10 98:4102:7 108:5109:23 110:4118:12 119:4120:19 121:1,9122:22 126:2,5126:7 132:3139:24 143:11146:21 153:13153:14 166:1172:19 178:24182:18 196:4

settlements186:12

settling 112:15162:10 165:18165:21 174:2184:19 186:1

seven 23:2324:3,11,1225:12 31:14,1440:22,23 50:1880:14 83:286:23 137:20144:10 165:15

several-milli...92:14

Shanee 55:956:7

shape 197:2,3share 32:4

162:2 164:8168:3

She'll 55:25Sheet 7:5shift 166:2shocked 131:7Shore 59:6 64:2

64:12 71:13,1372:5,6,17 77:881:19 90:18,2193:4,11 97:2298:13,14,17,2299:5 104:23107:6,7,16145:23 147:9148:22

Shore's 60:20Shores 59:9

90:16short 23:4 30:6

57:21,24 109:7119:1 135:17

shorthand198:11,13

shortly 58:1897:21 106:7151:17

show 35:3,1036:4 39:1950:8 62:2 97:597:8 193:4

showing 67:10194:6

shown 125:18shows 138:13

180:8side 31:18

68:20 97:5,8122:12 125:3

sides 45:10151:3

Siegel 4:4 7:87:13,20,2259:10,11 60:360:3,18,2262:6,16,1763:25 64:12,2164:23,25 69:11

70:2,7,11 71:473:14 89:1790:14 102:18111:2,8 112:1113:7 136:14138:7,14,16139:3 140:5,7141:2,7,22,23142:12 143:6143:22 144:1146:20 147:24149:1,9,22150:3,5 151:19

Siegel's 60:2136:13 140:9143:3 148:16149:5 150:13

Siegmeister40:2,5

sign 59:14 63:674:16 99:14133:2,18164:16 191:18

signature 48:6190:11,19191:3

signatures 8:88:11

signed 10:6,916:3 57:2358:4 59:1675:3 79:2 86:892:4 126:16,18132:22 141:1144:5 191:17

significant 93:893:12 120:5163:18

significantly35:23 64:11

signing 154:5signs 57:25

59:18,19Simmons 3:6

114:16simple 143:6

simply 40:454:24 86:5116:2 157:11188:8,17

single 46:1050:15 73:1094:15 96:21171:21 172:10

sinister 63:19sir 31:2 69:8,22

72:2 73:6 76:190:10 102:22103:3 108:7109:14 111:4113:11,25114:12 115:4,5118:18 123:22126:11 127:21133:7 135:1,6136:4,16,19,25137:2,5,12,22138:9,12,19139:11,14,18141:9 142:6,9142:23 143:1,4143:12,18144:11 146:8146:17 147:11147:21 148:1148:15 149:20151:15 152:2,8152:11 153:6153:16 155:10158:8 159:8161:14 165:24166:8,13,17,21167:6 168:23169:17 170:1,5171:8,18 172:4176:17 178:17179:13 180:3180:18 181:7,9181:22 182:7184:14 187:1,8187:11,12,15188:6,8,24


