Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 502016CA004546XXXXMB O'BOYLE_ MARTIN E_ - TOWN OF GULF STREAM - Part 2 of 3
IPM.Note SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 502016CA004546XXXXMB O'BOYLE, MARTIN E. - TOWN OF GULF STREAM - Part 2 of 3 eservice@myflcourtaccess.com SMTP eservice@myflcourtaccess.com SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 502016CA004546XXXXMB O'BOYLE, MARTIN E. - TOWN OF GULF STREAM - Part 2 of 3 X-Vipre-Scanned: 0FA53EC601363C0FA54013 Received: from GSEXCH-1.GulfstreamTH.local (10.0.0.22) by GSEXCH-1.GulfstreamTH.local (10.0.0.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7 via Mailbox Transport; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:55:58 -0400 Received: from GSEXCH-1.GulfstreamTH.local (10.0.0.22) by GSEXCH-1.GulfstreamTH.local (10.0.0.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:55:38 -0400 Received: from mfcrelay.myflcourtaccess.com (199.127.92.81) by mail.gulf-stream.org (10.0.0.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1130.7 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:55:37 -0400 Received: from winapp9 ([10.199.100.40]) by mfcrelay.myflcourtaccess.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.17514); Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:55:42 -0400 From: "eservice@myflcourtaccess.com" <eservice@myflcourtaccess.com> Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 502016CA004546XXXXMB O'BOYLE, MARTIN E. - TOWN OF GULF STREAM - Part 2 of 3 Thread-Topic: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 502016CA004546XXXXMB O'BOYLE, MARTIN E. - TOWN OF GULF STREAM - Part 2 of 3 Thread-Index: AQHUOWd0d/3SBYA7I0CdotVQ+m9gjQ== Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:55:42 +0000 Message-ID: <MFCRELAY2VrQ9rIhMBR0005ea6c@mfcrelay.myflcourtaccess.com> Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: GSEXCH-1.GulfstreamTH.local X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-vipre-scanned: 010A65A1011A36010A66EE Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_MFCRELAY2VrQ9rIhMBR0005ea6cmfcrelaymyflcourtaccesscom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 eservice@myflcourtaccess.com SMTP eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Inbox SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER 502016CA004546XXXXMB O'BOYLE, MARTIN E. - TOWN OF GULF STREAM - Part 2 of 3 Notice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 76746464 Filing Time: 08/21/2018 11:53:40 AM ET Filer: Hudson C Gill 954-463-0100 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502016CA004546XXXXMB Court Case #: 50-2016-CA-004546-XXXX-MB Case Style: O'BOYLE, MARTIN E. - TOWN OF GULF STREAM Documents Title File Notice Of Filing Not. of Filing - Affidavit & Exhs to Aff of Renee Basel-COMPLETE.pdf Notice Of Filing NOF & Attachment-2-COMPLETE.pdf E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Edward C Nazzaro tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org <mailto:tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org> Hudson C Gill hgill@jambg.com <mailto:hgill@jambg.com> hgill@jambg.com <mailto:hgill@jambg.com> blanca@jambg.com <mailto:blanca@jambg.com> Jeffrey L Hochman hochman@jambg.com <mailto:hochman@jambg.com> fox@jambg.com <mailto:fox@jambg.com> finley@jambg.com <mailto:finley@jambg.com> Joanne M. O'Connor joconnor@jones-foster.com <mailto:joconnor@jones-foster.com> Hudson C. Gill hgill@jambg.com <mailto:hgill@jambg.com> blanca@jambg.com <mailto:blanca@jambg.com> Joanne M. O'connor joconnor@jonesfoster.com <mailto:joconnor@jonesfoster.com> mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com <mailto:mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com> Jonathan Reilly O'Boyle oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com <mailto:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com> joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com <mailto:joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> jonathanroboyle@gmail.com <mailto:jonathanroboyle@gmail.com> Martin E. O'boyle moboyle@commerce-group.com <mailto:moboyle@commerce-group.com> brussell@commerce-group.com <mailto:brussell@commerce-group.com> Nickalaus Taylor oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com <mailto:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com> ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com <mailto:ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com> Robert A Sweetapple pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com <mailto:pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com> lwills@sweetapplelaw.com <mailto:lwills@sweetapplelaw.com> rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com <mailto:rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> E-service recipients not selected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal The following identifier(s) are associated with this transaction: request_id#:76746464;Audit#:259983890;UCN#:502016CA004546XXXXMB; B25DEC909220844DA33D27465CA6D648@gulf-stream.org <MFCRELAY2VrQ9rIhMBR0005ea6c@mfcrelay.myflcourtaccess.com> Notice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 76746464 Filing Time: 08/21/2018 11:53:40 AM ET Filer: Hudson C Gill 954-463-0100 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502016 Trey Nazzaro Trey Nazzaro EX /O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=4F2A29F2B5E049B995E816021A4AFFE0-TNAZZARO EX /O=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=4F2A29F2B5E049B995E816021A4AFFE0-TNAZZARO eservice@myflcourtaccess.com eservice@myflcourtaccess.com Trey Nazzaro Trey Nazzaro eservice@myflcourtaccess.com eservice@myflcourtaccess.com tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org II=[CID=05d2fd77-3b80-4023-9da2-d550fa6f608d;IDXHEAD=01D4396774;IDXCOUNT=1];TFR=NotForking;Version=Version 15.20 (Build 2157.0), Stage=H4;UP=10;DP=1C5 en GSEXCH-1.GulfstreamTH.local 1B45B9EB550B1E44 Anonymous 0FA53EC601363C0FA54013 Notice Of Filing - Pages 119 to 124.pdf .pdf Notice~1.pdf Notice Of Filing - Pages 119 to 124.pdf application/octet-stream B5544D89CCB3CD45BC247698C3EB5251@gulf-stream.org EnUs Notice Of Filing - Pages 1 to 160.pdf IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2016 CA 004546XXXXMB (AA) MARTIN E. O’BOYLE, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM; JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSON & STUBBS, P.A.; SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, P.L. Defendants. __________________________________/ DEFENDANT, TOWN OF GULF STREAM’S, NOTICE OF FILING1 Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM (“Town”), by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby gives notice of filing the following: 1. On February 2, 2017, Defendant, SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, P.L, and Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq., filed a notice advising that Sweetapple was waiving his privilege with respect to documents and emails he exchanged with David Sufrin, Esq. Contemporaneous with the filing of the February 2, 2017, notice, SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, P.L, served the referenced emails and documents on all parties. The Town now files those documents with the Court for consideration with its Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 1 This Notice of Filing, together with the attachment, was sent via electronic mail to the individuals on the attached Service List on August 20, 2018. Filing # 76746464 E-Filed 08/21/2018 11:53:40 AM O’Boyle v. Johnson, Anselmo, et al. Case No. 2016 CA 004546 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was SERVED and FILED through Florida Courts E-filing Portal to those listed on the attached service list on this 21st day of August 2018. JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant, Town of Gulf Stream 2455 E. Sunrise Boulevard Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (954) 463-0100 - Telephone (954) 463-2444 - Facsimile By: Hudson C. Gill JEFFREY L. HOCHMAN Florida Bar Number 902098 Hochman@jambg.com HUDSON C. GILL Florida Bar Number 15274 Hgill@jambg.com -2 SERVICE LIST Attorney for Plaintiff Nick Taylor, Esq. The O’Boyle Law Firm, PC 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Phone: 954-834-2209 Fax: 754-212-2444 Email: oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, P.L. Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq. Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, PL 20 S.E. 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSON & STUBBS, P.A. Joanne M. O’Connor, Esq. Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100, P.O. Box 3475 West Palm Beach, FL 33402 joconnor@jones-foster.com Town of Gulf Stream Trey Nazzaro, Esq. 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream , FL 33483 Tnazzaro@gulf-stream. org -3 -ro•n: David Sufrin . • - g RE. more water for your boil 117 : December 12, 2014 at 11.19 AM To: Robert Sweetapple t • I * r Try my cell 856-912-6637 If I don't answer — office is fine too. 856-365-0080 We have some stuff to talk about! Did you read the Supreme Court Decision in which he tried to have my files deemed public records? I 'm attaching for your interest. OF course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. My file is six feet tall. From: Robert Sweetapple [mailto:sweetapple13@me.corn] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:10 PM To: David Sufrin Subject: Re: more water for your boil Best #? Regards, Robert A. Sweetapple On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:07 PM, David Sufrin <dsufrin@law-nj.com> rote: Call me this week. Going to be coming to Palm Beach at some point this winter. Taking a look through my six+ foot tall file for some reading material for the plane ride. • •:- • o_boyle_longpor t_sufrin.pdf 127X9N Time of Request: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:07:02 EST Client ID/Project Name: gamble Number of Lines: 798 Job Number: 2827:492733115 Research Information Service: Natural Language Search Print Request: Current Document: 1 Source: NJ State Cases, Combined Search Terms: orboyle longport sufrin Send to: STEINBERG, SAUL ZUCKER STEINBERO SONSTEIN & WIXTED 415 FEDERAL ST CAMDEN, NJ 08103-1147 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, 4 ' ** LexisNexis' 1 of 100 DOCUMENTS MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, PLAINT1kk -APPELLANT, v. BOROUGH OF LONGPORT, AND THOMAS HILTNER IN HIS CAPACITY AS BOROUGH OF LONGPORT CLERK AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. A-16 September Term 2012, 070999 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY 218 N.J. 168; 94 A.3d 299; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787 November 18, 2013, Argued July 21, 2014, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 426 N.J. Super. 1, 42 A.3d 910 (2012) [***11. O'Boyle v. Borough of Langport, 426 N.J. Super. 1, 42 Aid 910, 2012 N.J. Super. LEXIS 80 (App.Div., 2012) SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.) Martin E. O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport (A-16-12) (070999) Argued November 18, 2013 -- Decided July 21, 2014 CUFF, P.J.A.D. (temporarily assigned), writing for a unanimous Court. In this appeal, the Court addresses the Page 1 application of the common interest rule, which extends the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and attorney work product to information shared with attorneys representing separate clients, in the context of a request for production of public records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and the common law right to access government records. Martin E. O'Boyle is a resident of the Borough of Longport who previously filed several complaints against the Borough and its officials regarding Borough governance. In 2008 and 2009, O'Boyle filed separate lawsuits [***21 against a former planning and zoning board member, Peter Isen, and two Longport residents. David Sufrin, the private attorney representing Isen and the Longport residents, suggested to Longport's municipal attorney that they cooperate in the defense of current and anticipated litigation filed by O'Boyle. To that end, Sufrin prepared a joint strategy memorandum and a compendium of documents contained on CDs and sent them to the municipal attorney. In time, the municipal 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** attorney returned the assembled documents to Sufrin. O'Boyle submitted OPRA and common law right of access requests to the Borough Clerk that encompassed the materials exchanged between Sufrin and the municipal attorney. Longport withheld those materials from its production, asserting that they were privileged. O'Boyle filed a verified complaint seeking access to the withheld documents pursuant to OPRA and the common law right of access. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, determining that the withheld documents were not public records subject to production under either law. The Appellate Division affirmed. O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 426 N.J. Super. 1, 42 A.3d 910 (App. Div. 2012). The panel assumed that the withheld materials were public records and found that the materials [***3] constituted Sufrin's protected attorney work product. The panel held that the materials remained privileged, despite being shared with the municipal attorney, under the common interest rule. The Appellate Division also concluded that the withheld documents did not have to be produced under the common law right of access because, even if the materials were public documents, O'Boyle's interest in accessing the materials did not overcome Longport's interest in withholding them. The Court granted O'Boyle's petition for certification. 212 N.J. 431, 54 A.3d 811 (2012). HELD: The Court expressly adopts the common interest rule as articulated in LaPorta v . Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 340 N.J. Super. 254, 774 A.2d 545 (App. Div. 2001). Applying that rule, the private attorney's protected attorney work product remained privileged despite its disclosure to the third-party municipal attorney because the materials were shared in a manner calculated to preserve their confidentiality, in anticipation of litigation, and in furtherance of a common purpose. The requestor also failed to articulate a particularized need for the withheld Page 2 materials as required to obtain privileged materials under the common law right of access. 1, The attorney-client privilege shields the disclosure of documents otherwise accessible under OPRA. [***4] K.L. v. Evesham Twp. Bd. of Educ., 423 N.J. Super. 337, 32 A.3d 1136 (App. Div. 2011), certf denied, 210 N.J. 108, 40 A.3d 732 (2012). The attorney-client privilege is ordinarily waived when a confidential communication is revealed to a third party, unless the communication is disclosed to the third party to advance the legal representation. Rawlings v. Police Dept of Jersey City, 133 N.J. 182, 627 A.2d 602 (1993). Over the years, various relationships have formed to permit an exchange of confidential attorney-client communications beyond the narrow confines of the attorney and client and a third party retained to assist the representation. The common interest rule was first discussed in the context of the attorney-client privilege In re State Comm'n of Investigation Subpoena No. 5441 (SCI), 226 N.J. Super. 461, 544 A.2d 893 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 382, 550 A.2d 484 (1988). In SCI, the court held that a client's confidential sharing of a report created by its attorney in anticipation of litigation with an "interrelated" non-client entity with "a common interest" did not waive the attorneyclient privilege. The Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 76(1) (2000) (Restatement) also recognizes that the exchange of confidential information between or among two or more clients with a common interest in a litigated or non-litigated matter, who are represented by different attorneys, preserves the privilege against third parties. (pp. 13-20) 2. The work-product doctrine also shields the [***5] disclosure of documents otherwise accessible under OPRA. Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, the State Univ., 210 N.J. 531, 46 A.3d 536 (2012). In most instances, disclosure by an attorney of his or her protected work product to a third party 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** functions as a waiver of the protection. N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-29; N.J.R,E. 530. In LaPorta v. Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 340 N.J. Super. 254, 774 A.2d 545 (App. Div. 2001), the Appellate Division applied the common interest rule in the workproduct context, concluding that that the rule may extend the protection of work product shared "among counsel for different parties if (1) the disclosure is made due to actual or anticipated litigation; (2) for the purposes of furthering a common interest; and (3) the disclosure is made in a manner not inconsistent with maintaining confidentiality against adverse parties." Id. at 262. The panel emphasized that it is not necessary for the interest of every party to be identical; instead, the focus is whether the parties have a common purpose, measured at the time the protected documents are disclosed, Id. at 262-63. The panel also found it is sufficient that litigation is contemplated, rather than commenced, for the common interest rule to apply; that the common interest applies in civil or criminal proceedings; and that, in addition to communication between counsel, the rule protects communication "between counsel for a party and an [***6] individual representative of a party with a common interest." Id. at 262. Although the common interest rule applies in both the attorney-client privilege and the workproduct context, the scope of protected sharing depends on which privilege applies because the work-product doctrine permits disclosure to a wider circle of third-parties without waiver of the privilege than the attorney-client privilege. (pp. 20-32) 3. Access to public documents may also be procured in accordance with the common law right of access. Unlike OPRA, disclosure pursuant to the common law right of access "must be balanced against the State's interest in preventing disclosure." Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dept of Educ., 198 N.J. 274, 966 A.2d 1054 (2009). In order to determine whether the common law right of access applies to a particular set of records, a court must first Page 3 determine whether the documents in question are "public records." Att. City Convention Ctr. Auth. v. S. Jersey Pubrg Co., 135 N.J. 53, 637 A.2d 1261 (1994). Second, the party seeking disclosure must show that he has an interest in the public record. If the record is privileged, the requestor must articulate a "particularized need," Wilson v. Brown, 404 N.J. Super. 557, 962 A.2d 1122 (App. Div.) (citing McClain v. Coll. Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 492 A.2d 991 (1985)), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 473, 968 A.2d 1189 (2009). Finally, once an interest is established, the burden shifts to the public entity to establish that its need for non-disclosure outweighs the plaintiffs need [***7] for disclosure. Educ. Law Ctr., 198 N.J. at 303, (pp. 32-33) 4. The common interest rule is designed to permit the free flow of information between or among counsel who represent clients with a commonality of purpose. It offers all parties to the exchange the real possibility for better representation by making more information available to inform decision-making in anticipation of litigation. Although the Court recognizes that any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege and work-product protection, restricts the disclosure of information and may intrude on the factfinding function of litigation, the Court finds that the rule recognized in LaPorta strikes an acceptable balance of competing interests. The Court, therefore, expressly adopts the common interest rule as articulated in LaPorta, Common purpose extends to sharing of trial preparation efforts between attorneys against a common adversary. The attorneys need not be involved in the same litigated matter or anticipated matter. The rule also encompasses the situation in which certain disclosures of privileged material are made to another attorney who shares a common purpose, for the limited purpose of considering whether he and his client should participate [***8] in a common interest arrangement. (pp. 33-37) 5. The protected attorney work product 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 NJ. LEXIS 787, *** disclosed by Sufrin to the municipal attorney brief). remained privileged pursuant to the common interest rule. Sufrin and Longport shared a common purpose at the time of the disclosure because Longport had defended many civil actions filed against it by O'Boyle and anticipated further litigation from O'Boyle, and Sufrin was attempting to defend a civil action commenced by O'Boyle arising out of one client's official position and others' participation in civic affairs. Sufrin also disclosed his work product in a manner calculated to preserve its confidentiality. There is no evidence that the municipal attorney shared the material with anyone else, including O'Boyle. Once the municipal attorney declined to enter a joint defense strategy, he returned the privileged material, thereby minimizing even an inadvertent disclosure. Finally, although privileges may be overcome by a showing of particularized need under the common law right of access, O'Boyle failed to demonstrate a particularized need for the privileged material supplied to the municipal attorney. (pp. 37-39) The judgment of the Appellate Division is [***9] AF'F'IRMED. COUNSEL: Jonathan R. O'Boyle, a member of the Pennsylvania bar, and Walter M. Luers argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Luers, attorney). Gene R. Mariano argued the cause for respondents (Parker McCay, attorneys; Stacy L, Moore, Jr., on the brief). Matthew T. Nelson, a member of the Michigan bar, argued the cause for amicus curiae DRIThe Voice of the Defense Bar (Goldberg Segalla, attorneys; Mr. Nelson, Michael J. Leegan, and Mary Massaron Ross, a member of the Michigan bar, on the brief). Thomas Hoff Prot argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association (Paris P. Eliades, President, attorney; Mr. McCann, of counsel; Mr. Prol and Mr. McCann, on the Page 4 Jeffrey S. Mandel argued the cause for amici curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey and The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (Cutolo Mandel, attorneys; Mr. Mandel and Jenny E. Carroll, on the brief). Edward J. Fanning, Jr., submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Defense Association (McCarter & English, attorneys; Mr. Fanning and Roktim Kaushik, on the brief). JUDGES: JUDGE CUFF (temporarily assigned) delivered the opinion of the Court. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER; JUSTICES LaVECCHIA [***10] and ALBIN; and JUDGE RODRIGUEZ (temporarily assigned) join in JUDGE CUFF's temporarily assigned) opinion. JUSTICE PATTERSON did not participate. OPINION BY: CUFF OPINION [*176] r *3031 JUDGE CUFF (temporarily assigned) delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal allows the Court to address the application of the common interest rule, which extends the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and attorney work product to information shared with attorneys representing separate clients, in the context of a request for production of public records pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and the common law right to access government records. Although the common interest rule has been addressed in two published Appellate Division opinions, this is the first opportunity for this Court to address the rule. Martin E. O'Boyle is a resident of the Borough of Longport (Borough or Longport), a small, oceanside town in Cape May County. 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** We discern from the record that he has taken an active interest in the affairs of the municipality in the course of which he has attended public meetings, questioned public officials, and offered comments on matters of public interest. He also has made many requests for access [***11] to public records pursuant to OPRA and the common law right of access, and filed several complaints against the Borough and its officials regarding governance [**304] of the Borough. In 2008 and 2009, O'Boyle filed separate lawsuits against a former planning and zoning board member, Peter Isen,' and two Longport residents, Frank DiLorenzo, Sr. and Anthony DiLorenzo, Sr. 1 The Appellate Division affirmed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing O'Boyle's defamation action against Isen in an unpublished September 2011 opinion. The private attorney representing Isen and the Longport residents suggested to the municipal attorney that they cooperate in [*177] the defense of current and anticipated litigation filed by O'Boyle. To that end, the private attorney prepared a joint strategy memorandum and a compendium of documents contained on CDs and sent them to the municipal attorney. In time, the municipal attorney returned the assembled documents to the other attorney. O'Boyle submitted OPRA and common law right of access requests to the Borough Clerk. The requests encompassed the documents exchanged between the private attorney and the municipal attorney. Longport filed a timely response producing [***12] all but six documents exchanged between the private attorney and the municipal attorney. Longport asserted that those documents were privileged. O'Boyle filed a complaint in the Superior Court to obtain the withheld documents. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, determining that the withheld documents were not public records subject to production Page 5 pursuant to OPRA or the common law right of access. On appeal, the Appellate Division assumed that the withheld documents were public records, and concluded the exchanged documents constituted work product of the private attorney and were not subject to production. The panel invoked the common interest rule, concluding that the municipal residents and the former municipal official represented by the private attorney and Longport shared a common interest that permitted non-disclosure of the withheld documents. After examining the arguments presented by the parties and amici to either broaden, narrow, or restate the common interest rule as expressed in LaPorta v. Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 340 N.J. Super. 254, 774 A.2d 545 (App.Div.2001), we decline to do so. Rather, we expressly adopt the common interest rule as articulated in LaPorta. We also conclude that the Appellate Division properly determined that the parties [***13] to the pending and anticipated O'Boyle litigation shared a common purpose and that O'Boyle failed to demonstrate a particUlarized need to access the shared work product. Therefore, neither OPRA nor the common law permits access to the shared work product, and we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. [* 178] L On April 23, 2010, O'Boyle requested copies of certain designated records pursuant to OPRA and the common law right of access, On May 4, 2010, Longport supplied some documents but refused to produce the following documents: 1 ) An August 20, 2009 letter from the municipal attorney to David Sufrin, counsel for Isen and the Longport residents; 2 ) A September 18, 2009 letter from Sufrin to the municipal attorney captioned "Confidential: 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** J oint-Defense Strategy Memorandum--Attorney Joint Defense Work Product not for Disclosure to Third Parties"; 3 ) A September 29, 2009 letter from Sufrin to the municipal attorney captioned "Confidential Joint-Defense Attorney Work Product"; [**305] 4) A second September 29, 2009 letter from Sufrin to the municipal attorney accompanied by two CDs; 5 ) An undated letter from Sufrin to the municipal attorney reviewed by the municipal attorney on October 20, 2009; and [***14] 6) The contents of a third CD Sufrin provided to the municipal attorney reviewed by the municipal attorney on October 14, 2009. Longport claimed the withheld documents were privileged, and further noted that those documents were not in Borough custody because the municipal attorney had returned the CDs to Sufrin before O'Boyle filed his OPRA request. O'Boyle filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court seeking access to the withheld documents pursuant to OPRA and the common law right of access. The trial court conducted an in camera review of the correspondence and held oral argument. Although the court characterized the correspondence as "relatively short, innocuous letters" of no interest to O'Boyle, the court also determined that neither the correspondence nor the CDs were public records and that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, the trial court concluded it could not compel Sufrin to disclose the returned CDs because he was not an agent of the municipality. Therefore, the court dismissed the complaint and sealed the Page 6 correspondence. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order. In a published opinion, O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 426 N.J. Super. 1, 42 A.3d 910 (App.Div.2012), the appellate panel [*179] did [***15] not resolve whether the requested documents were public records pursuant to OPRA. Rather, assuming the requested documents were public records, the panel determined that the documents were of the sort protected by the work-product doctrine and that OPRA does not abrogate any grant of confidentiality recognized by statute, court rule, or common law. Id. at 8-9, 42 A.3d 910. Furthermore, the appellate panel recognized that the common interest rule applies with equal force to communications protected by the attorneyclient privilege and the work-product doctrine. Id. at 9-10, 42 A.3d 910. Noting that Sufrin's clients had been sued by O'Boyle as a result of their connection to the Borough and their involvement in governance of the Borough, and that the Borough reasonably anticipated further litigation with O'Boyle, the panel concluded that "Sufrin's clients and these defendants . . . share a common interest . . . i.e., the defense of litigation spanning several years initiated by [O'Boyle] related to his ongoing conflicts with Longport and individuals associated with the municipality." Id. at 11-12, 42 A.3d 910. Therefore, the Appellate Division determined that the letters and CDs were protected by the work-product doctrine and that OPRA did not require access [***16] by O'Boyle to these documents. id. at 12, 42 A.3d 910. The Appellate Division also concluded that the withheld documents were not subject to production pursuant to the common law right of access. Id. at 13, 42 A.3d 910. Although the common law right includes more documents as public records, the panel determined that the letters and CDs produced by Sufrin were not public records. Ibid. Furthermore, the municipal attorney's letter to Sufrin was not written "in the exercise of a public function." 218 NJ. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** Ibid. Assuming, however, that the letter from the municipal attorney could be considered a public document because it was written to further the interest of the municipality, the Appellate Division concluded that O'Boyle's interest in access to the letter did not overcome Longport's interest in withholding documents considered [**306] by its attorney in anticipation of litigation with the requestor. Id. at 13-14, 42 A.3d 910. Finally, the panel concluded [*180] that the trial court was not required to view the contents of the CDs. Id. at 14, 42 A.3d 910. The panel reasoned that the documents returned to Sufrin had not been prepared by him at the behest of the municipality or the municipal attorney. Ibid. Furthermore, the documents had been returned to Sufrin in compliance with his request rather [***17] than a desire to shelter otherwise producible documents. Ibid. The Court granted O'Boyle's petition for certification. 