Page 30

189:18 190:8190:16 191:5192:3,23193:17,19194:25 195:2,5195:20 196:25

sit 59:11 64:7154:25 178:4

sit-down 95:20sits 89:19sitting 27:19,20situation 81:23

93:3,22 94:8129:14 131:8146:23 161:10173:22 178:6,9181:1,19

situations127:21 169:25177:4

six 33:21 56:1480:4 83:286:23 137:19160:2 192:22192:23

skeletal 164:22slight 32:12slow 96:3 97:14small 35:6 39:9

39:23small-town

35:6smaller 33:15

60:7smallest 48:19Smith 2:11 8:16Snyder 16:17So.2d 32:2sold 56:10

84:17sole 88:12

149:21solely 165:9

184:21solution 44:2,3solved 151:21

somebody61:10 102:6107:19 128:14146:5 154:5

somebody's62:24 158:2

somewhat56:20 65:3

son 34:15son-in-law

34:17,17soon 43:23

59:11 81:14105:12 116:21

sophisticated63:2

sorry 93:1098:2 103:18,24106:16 109:5127:11 130:2130:17 132:7137:18 192:24

sort 55:3sought 123:13sound 175:14sounds 125:16

127:10,12source 40:13

117:17South 16:7,9,11

162:3 163:20165:6 184:21185:2,24 196:5

South's 165:7span 109:8speaking 26:7

162:15speaks 83:17

83:22special 63:18

127:22 128:3,5specialist 183:9specific 62:23

95:8 132:2154:10 170:8

specifically

63:1 110:4speculation

121:21 122:18speculative

106:14,23107:22,25154:23

speech 36:12spell 70:6 114:1

136:5spend 22:12

83:23 95:11193:4 194:3

spent 33:21194:1

spoke 98:13spoken 78:14spokesperson

172:7St 1:24,25 34:5stage 36:13

37:15,20 39:10stages 75:12stalled 115:20

119:25stamps 170:14

170:19,20stand 30:20

31:11 45:1149:24 50:14

standard 32:473:15

standing 39:939:22 40:2119:23

standpoint43:20,21

stands 139:12139:12 166:15

start 17:15,1855:16 69:1387:1 118:7

started 60:1165:10 171:17174:16 187:9

starting 41:2

87:5 113:17starts 63:8

148:19state 1:19

16:14 17:740:1 42:2170:5,18 113:25119:2 136:5172:24 194:9198:6,10,18,25

State's 10:19statement

31:22 33:234:23 38:1339:11 51:152:2 54:14126:4 162:19165:16

statements51:8

states 79:21139:2 161:2180:10

stating 21:21status 86:22statute 80:20stay 49:20,21

95:8 187:22188:14,18

stayed 187:25step 23:13

113:11 120:25135:2 173:17

Steve 17:23Steven 2:5stick 79:18 90:6stipulate 22:1,5stipulated

19:21 20:531:7 49:2188:2 126:9127:9 174:23175:1

stipulating19:11 20:15,2224:15 25:4

stipulation16:5 19:3 21:221:10,24 22:722:17 25:757:23 174:16175:2,9,13,15175:19,21

stipulations23:24 25:16

stood 41:6stop 165:9

184:21 185:2stopped 185:2

185:4storm 37:23story 64:5straight 46:18

174:5stranded 38:1strategy 170:23

172:13 184:12186:20

streamline19:8

Street 1:16,242:8,12 3:717:4 114:8

stricken 27:14strictly 154:3

158:20strike 123:6

140:12 151:2struck 26:20

27:21structure 163:2stunned 112:23styled 115:7subdivide 41:15subject 82:7

88:23 89:13136:13 152:4160:11

subjective141:21

submitted158:22 164:14


Page 31

subparts 24:12subpoena 28:9

135:3,5,11subpoenaed

30:17subsection

49:13subsequent

41:11subsequently

108:19 178:2substantial

178:9,12,20182:19 184:24185:7,10

substantively112:13,14

substitute115:14

substituted78:6

succeeded184:14,16

successful162:10 165:17177:1

sued 45:1092:13 166:18

sufficient 133:8suggest 58:20

111:13suggested 43:3

191:2,6suggesting

27:6 28:3suggestion

53:18suggests 49:11

194:1suit 7:3,5 78:13

147:4 163:22176:10 177:17189:10,11190:2,3,3,9,11

suit's 47:3Suite 1:24 2:12

suits 190:5summary 8:13

13:4 49:1164:12 168:6

summer 37:24superior 8:24

43:6supervision

198:14Supplemental

15:22support 38:6

144:24supports 56:4supposedly

52:17Supreme 1:6

15:24 32:1sure 23:17

29:13,24 49:2250:12 53:1691:1 100:24,25109:13 119:17133:24 134:8,9174:8,18 192:3

surely 196:22surprise 103:8

103:23 149:2,3sustain 132:16

140:16sustained

78:19,20 81:683:18 99:16101:9 107:23109:11 111:23

Suwannee 1:1617:3

SW 1:16 17:4swallowed 85:2sworn 70:4

113:24 136:3151:13

system 112:8112:11

Systems 8:17

T

T 12:13,16,22,24tab 69:13 71:5,7

72:1,3 74:2175:8,25 77:1578:25 82:2183:24 86:387:10,14,15113:17 114:25115:4 116:11117:5 118:2,4119:5 120:21137:25 138:1,4138:8,20 139:7146:9,15,16148:13 149:19151:10 155:7,9155:20 159:11161:15,16166:14,21,22167:25 179:23179:24 180:6187:14 189:1192:17 194:24

table 27:8163:16

tabs 74:1137:16 174:3177:11

take 22:2540:22 44:1745:24 49:662:1,11 71:575:2 77:1578:4 81:1182:21 83:2486:3 87:1090:4 101:15119:5 120:21128:17 134:19136:4 137:1,16138:4 139:6144:9 146:8148:13 150:14150:14,18152:23,23155:7 161:15