212 N.J. 431, 54 A.3d 811 (2012). II. A. O'Boyle contends that the withheld records are government records pursuant to OPRA. Indeed, he contends that almost every record generated by employees of a public entity, with the exception of "junk mail" and personal exchanges between municipal employees, are government records. He argues that OPRA reaches documents prepared and maintained by third parties acting as agents of a public entity. O'Boyle urges that the analysis must focus on the scope of the authority of the public entity agent, not his or her title. Employing this analysis leads to the conclusion that documents received by the municipal attorney must be considered government records. Furthermore, O'Boyle contends that the withheld documents clearly fall within the broad common-law definition of public records. O'Boyle urges that the Appellate Division's interpretation of the common interest rule is too Page 7 broad. He asserts that the rule should be limited to situations in which the parties "have strictly legal interests in the same transaction or occurrence; and protect only those communications which [***18] are related to and in furtherance of those interests." Furthermore, O'Boyle argues that the common interest rule articulated in LaPorta is vague and does not clearly define when parties have the requisite relationship to permit sharing confidential communications. By contrast, he asserts [*181] that the rule he advances will "smother uncertainty" and prevent inadvertent disclosure of confidential communications. O'Boyle also contends that this Court should affirm the current law in this State that disclosure of work product waives the privilege "unless the disclosure is specifically protected by law." He contends that Sufrin voluntarily shared the materials with the municipal attorney with little or no regard for the OPRA implications of his action and in a manner that substantially increased the likelihood of distribution to third parties, such as him. Finally, he suggests that the purported basis of the common interest rule was negated when Longport declined the cooperation overture. B. Longport and Thomas Hiltner, the Borough Clerk and Custodian of Records, argue that the trial court properly denied access to the withheld documents. First, they contend that the documents prepared by a third [***19] party in the course of representing private individuals are not public records within the scope of OPRA or the common law right of access. Second, Longport and Hiltner argue that the records obtained by the attorney representing Longport are not subject to disclosure because they are subject to the privilege accorded to attorney-client communications and attorney work product. They contend the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation and the brief review by the municipal attorney did not [**307] 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** convert those documents into public records subject to review pursuant to OPRA or the common law right of access. Finally, Longport and Hiltner contend that the return of the documents to Sufrin at his request precluded production of the requested documents. C. Amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) requests that the Court provide "the widest berth by which attorneys can advocate for their clients in free and unburdened fashion without fear they are susceptible to having their thoughts [*182] and ideas made accessible and used against them by an adversary." NJSBA urges that attorneys "should be reasonably unfettered" when they work with other attorneys with mutual interests and [***20] common goals to pursue a litigation strategy designed to benefit the interests of their clients. To that end, NJSBA urges that documents exchanged between private counsel representing a former municipal official and others involved in municipal affairs and the municipal attorney should enjoy the protection afforded by the common interest rule, whether the exchange implicates the attorney-client privilege or the companion work-product doctrine. Furthermore, NJSBA argues that the protection afforded by the common interest rule or joint defense doctrine should not depend on a written agreement between or among the attorneys. Rather, such an agreement may be readily implied by the efforts undertaken by the participating attorneys to assure non-disclosure to adverse parties. 2 The terms "joint defense doctrine" and "common interest rule" are used interchangeably by some. Amid Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL-NJ) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) argue that the Court should Page 8 interpret the joint defense doctrine to include exchanges of information between attorneys that are intended to be confidential and that are exchanged pursuant to [***21] a common interest. The exchanged information may otherwise be confidential communications between attorney and client or work product. Amici urge that the communication must relate to a common interest which may be legal, factual, or strategic, measured by the interest at the time the information is disclosed. Furthermore, like NJSBA, ACDL-NJ and NACDL contend that an agreement to exchange confidential information or work product need not be reduced to writing. Amicus New Jersey Defense Association (NJDA) argues that the common interest doctrine "finds its origins" in the attorney-client privilege, that the doctrine has been adopted in this State, [*183] and has been applied in the work-product context, NJDA asserts, however, that the Appellate Division adopted an unreasonably broad definition of government records in its opinion. Amicus contends that documents prepared by private counsel for a private citizen should not be transformed into a government record simply by sharing those documents with the attorney representing the municipality. Amicus DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar (DRI) contends that the Appellate Division appropriately concluded that the documents withheld by Longport were [***22] protected from disclosure. It observes, however, that the appellate panel followed the minority rule and "applied the waiver [**308] rules governing attorney-client privilege to the work-product doctrine." It urges that this Court should affirm the Appellate Division's result but adopt the majority approach to waiver of the workproduct doctrine. DRI asserts the majority approach is more conducive to collaboration and cooperation between and among attorneys. This appeal addresses the intersection of 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** two well-recognized public policies. One is the public policy favoring access to "information to enable the public to understand and evaluate the reasonableness" of action taken by a public entity. Kuehne Chem. Co. v. N. Jersey Dist. Water Supply Comm'n, 300 N.J. Super. 433, 438, 693 A.2d 168 (App.Div.), certif denied, 151 N.J. 466, 700 A.2d 878 (1997). The other is the need for an attorney and his client to communicate in confidence and the closely related need for an attorney to keep work performed for a client from disclosure to an adversary. OPRA addresses the ability of the public to gain access to government records. The attorney-client privilege and the workproduct doctrine bestow the confidentiality needed to foster a client's best interests. Here, we address the application of the common interest rule as it applies to [***23} the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and its impact on the public [*184-] right to access government records granted by OPRA and the common law. The Legislature adopted OPRA "'to maximize public knowledge about public affairs in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to minimize the evils inherent in a secluded process." Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 64, 951 A.2d 1017 (2008) (quoting Asbury Park Press v. Ocean Cnty, Prosecutor's Office, 374 N.J. Super. 312, 329, 864 A.2d 446 (Law Div.2004)). To that end, OPRA "shall be construed in favor of the public's right to access." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. OPRA defines "{g}overnment record" broadly, to include any paper . . information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business by any officer . of the State . . . , or that has 'been received in the course of his or its official business by any such officer . . The terms shall not include inter-agency or intraagency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material. [N.J.SA. 47:1A-1.11 Page 9 This Court has considered "any document kept on file or received in the course of the official business of an 'agency' of a political subdivision [as] a government record." Fair Share Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. N.J, State League of Municipalities, 207 N.J. 489, 508, 25 A.3d 1063 (2011). Despite the expansive definition of government record, not all documents prepared by public employees [***24] are considered government records pursuant to OPRA. See Bart v. City of Paterson Hous, Auth., 403 N.J. Super. 609, 617, 959 A.2d 1227 (App.Div.2008), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 316, 966 A.2d 1080 (2009). For example, a board of education secretary's informal, handwritten notes taken during a board meeting to assist her preparation of formal minutes of the board meeting are not subject to public access pursuant to OPRA. See O'Shea v. W. Milford Bd. of Educ., 391 N.J. Super. 534, 536-38, 918 A.2d 735 (App.Div.), certif denied, 192 N.J. 292, 927 A.2d 1291 (2007). On the other hand, a document by a third party, such as a bill for services prepared by an attorney retained by a public entity and submitted to it for [*185] payment, is subject to public access pursuant [**309] to OPRA. Hunterdon Cnty, Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n Local 188 v, Twp. of Franklin, 286 N.J. Super. 389, 393, 669 A.2d 299 (App.Div.1996). A government record may be excluded from disclosure by other statutory provisions or executive orders, N.J.S.A., 47:1A-9(a), or exempt from disclosure due to a recognized privilege or grant of confidentiality established in or recognized by the State Constitution, Page 10 218 NJ. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** statute, court rule, or judicial decision, N.J.S.A. concerns, In re Kozlov, 79 N.J. 232, 243-44, 47: 1A-9(b). 398 A.2d 882 (1979). The attorney-client privilege is a recognized privilege that may shield documents that otherwise meet the OPRA definition of government record from inspection or production. K.L. v. Evesham Twp. Bd, of Educ., 423 N.J. Super. 337, 352-53, 32 A.3d 113 6 (App.Div.2011), certif. denied, 210 N.J. 108, 40 A.3d 732 (2012); Gannett N.J. Partners, L.P. v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super, 205, 218, 877 A.2d 330 (App,Div.2005). Documents that fall within the scope of the work-product doctrine are also shielded from OPRA. Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, the State Univ., 210 N.J. 531, 548, 46 A.3d 536 (2012). A. Confidential communications between a client and his attorney in the course of a professional [***25] relationship are privileged. N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; N.J.R.E. 504. However, the privilege does not attach to a communication knowingly made within the hearing of any person whose presence nullifies the privilege. N.J.R.E. 504(3). In other words, the privilege protects only those communications expected or intended to be confidential. Coyle v. Estate of Simon, 247 N.J. • Super. 277, 282, 588 A.2d 1293 (App .Div.1991). The privilege is not restricted to legal advice. Rivard v. Am. Home Prods., lnc., 391 N.J. Super. 