165:25 173:17174:14 177:11179:21,23180:6 182:8,23183:5 187:13194:24

taken 25:1445:4 52:16102:3 190:25192:11

talk 36:4 39:1356:8,11 61:1261:14 63:2365:11 67:1671:21 73:1987:12 91:24101:10 106:8124:2

talked 28:2356:16 60:972:21 84:25110:2 127:25188:9

talking 23:2339:23 55:2261:9 94:2197:4 112:12157:2 171:6176:9 196:14

talks 62:21Tallahassee 1:1

2:19,23 3:328:25 55:10,15

Tampa 1:24,241:25 2:13 3:718:10 51:1256:21 114:8198:18

tank 42:17Tattnall 8:24Taylor 7:4 59:1TD 6:6,9 13:7,8

13:10,11,12,1313:14,18,19,1913:22,23 14:414:7,11,13,14

14:16,16,18,2014:21,22 15:315:14 42:2243:15,19 44:1947:4 49:7,2250:2,6 53:4125:18 161:22163:14,19165:6 166:18166:22 167:10170:18 171:11176:9,14177:16 178:2178:21,24182:11,11,12182:14 184:24186:1,13 188:1189:11 190:3195:19

Tea 22:16 36:936:14,17,2537:3,13,1838:4,7,20

teaches 34:7Ted 59:7 71:13

72:5,7,17 77:881:19 145:23

telephone28:25 54:5118:20 124:22170:9 171:2

telephonic 14:529:8,11

televised 5:920:24,25

tell 29:4 39:1439:15 43:16,1743:19 44:246:14,18 47:648:6 50:1351:17,21 52:352:5,8 53:1454:22 55:2,1255:25 58:559:15 60:3,1860:22 61:5


Page 32

62:7 63:8 64:766:9,11 68:1,868:18,24 69:272:3 84:186:21 87:1494:1,10,23,2495:1,5 98:6,1198:12 100:17112:20 118:20119:14 131:14131:16,24138:21 139:15142:7 156:19181:5 187:20

telling 55:1980:8 98:7,10107:16 142:13157:21,22188:13

tells 47:1259:13 64:594:23

ten 90:7 172:9ten-and-a-h...

66:3term 97:6terminate

75:23terminated

86:17 148:11terms 33:20

57:16 62:880:16,24 81:1127:19 142:8144:14 146:21

Terry 10:4 36:339:12

test 103:6testified 70:4

101:17 105:17113:24 128:22134:14 136:3136:14 152:10

testify 37:1343:16 59:1066:20 100:17

151:20testimony

25:13 28:2138:6,24 64:17118:19 136:13136:15 140:13142:3

textbook 46:16thank 23:19,20

30:25 31:1,669:6,8,19,2290:11 104:2105:15 109:4109:14,16111:2 113:11113:13,18130:20 134:10134:22 135:1,1135:5,6 140:23146:14 152:8174:10,12176:3,4,6192:25

theme 53:165:12

then-counsel88:13

then-defend...88:14

thereof 5:8,10they'd 177:16thing 28:7,18

35:19 43:2262:4 64:665:11 69:1885:19 105:10105:17 111:14116:17 143:13149:15 164:7174:15 175:11193:25 194:21194:22

things 31:2138:14 41:544:17 45:1452:20 68:9

79:7,8 97:13101:16 103:7110:17 112:10120:10 157:8,9157:21,22158:19 174:2189:20,24192:2 193:25194:17

think 24:22,2326:13 31:2341:1,8 42:945:15 48:251:15 54:8,2556:18 58:261:9 65:374:14 80:1181:15 83:1685:6,22 87:392:15 93:794:7,25 95:2,497:3 100:12101:16,17,23102:4,13 103:5103:14,25104:1,1,13107:9,12 108:8111:20 112:8,9114:22 125:4126:11 127:18129:6,6 132:1134:7 149:4,10150:7 155:4,22158:9 160:23163:3 168:6180:7 182:5187:11,22192:10 194:21195:25 197:3,7

thinking 83:8164:3

thinks 63:18third 5:19 7:3

34:1 39:789:18,24119:18 128:15

Thomas 2:36:15,20 13:1013:12,19,2214:14,16,18,2043:15 46:13161:22 163:13164:8 187:17187:20 188:9188:16

thought 29:185:15 92:23100:13,18101:21 103:15103:17 107:11108:13 131:4140:8 153:17181:18 194:6

thousands55:14

three 18:2121:21 26:2427:7,25 28:1635:18 36:737:12 38:1941:16,16 43:1145:16 46:1748:21 49:1650:6 57:1159:12,20 61:768:22 69:1775:15 87:191:15 93:2394:20 95:15,1897:20 166:18167:21 168:9169:9,11,21171:10 172:1176:11 177:3,4180:3 184:8190:5,6 191:22192:5,23193:12,15194:14

three-minute31:4 36:11

tide 77:14

tight 47:9tighten 25:1tighter 25:2till 76:5Timber 16:15time 1:15 19:13

22:12,25 23:823:15 26:10,1026:14 27:2033:12 34:14,1836:8 37:2039:19 41:1142:3,14 47:747:18 48:1751:12,15 56:2058:8,17 60:1261:2 62:1463:24 67:369:16 75:21,2177:19 78:2,1182:25 83:2384:3 86:1487:3,9 88:1690:24 91:2195:11,14,1997:24 98:20100:12 105:5106:6 107:10108:8 112:22115:3 116:5119:19 122:14122:21 124:5124:25 126:5127:8 129:1,3136:13 138:19140:25 141:4144:8 146:23149:7 152:21153:1,19 154:3154:8 157:10158:18 164:11168:17,18170:9 172:8179:10 182:4193:4,13,18194:1,4 195:25


Page 33

196:3,3,14198:12

times 19:1 57:3112:16 127:24

timing 184:20title 44:19 45:3

46:1 77:2178:4 151:6,9168:15 178:3

titled 187:23to-be-formed

139:9Toby 14:3today 18:20

28:11,12 29:1429:23 30:8,1133:8 35:9 37:740:6,11 45:1149:24 103:13147:23 193:20

Todd 183:24told 40:8 44:4

48:6 62:1063:1 65:767:24 74:1179:15,16 80:1081:24 82:283:6 85:1893:18,19,23,2495:23 97:2498:3,7,11103:12 106:10106:19 107:16117:25 124:3140:2,6 163:21181:17

tolerated 32:8Tom 17:25tomorrow 40:6

79:17 85:1799:3

total 8:18165:22

totaling 45:13177:8

totally 156:24

162:6 182:10186:7

Towers 46:13town 35:7towns 35:8Tozian 2:10,11

4:5,9 18:11,1119:7,14,2420:2 21:5,1521:19,23 22:1923:6,20 24:1,324:8,21 25:925:18 26:16,1827:5 28:2,730:12,17,2532:25 33:376:18 78:1881:5 83:1685:5 90:11,13100:22 101:8102:16 106:16106:24 107:24109:7,12,14111:12,22112:5 113:4,9121:21 122:18123:6,21124:10,13,15129:25 130:2,5130:17,19134:25 135:12158:13 159:16160:1,20162:14,18163:9 174:14174:19 175:10175:14,22176:3 192:22192:25

Tozian's 23:2transaction

32:11 54:2059:1 84:10,1384:16 160:10170:20

transactions

42:12 160:8transcript 1:11

5:3,8,10 9:617:1 192:18

transfer 46:146:12

transferred51:14

transpired81:17 85:3

treated 35:22169:5

trial 5:21 11:1511:23 12:1323:16 57:4,671:2 116:15,20116:21 117:1,4118:10,14119:4,10,12121:24 123:3123:16 127:8129:10 134:16134:18 153:24154:1,15,20

trial's 57:19trials 26:4 87:1tribunal 51:7

52:17tried 87:4 117:4

122:24,24,25153:15,18

trouble 158:2193:23

true 91:18142:14 198:15

trust 6:4 10:2311:8 13:13,2314:14,17,19,2115:5,15 16:1441:12,14,2343:22 163:21166:11,24167:25 168:10168:16,18,19168:22,24169:1,9 171:10

176:11 186:2187:24 190:4,6190:21

trustee 8:510:8 168:4

trustees 57:11166:10,23168:3,22

truth 193:9try 45:18 61:2

61:17 63:2169:17 90:594:17 96:397:16 123:1,13145:21 146:5171:11 189:22192:4

trying 18:2047:4 56:1096:5 97:1198:18 122:21132:23 133:4133:22 162:5163:16,17176:22 192:14

turn 61:2164:19 72:1189:1 192:19

turned 38:1372:15,16 100:8

tweak 63:10,13twice 144:2,6twist 64:19two 19:11,22

20:23 21:8,1122:3 26:23,2327:7,24 30:1233:20 34:2235:18,25 36:642:13 44:2246:3 48:2349:14 50:1662:18 65:20,2166:11,17 68:1369:13 71:477:13 86:25