129, 154, 917 A.2d 286 (App.Div.2007). The privilege also extends to consultations with third parties whose presence and advice are necessary to the legal representation. State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 361, 561 A,2d 1082 (1989). Furthermore, the privilege survives the termination of the [*186] attorney-client relationship. Id. at 362, 561 A.2d 1082. The privilege must yield, however, in furtherance of "overriding public policy concerns," United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff, 196 N.J. Super. 553, 563, 483 A,2d 821 (App.Div.1984), or other important societal The attorney-client privilege is ordinarily waived when a confidential communication between an attorney and a client is revealed to a third party. Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300, 323, 990 A.2d 650 (2010), If, however, the third party is a person to whom disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications is necessary to advance the representation, disclosure will not waive the privilege. Rawlings v. Police Dep `t of Jersey City, 133 N.J. 182, 196, 627 A.2d 602 (1993); State v. Kociolek, 23 N.J. 400, 413, 129 A.2d 417 (1957). Over the years, various relationships have formed to permit an exchange of confidential attorney-client communications beyond the narrow confines of the attorney F***261 and client and a third party retained to assist the defense while preserving the privileged character of the disclosed communication. The joint defense agreement between or among individuals subject to a criminal investigation or indictment is the precursor to the current common interest rule. See 8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2024 at 210 (1st ed. 1970). The common interest rule, however, is not confined to criminal matters. [**310] See In re State Comm'n of Investigation Subpoena No. 5441 (SCI), 226 N.J. Super. 461, 544 A.2d 893 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 382, 550 A.2d 484 (1988). The first discussion of the common interest rule in a reported decision in this State addressed the rule in the context of the attorney-client privilege. In SCI, supra, the State Commission of Investigation subpoenaed a report prepared by an attorney retained by the New Jersey School Boards Association (the Association). 226 N.J. Super, at 464, 544 A.2d 893. The Association retained an attorney to conduct an investigation, to provide legal advice, to make recommendations, and to take steps in anticipation [*187] of litigation 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** arising from alleged improprieties in the investment procedures of the insurance group created by the organization. Id. at 463, 544 A.2d 893. The attorney prepared a written report and shared it with the Association, which in turn shared it with trustees [***27] of the insurance group. Id. at 464, 544 A.2d 893. Measures were taken to ensure the confidentiality of the report from disclosure to anyone outside those carefully delineated and inter-related groups. Ibid. The Appellate Division held that sharing the report with trustees of the Association insurance group did not waive the attorneyclient privilege. Id. at 468, 544 A.2d 893. In so holding, the panel explained that [t]he two entities are formally interrelated, the Group having been created at the instance of [the Association]. The operations of the entities are at least as closely intertwined as are sister or parentsubsidiary corporations . . Because of their interrelationships, [the Association] and the Group have a common interest in the operation of the Group and the SCI investigation of the Group. Indeed, [the attorney] was retained because of [the Association]'s direct and patent interest in the operations of the Group. [Id. at 467-68, 544 A.2d 893.] The Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 76(1) (2000) (Restatement) recognizes that the exchange of confidential information between or among two or more clients with a common interest in a litigated or non-litigated matter, who are represented by different attorneys, preserves the privilege against third parties. The rule "permits persons who have [***28] common interests to coordinate their positions without Page 11 destroying the privileged status of their communications with their lawyers." Id. at § 76(1) cmt. b. In doing so, the common-interest privilege somewhat relaxes the requirement of confidentiality . . . by defining a widened circle of persons to whom clients may disclose privileged communications. .. . [Privileged] communications of several commonly interested clients remain confidential against the rest of the world, no matter how many clients are involved. However, the known presence of a stranger negates the privilege for communications made in the stranger's presence. [Id. at § 76(1) cmt. C.] According to the Restatement, supra, the permissible extent of common interest disclosures is not unlimited. Direct communications [*188] of privileged information between or among the clients will not retain their privileged character unless made for the purpose of communication with a privileged person, and the communication must relate to the common interest which may be legal, factual, or strategic. Id. at § 76(1) cmts. d. and e. On the other hand, "[t]he interests of the separately represented clients need not be entirely congruent." Id. at § 76(1) cmt. e. [**311] The application of the common interest [***29] rule in the context of the attorney-client privilege in SC/ is consistent with the Restatement rule. To be sure, disclosure of the report prepared by the Association to its insurance group trustees widened the circle to whom privileged communications may be made. However, the Association trustees and the insurance group trustees had a common interest in identifying any mismanagement in the insurance program and rectifying any problems. B. 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. IEXIS 787, *** Ed. at 462. Documents that satisfy the OPRA definition of government record are not subject to public access if they fall within the workproduct doctrine. Sussex Commons, supra, 210 N.J. at 542, 46 A.3d 536; K.L., supra, 423 NJ. Super. at 352-53, 32 A.3d 1136; Gannett, supra, 379 N.J. Super. at 218-19, 877 A.2d 330. This doctrine was first recognized in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947). In Hickman, the owners and underwriters of a tug boat hired a law firm to defend against potential litigation after the boat sank and five crewmembers drowned. Id. at 498, 67 S. Ct. at 387, 91 L. Ed. at 455. One of the retained lawyers interviewed survivors and prepared a report based on his notes of the interviews. Id. at 498-99, 67 S. Ct. at 387-88, 91 L. Ed. at 455-56. The Court protected those documents from discovery, concluding that such materials "fall[ ] outside the arena of discovery and contravene[ ] the public policy underlying the orderly prosecution and defense of legal claims." 1d. at 510, 67 S. Ct. at 393, 91 L. Ed. at 462. [*189] In justifying the work-product doctrine, the Court recognized the need for [***30] lawyers to "work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Ibid. The Court expressed its concern that without adequate protection of the product of an attorney's work, justice and clients' best interests would be undermined. Id. at 511, 67 S. Ct. at 393, 91 L. Ed. at 462. Accordingly, although the Court acknowledged the importance of discovery of non-privileged documents to achieve a court's truth-seeking function, it determined that "the general policy against invading the privacy of an attorney's course of preparation" is so important "that a burden rests on the one who would invade that privacy to establish adequate reasons to justify production." Id. at 512, 67 S. Ct. at 393, 91 L. Page 12 New Jersey first codified the work-product doctrine in 1948. R. 3:26-2. The rule was considered broader than the rule recognized in Hickman. Crisafulli v. Pub. Serv. Coordinated Transp., 7 N.J. Super. 521, 523, 72 A.2d 429 (Cty. Ct.1950); Note, Discovery: New Jersey Work Product Doctrine, I Rutgers L.J. 346, 348-49 (1969). Today, the work-product doctrine is codified in Rule 4:10-2. It provides that [a] party may obtain discovery of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things otherwise discoverable . and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including an attorney, [***31] consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of [**312] an attorney or other representative of a party concerning litigation. [1?. 4:10-2(c).] In most instances, disclosure by an attorney of his or her work product to a third party functions as a waiver of the protection accorded to an attorney's work product. 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-29; N.J.R.E. 530. However, respect to communications among there are circumstances when disclosure [*190] of work product to a third party is entirely consistent with the confidentiality that is accorded to work product and does not waive the protection afforded to it. Disclosure consistent with the common interest rule is one of those circumstances. In LaPorta, supra, the Appellate Division applied the common interest rule in a workproduct context. 340 N.J. Super. at 262, 774 A.2d 545. The issue arose in a wrongful termination action filed by a county employee when his public employer [***32] refused to reinstate him following his acquittal of federal criminal charges not related to his public employment. Id. at 257-58, 774 A.2d 545. At the conclusion of the federal criminal proceedings, material was remitted to the county counsel, who commenced an additional investigation of LaPorta's activities as a public employee. Ibid. County counsel, in turn, prepared certain documents and submitted them to the county prosecutor. Id. at 258, 774 A.2d 545. No criminal charges ensued from this investigation. Ibid. LaPorta, however, subpoenaed documents in the possession of the county prosecutor in the course of his civil litigation against the county. Ibid. The Appellate Division held that a memo prepared by the county counsel about his investigation, a memo from the person holding LaPorta's position on a temporary basis to the county counsel in response to an inquiry from him, and a lengthy statement given by the county counsel to the county prosecutor were county counsel's work product and that the county counsel did not waive the privilege afforded by the work-product doctrine when he shared those documents with the county prosecutor. Id, at 259, 774 A.2d 545. In reaching this result, the appellate panel concluded that [t]he common interest exception may be asserted [***33] with Page 13 counsel for different parties if "(1) the disclosure is made due to actual or anticipated litigation; (2) for the purposes of furthering a common interest; and (3) the disclosure is made in a manner not inconsistent with maintaining confidentiality against adverse parties." Holland v. Island Creek Corp„ 885 F. Supp. 4, 6 (D.D.C.1995); see also In re Bevill, Bresler & Schulman, 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986). It is not necessary for actual litigation to have commenced at r 1911 the time of the transmittal of information for the privilege to be applicable. U.S. v. Schwimmer, 892 F2d 