91:2,5,9 92:1593:19,24 94:194:10,24,2495:12,15,18,2099:4 106:22113:18,19114:23 128:9137:17,18142:18 145:21153:21 155:8,9169:20 171:3173:24 175:20177:7 178:25185:8,15 186:9188:2,4 190:22192:22 193:24194:25

two-year155:14

type 46:11 56:469:2 172:18

typewriting198:14

typical 38:22185:5

typically 146:1154:25

Uultimate 111:25ultimately

73:21 78:6120:18 131:18143:9 184:14184:14 196:24

unanimously99:23

uncertain 62:8unclean 88:9uncollectible

182:3,25undermine

84:12undersigned

88:17,19,24undersigned's

88:23


Page 34

understand38:24 76:5,2294:20 95:23108:10 124:16126:17 144:2158:17 173:9

understanda...65:4

understanding78:22 84:1094:13 96:19101:25 166:17191:8

understandi...79:22

understood84:5,15 96:2,497:9,14 99:8103:16 104:3138:16 165:22173:2 178:22182:21 186:4,4

undertaken73:10 171:21

unequivocally62:10

unexpected162:13 163:12

unexpectedly161:11

unfair 58:15,21unfortunately

42:15 77:1286:24 104:21

unilaterally128:16

Union 41:7 48:4United 180:10unity 171:16University

33:10 63:1unlosable

43:20unrelated

156:25unsecured

162:6untruthful

162:20unusual 172:8unwinnable

43:21updated 178:3uphill 101:19upset 81:18

142:1,5use 61:18uses 60:22usually 39:20

112:19usurped 88:8

Vv 5:19 6:6,9 8:5

8:13,16 10:1310:17 11:8,1111:14,16,20,2211:24 12:3,812:10,11,13,1312:16,16,19,2112:22,24,2413:5,8,11,1313:15,20,2314:4,8,11,1714:21,22 15:315:15,24 16:516:8,9,11,1516:17,19

V-a-l-d-e-s114:4

Valdes 3:8 4:75:23 11:1912:5,7,9,1856:22 57:1,1357:13,15,2258:4,18 113:16113:22 114:3,3114:7,21130:24 132:10134:14 152:5152:10,13,18152:19 153:12153:22

value 20:9various 119:19

180:5veil 131:21venture 88:8verbatim 5:8

5:10 198:15verge 164:12

186:1Verified 8:3versions 87:15victim 35:5video 5:7,9view 102:8,14

102:14 112:1143:14 145:2151:8

viewed 158:20158:21

Vile 15:17violate 93:25violated 46:9

49:17 142:19violates 51:6violating

107:20 142:18violation 35:21

35:22 47:253:13,24 89:2143:16,20

violations20:21 23:2227:17 69:6

virtue 37:246:12 107:15108:5 130:7

vis-a-vis 194:8Visa 185:7volume 1:10

69:13 71:4113:18,19114:23 137:17137:18,19155:8,9 192:16194:25 197:8

volumes 86:23

192:17voluntarily

86:6 160:11voluntary 7:23

105:23 149:18150:1 180:11

Vreeland 8:510:13,17,2011:11 16:17,19

vs 10:20 32:2115:7

Wwait 30:21,22

135:21waiting 74:15waiver 72:23

73:18 74:13waivers 10:6

92:3walk 141:14walked 65:1

101:19 133:10133:23 134:7

walking 64:9WALLACE 2:6Wally 18:9

192:22want 20:18

21:24 24:625:3 27:628:17,18 32:435:20 62:1,1864:6,14 65:1184:11 88:489:4 94:9 95:899:22 101:23108:25 110:3121:13 131:15164:6 174:8175:18,20

wanted 20:1022:2 28:3 29:431:21 56:11,2461:1 81:18,2581:25 84:496:9,14,24

97:1 99:5,1099:23 100:10100:16 102:5103:6 106:11110:4 113:10116:8,9 121:25140:1 146:6151:5 164:7,8171:1 180:13186:5 188:10

wanting 126:20wants 26:15

32:25Warranty 13:3Washington

38:15wasn't 28:2

37:18 49:1859:15 61:597:10 101:22126:16 141:12150:12 155:17159:9 162:13185:12 196:18197:1

water 43:1346:22

way 24:8,2331:24 37:1147:11 55:1461:15 62:1963:9 69:1579:13 96:5115:2 133:21158:6,21161:12 165:1180:15 186:9

we'll 17:15,1818:22 20:2321:10 26:1028:20 29:10,1429:16,21,2230:8,10 50:1369:11 90:5113:16 135:21174:7,11


Page 35

we're 18:2022:11,11 23:2325:4 29:3,1530:14 55:872:12 90:4,7128:10,13135:12 154:17162:21,23174:12 175:5176:9 191:10196:14

we've 31:7 33:836:23 56:1661:25 87:3119:17 133:2159:18

weather 112:14web 39:17week 36:5 87:2

87:5weeks 79:3,9

80:4,12weigh 68:23well-meaning

32:11Wells 5:19,21

5:24 6:3 11:2011:22,24 12:312:8,8,10,1012:13,16,19,2112:24 115:7117:19,21152:5,14

went 30:542:16 65:1767:19 68:1386:21 130:13132:25 154:12163:14 164:9164:25 196:15

weren't 71:2399:18 133:12134:8 144:16165:12 177:3179:4 188:19192:13

weren't.' 85:19West 3:7 114:8whatsoever

38:8,23,23143:20 158:24172:18

White 2:4 4:64:10 7:8,8,137:18,23 18:4,427:13 59:5,1559:17 60:2,4,560:13 61:5,961:13,15,2362:2,5,7 63:163:7,16 64:2,564:8,13,22,2465:1 71:14,1572:18 73:174:5,7 75:2076:7,8 79:1279:23 80:10,1581:20,23 84:684:21 86:6,1288:14 89:1091:2,5,8 92:492:4,10 93:1594:9 95:1096:8 97:1,1897:22 98:2,1899:5,17,23101:4,10,18105:13,23106:4,10,19107:4,16 108:2109:19,21111:2 113:2,6132:20 134:10136:12 137:8137:10,17139:16,19,23140:4,7 141:21141:25 142:1142:10 143:10143:15,20144:13,22145:7,8,14,14

145:24 148:2148:11,21150:4 151:25

White's 7:9,1160:21 80:18103:8,22 113:1113:4 137:25138:2 144:20148:2

Whites 25:2459:8 74:1975:14,17 79:180:25 82:1,384:14,17 86:1487:22 88:15,1888:24 89:8,1189:15 90:17109:23 111:9113:8 138:6,17139:7 144:3,6147:10,18149:1,16 150:8150:8

Whites' 85:1888:15

wife 34:18 40:244:22 60:10,1460:21 64:1871:13 72:1773:1 84:6,2292:17 99:9,14105:24 164:25196:6,10

wife's 60:19,20185:25

William 6:5,138:5,9,12,13,178:19,21,2310:7,9,14,1710:20 11:11,1311:16 13:5,813:15,20 14:414:7,8,10,1114:23 15:416:5,13 41:152:22 53:6

166:25 195:7WILLIAMS 3:2willing 61:23Windstream

11:9wipe 185:6wiped 181:25wish 192:3wishes 65:8withdraw 6:21

11:10 15:348:14,24 93:2093:21 141:18194:22

withdrawal52:21

withdrawn49:15 191:22192:7 193:12193:15,21194:13,20

withdrew 65:14151:16

witness 3:819:10 22:2523:12,18 28:1929:9 30:19,2031:2 32:2540:6 46:1169:10,23 70:370:7 102:16108:25 113:13113:15,23114:2 135:4,7135:8,11 136:2136:6 198:17

witnesses 22:822:15,22,2423:3,9 30:2,730:13,18 35:2568:23 160:4

wives 93:4,6Woodington

6:5,8,13,218:6,9,12,14,208:21,22,23

10:7,9,11,1410:18,20,2211:11,14,1613:5,8,15,1713:20 14:4,7,814:10,12,2315:4 16:4,5,1331:15,19 41:141:4,13 42:843:2,4,5 44:1145:1,8,9,15,2246:2,4,19 47:647:13,25 48:148:5,12,1550:16 52:10,2253:6 65:14,17161:24 166:4,6166:10,16,25167:5,22168:21 169:16169:24 172:17173:5 177:7178:5,8,9179:9,18 180:2180:4,22 181:6181:10 182:14182:20,24183:15,25185:12,19186:3,7,14,18187:6 189:4,17190:14,17,18191:3 195:7,15196:12

Woodington's44:23 196:17

Woodington,...8:17

Woods 7:14,1659:22 76:1577:21 88:789:7 138:10,23139:9

word 35:2537:4

wording 175:21


Page 36

words 60:22175:16

work 29:20,2133:19 51:1352:20 55:24,2556:3 94:797:16 119:19153:22 162:9165:16 175:25184:2,13 192:4

worked 33:1272:8

working 32:696:4 163:25

works 26:5 34:6176:1

worried 60:1664:9 129:8

worse 197:3worth 181:4worthy 158:10wouldn't 95:1

103:8,22106:12 107:17107:19

write 33:2262:14 105:9

writes 63:3,4writing 66:9written 5:6

68:13 118:22126:18 150:10152:20 169:10

wrong 27:9105:5 147:15166:15

wrote 52:19105:4

XXavier 34:5

YYeah 98:3

100:17 129:23135:12 147:20153:4 168:14

175:10year 33:25

66:17 77:13122:5 130:14153:2,7 168:20187:6 196:2

years 33:10,1333:21 34:1341:1 42:1550:5 51:1765:20,21 70:1770:24 72:677:13 81:7106:8 112:10114:14 115:21172:23 187:9196:24

yeoman 153:22yesterday

151:22,22

Z

004-2010-CA-...

15:404-2010-CA-...

6:7,9,22 13:913:16,21 14:514:9,12

04-2010-CA-...14:23

07-493-CA5:19 11:22,2412:4,11,14,1712:22,25

11 1:10,10 5:3

10:3 26:2127:18,22155:13

1-51 19:161-67 19:181,074,000

167:141.1 163:23

1.3 163:241.4 162:41.8 49:4 164:13

165:7 185:23195:8

1:01 174:1310 1:14 5:16,17

6:15 7:10,1110:22 11:587:12 155:19161:18 163:13165:14

10-188-CA 7:310,000 47:8

186:1010:03 90:810:15 90:8100 1:24109 2:12 4:610th 17:311 5:19 6:16

7:21 8:6 9:610:24 11:647:22 49:8,2552:24 87:13113:17 114:25115:4 148:17164:17,18193:3

11-3-120C16:10

11-3-121C16:8

11-3-122C16:12

11:07 135:2211:09 135:2211:58 174:13111 4:6114 4:811th 57:14

84:15 125:2512 5:21 7:24

8:17 11:3,3,22116:11

123 4:9

1288 2:1512th 49:7

164:1013 5:22 6:16,18

11:5 14:14,1615:8,14 41:8118:2,4 161:3161:19 168:1,2

13-14 14:2013-25 1:5130 4:9132 4:10134 4:10136 4:1414 5:24 6:19 7:6

7:12 9:5 10:2110:25 11:7,1413:19 41:8119:5 126:11132:21

14-383 1:614106 2:22 3:314th 47:2315 6:3,22 10:23

11:9 13:1216:18,20 68:25120:21 172:10186:23 189:7197:4

15th 17:1716 6:4 11:10

15:19 24:9,1024:13,17,2425:6,8,21 26:1166:14 168:1

16-17 13:2217 4:3 6:6 8:19

11:13 15:21166:21,22

18 6:8,11,1311:15 117:5,5182:17

19 5:2 6:2,117:2 8:2 9:210:2 11:2,1812:2,5 13:2

14:2 15:2 16:245:13

192,643.668:18

1978 33:11198 1:101989 32:3

33:141999 154:1119th 57:14

22 5:4 10:4 26:21

27:18,22 45:1660:12,17 80:15104:16 197:8

2.5 185:820 5:15 6:13

10:3 11:1941:1 51:1768:25 172:23

200 2:12200,000 45:2

177:8 181:3,72000 41:22004 6:5 8:7,10

10:6,8,11,1241:17 166:12

2005 13:3 42:32007 116:5

119:19 120:42009 8:14,21

13:6 16:3179:14

2009-CA-00...13:5

2009-CV-17...16:15

2010 5:21 7:3,67:7,10,11,127:15,17,18,208:17 11:20,2211:24 12:415:25 16:1342:22 57:673:3,5 75:2379:1,24 81:2


Page 37

82:17 88:1189:1 97:17104:19,24115:13 116:6117:18 120:5138:10,24146:20 155:12155:13 157:17166:6 189:6

2011 5:21,22,246:3,11,13,157:21,24 8:6,1910:23 12:5,712:10,14,17,1912:23 13:7,1013:12,14,18,1913:22 14:7,1114:14 57:7,986:15 117:12117:19 118:8121:3,4 125:13127:7 132:23148:17 151:17153:5,12161:18 165:14

2011-CA-00...10:21

2012 5:9,10,115:13,15,166:16,18,19,226:24 8:24 9:39:5,6 10:21,2511:3,5,7,9,1214:3,16,18,2014:23 15:5,6,815:10,13,14,1615:19,19,2147:10,23 122:4151:17 152:17153:1 155:5,14160:13 161:3161:19 189:7195:11

2012-00,796...15:17,22

2013 5:3,5,6,18

8:4 10:3,5,1510:18 11:14,1711:18 16:9,1016:12,18,20,2249:7 151:12,14192:21

2013-CA-00...11:14,17 16:6

2014 1:14 7:616:6,16 17:367:3 102:21

2015 198:172060 1:2421 5:22 6:4,15

8:14 9:3 10:1011:21 12:713:6 16:9,1016:12 75:2102:24 118:8161:15,16166:11

218 1:16 17:421st 134:222 5:3,6,21 6:16

7:3,6 8:7,108:21 10:6,811:23,24 16:3180:7 192:21

220,000 104:11226.95 7:12229-1588 1:2323 6:18 10:5

12:3,14 15:16138:24

235,000 41:2041:23

235,400.008:10

24 5:24 6:197:20 11:2012:5,10,1716:13 187:14

24,976.27 8:1524th 57:19

132:23 133:13133:15 146:19

25 5:21 6:3,2112:7 13:716:15 121:4189:1

25,000 44:11167:4

25th 57:7118:11 121:3122:25

26 6:23 12:913:10 15:25

27 7:3 8:24 11:912:12 69:13,1971:5,7,8195:11

27th 195:2128 7:5 8:4 11:7

12:1529 7:7 12:18

14:3 72:1,374:14

2nd 58:7 127:7127:17

33 5:5,6 7:15,17

10:6 13:1416:22 26:2127:18,22138:10

3-4.3 53:253,611.25 8:83:12-bk-016...

15:8,10,1230 7:9 10:12

12:21 57:2574:1,3 104:14104:15,20126:21 127:1133:9 137:16137:21,25163:14

30- 58:7 119:2121:24

30-plus 81:730,000 48:7300,000 174:1

307 32:231 5:9 7:11

12:24 14:774:1,6 137:16137:21 138:1

32 7:12 13:370:17,24 75:8112:9

32064 2:1632302 2:1932317-4106

2:23 3:333 7:14 13:4

44:14 74:21102:24 138:4,8

33602 1:252:13

33606 3:733701 1:2533757 2:834 7:16 13:7

138:2035 7:18 13:10

33:10 75:2577:15,24 78:2579:19 83:4139:7 144:10

36 7:20 13:1237:25 82:21106:7 146:9,15146:16

37 7:21 13:1483:24 105:6,7105:7,9 127:7148:13

38 7:23 13:1786:3 105:3,7149:19

39 7:25 13:19105:3 150:18

391 2:19

44 5:7 10:8 15:5

82:17 88:1189:1 117:11139:16 144:4

159:114-1.16(b)

53:254-1.7 49:174-1.7(a) 46:94-1.7(c) 73:9

73:24 171:194-1.8(b) 53:254-1.8(g) 46:94-1.9 53:254-2.2 82:44-3.3 51:64-4.2 62:20

89:24.5 165:2340 8:3 13:22

87:10,14,15151:10

40,000 104:14104:15,20

4046 70:1241 8:5 14:342 8:7 14:643 8:10 14:1044 8:13 14:13

174:3 177:11177:13

44075 11:2012:7,10,19

45 8:16 14:1657:25 126:21127:1 133:9174:3 177:12177:13

45-day 58:8119:2 121:24

4500 44:21456,000 179:11

180:23 181:346 8:19 14:1847 8:21 14:20

179:23,24,2548 8:23 14:22

169:3 194:24195:1,2

49 9:3 15:3


Page 38

4th 57:9 79:24

55 5:9 7:7,18

10:10 11:1814:23 73:478:25 82:17144:4 156:4

5:47 1:1550 9:4 15:7500,000 196:951 9:6 15:952 15:11 52:1553 15:1453-2011-CA-...

10:1453-2011-CA-...

10:18 11:12535 1:2454 15:16 56:855 15:1856 15:2057 15:2458 16:3583 32:259 16:55th 57:11 81:2

125:13

66 5:11 10:12

11:17 12:413:18 14:1115:6 16:6

6(b) 5:3 162:19162:22 192:18

60 16:7609 3:7 114:861 16:1362 16:1463 16:17 192:19

192:2464 16:1965 16:2166 16:2367 16:256th 155:12

77 5:13,13 10:13

11:12 15:1973:3 185:5

7(b) 45:25 46:147:1

7(c) 49:137(e) 53:137,222.50 8:117:00 161:67:30 161:770 4:575,000 185:24

196:9

88 5:14 6:24

10:16 12:19,2215:10 160:25198:17

8:34 1:15 17:5813 1:2382 87:13 88:1,6825,000 145:2283 87:14 88:1

89:4,684 87:148th 102:21

99 5:16,18 10:15

10:18,19 13:314:18 15:1260:11

90 4:590s 34:8911 2:8

Date post:	11-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongtuong
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

RECEIVED, 03/03/2015 12:54:16 PM, Clerk, Supreme … # 24409462 E-Filed 03/03/2015 12:49 ... Gene...

Documents