237, 244 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 810, 112 S. Ct. 55, 116 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1991). Indeed, communications need not only be among counsel for the `clients. Communications between counsel for a party and an individual representative of a party with a common interest are also protected. Ibid. [Id. at 262, 774 A.2d 545.] The panel also emphasized that it is not necessary for the interest of every party to be identical. Ibid. Instead, the focus is whether the parties have a common purpose. Ibid. Application of those principles led to the conclusion that the documents sought by LaPorta were not subject to production. Id. at 263, 774 A.2d 545. The Appellate Division reasoned that the county counsel, as the representative of the public employer, and the county prosecutor shared a [**3131 common purpose of barring LaPorta's reinstatement to public employment [***34] because of his perceived illegal conduct while performing his 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** public duties. Ibid. Furthermore, whether the parties who share otherwise privileged communications share a common purpose is measured at the time the protected documents or communications are disclosed. Ibid. It is of no moment that the cooperation between the county counsel and county prosecutor did not yield criminal charges. Ibid. C. Although the common interest rule is firmly rooted in the attorney-client privilege, Schwimmer, supra, 892 F.2d at 244, disclosure of work product to third parties with a common interest may not destroy the privileged character of the work product. New Jersey applies the common interest doctrine in the context of sharing confidential communications between an attorney and client with third parties and in the context of sharing work product with third parties. The test articulated in LaPorta applies in both contexts. [*192] Most jurisdictions that recognize the common interest rule,' as well as the Restatement, recognize a wider set of circumstances in which disclosure of work product to a third party, including those with a common interest, will preserve the protection afforded to work product than when the disclosure to a third party [***35] involves confidential communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. In United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 129 F.3d 681, 687 (1st Cir.1997), the Court of Appeals observed that disclosure "outside the magic circle" invariably leads to the conclusion that the attorney-client privilege has been waived. By contrast, the work-product privilege or protection is not so easily waived and the prevailing view seems to extend only to adversaries, "so only disclosing material in a way inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary waives work product protection." Ibid.; accord Restatement, supra, § 91(4). Thus, the inquiry considers whether the disclosed material reached an adversary or Page 14 whether the disclosure to the third party made it substantially likely that the protected material would reach an adversary. The inquiry invariably devolves to an examination of the nature of the disclosure itself. See, e.g., In re Chevron Corp., 633 F.3d 153, 165 (3d Cir.2011). 3 Far less than a majority of state and federal courts have affirmatively adopted the common interest rule and those that have done so have not applied it uniformly. See Katharine Traylor Schaffzin, An Uncertain Privilege: Why the Common Interest Doctrine Does Not Work and flow Uniformity Can Fix It, 15 B. U. Pub. Int. L.J. 49, 52-53 (2005). In Chevron Corp., an expert retained by the plaintiffs in environmental [***36] damages litigation supplied reports, evaluations, and assessments to a court-appointed global damages expert to support their claims of environmental damages caused by the defendant. Id. at 158. The court-appointed expert utilized some of those documents in his assessment and attached relevant documents supplied by the plaintiffs' expert. Id. at 159. The plaintiffs asserted that the documents were protected by the work-product privilege. Id. at 164. In assessing this claim, the Court of [* 193] Appeals emphasized that "the purpose behind the work-product doctrine requires [a court] to distinguish between disclosures to adversaries and disclosures to non-adversaries, and it is only in cases in which the material is disclosed in a manner inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary that the work-product doctrine is waived." Id. at 165 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Court of Appeals concluded that the submission of the documents by the ["314] plaintiffs to the court-appointed expert occurred in a manner inconsistent with withholding those documents from their adversary because the plaintiffs' submission was designed to influence and convince not only the court-appointed expert but also the defendants of the merits of its 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 NJ. LEXIS 787, *** [***37] position. Ibid.; see also MIT, supra, 129 F.3d at 687 (holding prior disclosure to defense audit agency of same information sought by IRS subpoena forfeited work-product protection); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Phil., 951 F.2d 1414, 1428 (3d Cir.1991) (recognizing that disclosure to third party does not necessarily void work-product protection unless disclosure enables access by adversary); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000, 102 S. Ct. 1632, 71 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1982) (contrasting disclosure of fact or opinion work product to third parties with common interest and free and voluntary disclosure to third party, including adversary, demonstrating conscious disregard of confidentiality provided by workproduct doctrine). D. The scope or extent of common interests is the subject of considerable debate. The positions of the parties and amici reflect this debate. In New Jersey, it is not necessary that every party share identical interests. LaPorta, supra, 340 N.J. Super, at 262, 774 A.2d 545. It is also not necessary for actual litigation to have commenced. Ibid. It is sufficient that litigation is contemplated. Ibid. The common interest may arise in the context of civil or criminal proceedings. Ibid. (citing in re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 89-3 and 89-4, John Doe 89129, 902 F.2d 244, 249 [994] (4th Cir.1990)); SC1, supra, 226 N.J. Super. at 466, 544 A.2d 893. Furthermore, the communication need not be confined to counsel. Communications between counsel for a party and a representative [***38] of another party with a common interest are also protected. LaPorta, supra, 340 N.J. Super. at 262, 774 A.2d 545. The Restatement, supra, § 76 comment e, addressing the common interest rule in the context of the attorney-client privilege, states that "the common interest . . . may be legal, factual, or strategic in character," and "[t]he Page 15 interests of the separately represented clients need not be entirely congruent." See also Restatement, supra, § 91 cmt. b (addressing common interest rule in context of workproduct doctrine). Outside of New Jersey, however, courts vary in their analyses of the common interest rule, resulting in less certainty concerning its application. Schaffzin, supra, 15 R. U Pub. Int. L.J. at 65. Some jurisdictions require that the interests of the parties be completely congruent in order for a common legal interest to exist. See SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 70 F.R.D. 508, 513 (D.Conn.) ("That . . . both parties' interests converged does not lessen the significance of their divergent interests. Their interests regarding antitrust considerations were not sufficiently common to justify extending the protection of the attorney-client privilege to their discussion."), appeal dismissed, 534 F.2d 1031 (2d Cir.1976); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Megan-Racine Assocs., Inc. (In re Megan-Racine Assocs.), 189 B.R. 562, 573 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1995) ("A common legal interest exists where the parties asserting the privilege were co-parties to litigation or reasonably believed that they could be made a party to litigation."). Others have stated that [***39] it is necessary that every party share identical interests. United States ex rel. [Redacted] v. [Redacted], 209 F.R.D. 475, 479 (D. Utah 2001) ("A community of interest exists where different persons or entities have an identical legal interest with respect to the subject [**315] matter of a communication between an attorney and a client concerning legal advice,"); Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146, 1172 (D. S. C. 1974) ("The key consideration [*195] is that the nature of the interest be identical, not similar."). Additionally, some jurisdictions stress that no commonality of legal interest exists if there is no threat of actual litigation, resting the analysis on this aspect rather than on the uniformity of interests. See In re MeganRacine Assocs., supra, 189 B.R. at 573 (finding legal interest only where pending or reasonably anticipated litigation exists). Other jurisdictions disagree whether the common interest doctrine can protect client-toclient communications. Compare United States v . Gotti, 771 F. Supp. 535, 545 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (finding extension of application of joint defense privilege to conversation among defendants in absence of attorney "is supported neither in law nor in logic and is rejected"), with Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1965) ("[W]here two or more persons who are subject to possible indictment in connection with the same transactions make confidential statements to their attorneys, these statements, even though they are [***40] exchanged between attorneys, should be privileged to the extent that they concern common issues and are intended to facilitate representation in possible subsequent proceedings."), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Nov. 16, 1974, 406 F. Supp. 381, 388 (S.D.N.Y.1975) ("Thus, the Hunydee opinion-- specifically addressed to a joint conference situation—confirmed that the 'exchange between attorneys,' . . . might equally be effected through the clients' direct communication as well as through the attorneys' reciprocal transfer of documents recording such communications."). These numerous differences among jurisdictions reflect the lack of uniformity concerning the scope of the common interest doctrine. Professor Schaffzin has suggested a uniform rule to alleviate uncertainty. Schaffzin, supra, 15 B. U. Pub. Int. L.J. at 86-90. She suggests that the shared common interest should be "a legal, rather than a purely commercial interest," id. at 72, and further advocates that a uniform common interest rule should require "that the parties' shared legal interest be common but not necessarily identical," id. at 73. Such a rule would focus a court's [*196] consideration of whether parties share a common legal interest "on the nature of the communication and the general purpose for which [***41] it is shared, rather than on the 218 N.J. 168, 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** relationship of the parties." ibid. Finally, because the common interest rule derives from the attorney-client privilege, it is of no matter whether the disclosure occurs in anticipation of litigation or in the course of litigation. Id. at 76. E. Page 16 Access to public documents may also be procured in accordance with the common law right of access. The right is broader than OPRA because it encompasses a more expansive class of documents. Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., 198 N.J. 274, 302, 966 A.2d 1054 (2009). Unlike OPRA, a person seeking public documents pursuant to the common law right of access "'must be balanced against the State's interest in preventing disclosure."' Ibid. (quoting Iligg-A-Rella, Inc. v. Cnty. of Essex, 141 N.J. 35, 46, 660 A.2d 1163 (1995)). In other words, the party requesting documents must explain why he seeks access to the requested documents. In order to determine whether the common law right of access applies to a particular set of records, a court must follow a three-step test. First, it must [**316] determine whether the documents in question are "public records." Atl. City Convention Ctr. Auth. v. S. Jersey Publ'g Co., 135 N.J. 53, 59, 637 A.2d 1261 (1994). Second, the party seeking disclosure must show that he has an interest in the public record. Educ. Law Ctr., supra, 198 N.J. at 302, 866 A.2d 1054. More specifically, if the plaintiff is seeking "disclosure of privileged records," such as those protected by the work-product doctrine, [***42] he must show "particularized need." Wilson v. Brown, 404 N.J. Super, 557, 583, 962 A.2d 1122 (App.Div.) (citing McClain v . Coll. Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 351, 492 A.2d 991 (1985)), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 473, 968 A.2d 1189 (2009). In McClain, supra, this Court set forth a three-part test for determining whether a party has articulated a particularized need: "1) [*197] the extent to which the information may be available from other sources, 2) the degree of harm the litigant will suffer from its 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, '"' 4` unavailability, and 3) the possible prejudice to the agency's investigation." 99 N.J. at 351, 492 A.2d 991. Third, once the plaintiffs interest in the public record has been established, the burden shifts to the public entity to establish that its need for non-disclosure outweighs the plaintiffs need for disclosure. Educ. Law Ctr., supra, 198 N.J. at 303, 96 A.2d 1054. Iv. A. As related in this opinion, there is considerable debate among the various jurisdictions, state and federal, regarding whether the common interest rule should be adopted, and, if so, on what terms. New Jersey recognizes the common interest rule but some counsel urge that our application of the rule has either strayed from its roots in the attorneyclient privilege or is too narrowly restricted to disclosures made during litigation or in anticipation of litigation. Others contend the common interest rule articulated in LaPorta is too broad. All agree, however, that the common interest [***43} rule does not create a new privilege. Rather, it permits disclosure of privileged material, attorney-client confidential communications or work product, to third parties without waiving any privilege as long as the applicable features of the common interest rule in the jurisdiction are satisfied. Those that disagree with the LaPorta rule urge that the Court take this opportunity to modify the current rule. We decline to do so. The common interest rule is designed to permit the free flow of information between or among counsel who represent clients with a commonality of purpose. It offers all parties to the exchange the real possibility for better representation by making more information available to craft a position and inform decision-making in anticipation of or in the course of litigation. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, supra, 902 F.2d at 249. [*1981 We acknowledge, however, that how far Page 17 beyond "the magic circle" privileged material may be shared depends on whether the disclosed material is protected by the attorneyclient privilege or the work-product doctrine. Thus, as recognized in the Restatement, sharing of privileged information of several, even many, commonly interested clients will remain inviolate as long as a stranger does not [***44] intrude. Restatement, supra, § 76(1) cmt. c. In other words, the actions of the commonly interested clients and their attorneys must reflect the privileged status of the communications, including taking measures to prevent disclosure to an adversary. Compare MIT, supra, 129 F.3d at 687 (finding that disclosure of billing statements and corporate minutes containing privileged communications to audit agency constituted disclosure to potential ["3171 adversary), and Westinghouse, supra, 951 F.2d at 1429 (holding that target of investigations which discloses work product to investigatory agencies waived work-product protection against all adversaries), with United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1300, 206 U.S. App. D.C. 317 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (holding party assisting Department of Justice investigation of another not an adversary of agency). We recognize, however, that any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege or the protection afforded to work product, restricts the disclosure of information, even highly relevant information, and may intrude on the fact-finding function of litigation. Kociolek, supra, 23 N.J. at 414-15, 129 A.2d 417. Yet, those concerns do not warrant adoption of the most conservative formulations of the common interest rule, such as requiring that the interests of the parties be completely congruent or identical, SCM Corp., supra, 70 F.R.D. at 513, or requiring a threat of actual litigation, see In re Megan-Racine Assocs., supra, 189 B.R. at 573, or requiring that the common [***45] interest be legal rather than purely commercial, see Schaffzin, supra, 15 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. at 72. Rather, we conclude that the rule recognized in LaPorta strikes an acceptable balance of these competing interests. We, therefore, expressly adopt the common interest rule as articulated in LaPorta. The common interest exception to [*199] waiver of confidential attorney-client communications or work product due to disclosure to third parties applies to communications between attorneys for different parties if the disclosure is made due to actual or anticipated litigation for the purpose of furthering a common interest, and the disclosure is made in a manner to preserve the confidentiality of the disclosed material and to prevent disclosure to adverse parties. LaPorta, supra, 340 N.J. Super. at 262, 774 A.2d 545. The disclosure may occur prior to the commencement of litigation. Ibid. Communications between counsel for one party and a representative of another party with a common interest will preserve the privileged nature of the disclosed information. Ibid. Moreover, the common interest need not be identical; a common purpose will suffice. Ibid. Common purpose extends to sharing of trial preparation efforts between attorneys against a common adversary. The attorneys need not be involved [***461 in the same litigated matter or anticipated matter. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., supra, 642 F.2d at 1299. Moreover, the rule should be broad enough to encompass the situation in which certain disclosures of privileged material are made to another attorney who shares a common purpose, for the limited purpose of considering whether he and his client should participate in a common interest arrangement. Applying these principles to this appeal, we conclude that the interests of Longport and Sufrin's clients, a former municipal official and municipal residents, were not identical but clearly shared a common purpose. Sufrin was attempting to defend a civil action commenced by O'Boyle arising out of one client's official position and others' participation in civic affairs. Longport had defended many civil actions filed against it by O'Boyle and Page 18 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** anticipated further litigation from O'Boyle. Both Sufrin and Longport had a common purpose to repel further legal challenges from a citizen who did not agree with the manner in which elected and appointed officials discharged their public duties. It is of no consequence that the private attorney and the municipal attorney did not jointly defend the pending litigation. The focus must be [*2003 whether the private [***47] attorney [**318] and the municipal attorney shared a common purpose at the time the private attorney shared his work product with the municipal attorney. Furthermore, the private attorney's work product was disclosed in a manner calculated to preserve its confidentiality. There is no evidence that the municipal attorney shared the material with anyone else, including O'Boyle. Indeed, once the municipal attorney declined to enter a joint or common defense strategy with Sufrin, he returned the privileged material, thereby minimizing even an inadvertent disclosure to O'Boyle. In sum, the joint strategy memorandum, the CDs containing documents prepared or obtained by Sufrin, and the associated correspondence were attorney work product. Disclosure of this material to the municipal attorney did not destroy the protected character of this material because at the time of the disclosure, Sufrin and the municipal attorney shared a common purpose to defend their public and private clients from pending and anticipated litigation filed by O'Boyle. Therefore, Longport and the Borough Clerk properly withheld the contested six categories of documents. B. We need not determine whether the material provided to [***481 the municipal attorney became a public record in accordance with the common law upon receipt from the private attorney. The common law right of access recognizes privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege, although the privilege may be overcome by a showing of Page 19 218 N.J. 168, *; 94 A.3d 299, **; 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787, *** particularized need. Here, O'Boyle articulated strategy memorandum, and the CDs containing the interest he had in the material supplied by documents obtained and produced by the Sufrin to the municipal attorney but failed to express a particularized need for the documents. Having failed to demonstrate a particularized need for the privileged material supplied to the municipal attorney, O'Boyle failed to satisfy the common law standard for access to those documents. [*201] V. In conclusion, we expressly adopt the common interest rule as previously articulated in LaPorta, supra, 340 N.J. Super. at 254, 26263, 774 A.2d 545. We also hold that Sufrin, who represented a former municipal official and private residents in litigation filed by O'Boyle, shared a common purpose with Longport at the time he disclosed work product to the municipal attorney. Therefore, the joint private attorney were not government records subject to production in response to an OPRA request by O'Boyle. Finally, O'Boyle [***49] failed to articulate a particularized need as required by the common law right of access to obtain the work product of the private attorney. VI. The judgment of the Appellate Division is, therefore, affirmed. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER; JUSTICES LaVECCHIA and ALBIN; and JUDGE RODRIGUEZ (temporarily assigned) join in JUDGE CUFF's (temporarily assigned) opinion. JUSTICE PATTERSON did not participate. 127K9N ********** Print Completed ********** Time of Request: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:07;02 EST Print Number: 2827:492733115 Number of Lines: 798 Number of Pages: Send To: STEINBERG, SAUL ZUCKER STEINBERG SONSTEIN & WIXTED 415 FEDERAL ST CAMDEN, NJ 08103-1147 r'r, in: David Sufrin • if. :4•:11.C.1 (.9 c ..t..,13jt.Zt send me that stuff 13'2 te: December 18, 2014 at 11:27 AM 7o: Robert Sweetapple • 4, • Don't forget to send me your perjury motion. We are now arguing summary judgment and discovery motions up here tomorrow against him. The attached is my reply to a pending motion to produce medical records. These documents are attached for the defense of the claims he's filed against YOU PERSONALLY, and not with respect to your role as an attorney for a municipal agency or office, whether for Gulfstream or any other public entity. This email is therefore confidential, and the subject of joint defense and/or work product privileges. Thank you. reply meo.pdf Jam) . C. Zuckcra Saul J. Sicinbenr+ Mortis Wisiol+ ZUCKER STEINBERG & WIXTED, PA ATTORNEYS AT LAB" A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Wub www,law-rd corn 415 FEDERAL STREET — CAMDEN. NEW JERSEY ( 5103 David W. Surriu 056) 365.Cil Duct A, DcCusino. 18503384217 (FAX) OALSO MEMBER OF FLORIDA BAR ALSO MEMBER OF PENNSYLVANIA BAR - CERTIFIED CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY * LLM IN TAXATION December 17, 2014 Hon. Christopher J. Gibson, J.S.C. Cape May County Courthouse 9 North Main Street Cape May Court House, NJ 08210 Via Facsimile Only ( 609) 463-6445 RE: O' Boyle vs. The Borough of Lougport, et al Docket No.: ATL-L-3692-10 O ' Boyle vs. Joseph DiLorenzo, et al Docket No.: ATL-L-1985-09 Dear Judge Gibson: This office represents 85 year old twin brothers Frank and Anthony "Tony" DiLorenzo. This letter is respectfully submitted in lieu of a more formal submission to notify the Court that we join in Mr. Merenich's pending Motions, especially the one which seeks production of the plaintiff's psychological and/or psychiatric (mental health) records. The records are relevant, especially to the defense of plaintiffs claims against each of Frank and Tony DiLorenzo. We respectfully ask Your Honor order the production and/or release of that material. Plaintiff has repeatedly argued that his mental health records are irrelevant because he previously abandoned damage claims for his emotional distress and personal injuries for the intentional tort he alleged against Frank and Tony DiLorenzo. Plaintiff alleged in his lawsuit that Frank and Tony DiLorenzo drove their cars too closely to him while he stood on a street in Longport. Plaintiff claimed that their proximity to him caused him to fear for his life and personal safety, and he claimed that Frank and/or Tony issued an implied threat toward plaintiff's family. Plaintiff has, at various times, alleged that Frank and Tony engaged in these acts in order to cause him to fear for his safety. Frank and Tony each respectively deny these allegations - allegations which were the subject of criminal charges filed by plaintiffand dismissed by the trial court - dismissals later affirmed by the Law Division and the Appellate Division. The records related to plaintiffs mental health are precisely relevant to the defense of his claims, since they relate directly to the credibility of the claims, to wit: whether the incident even occurred. The records relate to plaintiff's perceptions of events as he claims they occurred, and to the legitimacy of his claim that he feared for his safety - a fear which he claimed caused him to make expenditures for armed security. DWS;vm Enclosures cc: YooNieh Anh Louis Moffa, Esq Colleen Ready, Esq Robert Merenich, Esq Richard King, Esq Page two December 17, 2014 letter to Hon. Christopher Gibson, J.S.G. Re: O'Boyle v. DiLorenzo et als. Plaintiff claimed these expenditures were reasonable and possibly part of his economic damage claims (he also claimed his legal fees were part of his damages). We must therefore have the right to explore evidence which could reasonably rebut the plaintiff's credibility vis-a-vis his perception of events as they occurred. Plaintiff's psychological and psychiatric diagnoses, we argue, may demonstrate the non-reliability of his allegations, and a particular paranoia which has so far characterized his behavior. This is not a fishing expedition — the issue is most certainly at play here - especially considering the letters from Dr. Gary Glass, M.D., which plaintiffs own lawyers filed with the court to explain his inability to attend court in the municipal case which was the genesis, we argue, for all of this litigation. Mental conditions which were diagnosed close in time to the date when plaintiff claims Frank and Tony DiLorenzo tried to run him down with their cars, According to Dr. Glass, Mr. O'Boyle was then "clearly not mentally or emotionally capable of representing himself appropriately." Dr, Glass further noted that he had Mr. O'Boyle on "high doses of medications that impact on the clarity of his thinking and his ability to process information as be normally does." Those letters are attached for Your Honor's review. I am unable to appear on Friday as the result of a scheduling conflict on a Camden County matter, so I will respectfully rely on Mr. Merenich's and Mr. Horn's arguments, as well as upon this submission, all in support of Mr. Merenich's application to obtain plaintiff's mental health records. These are materials which are both relevant and material to the matters in dispute, and which certainly bear on the credibility and accuracy of the pia', s perceptions • ie incidents he alleged against Frank and Tony DiLorenzo. Respect tted, ZUCKER RG . ED, P.A. By: --gusiii011116 T r i DAVID W. UFR1N Via Facsimile Only Via Facsimile Only Via Facsimile Only Via Facsimile Only Via Facsimile Only 609-348-3774 856-488-7720 856-727-6010 609-927-3278 609-653-8887 0,ay', 18. 20011 2:31141 Gail Michael Glass, M.D. • 441.•••.••• •..-.1 0.y....••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••• ••••• SUire Ay 3137 Iltra Road, BEg Harbor Townshipaill 08234 General cik forewie Pxydlicptiy Wino (609) d46.3112 'Fax (b09)00129 regind.9117@yaboo.own No. 0505 P. 2 Louis M. Barbone, Seq. 1125 Pecatio Avenue Atlantic GAY* New Jersey 08401 July 1B, 2009 RE; KARIM O'BOYLE REceiveo dal 8 2008 MAR MUNICIPAL COURT Dear Itife. Dux-bolls; As you know I have been. involved in the ongoing evaluation and treatment of your client Mr. Martin O'Bcrfle of Longport, New Jersey. have been seeing him weekly with the exception of holiday breaks. In our most recent meetings 111r. O'Boyle was clearly overwhelmed with ,a sty and .strese. While coherent, his speech was pressured and his thought processes displayed persistent perseveration. He did not modulate his speech adequately and 'was not able to listen attraitively or • • to incorporate outside thoughts or comments Into his thought process. Bla level of stress has'also impacted on his physical medical tdata in that I have had to rusk° 4ustracnts to We blood pressure medicine as well. I bad hoped that our work tagetliet including both psychotherapy and ynatiizAtinr1 vrouM resolve his difActrities and discomfort but this has not been the case thus far. It is my Araderstanding that Mr. O'Boyle is scheduled for a Court appearance on. Monday, July 21, 2008. He is clearly not mentally or emotionally capable arepresentittg himself appropriately at this time. order to control his emotions I have had to use high dime of medications ' that impact on the clarify of hie thinldng his ability to process information as he nampally does. Advisedly I have made this decision In order to control his arodety and stress anci to protect him from any potential harm from elevated blood pressure or other physical sequellae to *Aims. I have instructed Mr. O'Boyle that he should not present himself tO Court nest week and by virtue of this letter I am Informing you 41112114Sr that Mr. O'Boyle cannot partiolpate in a Legal proceeding at this time. : .t Satellite OffaitcW4se, Penntylvania t's • 1 / 4 3c4,\. 11 • 18, 2008► 2:32PA1 Louie Barbone, Esq. Ira: Wart n O'Boyle July 18, 2008 Page Two • 11o.0545 P. 3 : I a hopeful tirt• with additional treatment, both therapy wad medication adjustments that he win' be able to resolve some of his James in the near future and 1 will keep you posted as to hie progress. leyoutia$13 any further questions please feel. free to contact me. I4100z I G Michael Glass, M.D. Suite A. 3137121re Road, egg Harbor Township, 14.1 08234 Phone (609) 6463272 Fax (609) 646-3129 ungin43137@yahmeoin Louis M. Barbone, Esq. 1125 Pacific Avenue Atlantic City, New Jersey 08401 July 11, 2008 RE; !mum O'BOYLE Dear Mr. Berbon% ,......•••••••••• •••.••••••.• General & ForendcPsychlat, As you know I have been, involved In the ongoing evaluation and t reatment of your client 1Vir. Martin 0Soyie of Lonsport, New jersey. / have been seeing him weekly with the exception of holiday breaks. In our most recent meetings Mr. O'Boyle was clearly overwhelmingly anxious and stressed. I had hoped that our work together including both psychotherapy and medication would resolve his discomfort but the ongoing issues that surround his struggles with the Township have had a major impact on his emotional state. I understand that Mr. O'Boyle Is scheduled for a court appesx'ance on Monday, July 14, 2008. Although I had hoped otherwise I do not believe that he is etuotiox:tally capable of managing that appearance at this time. I have therefore recommended to him and by virtue of this letter, to you as well., at I do not believe that he can prevent himself to the Court on Monday, July 14, 2008. I am hopeful that with additional treatment both therapy and medication adjustments he w313, be able to resolve some of his issues in the near future and I will keep you posted regarding our progress. I f you have any further questions feel free to contact me. &tam °thee: Wayne, Pennsylvania Viq Cynthia Miller From: Robert Sweetapple .<sweetapple13©me.com> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10:50 AM To: David Sufrin; Cynthia Bailey Subject: Re: send me that stuff Cynthia Please send David our new Counterclaim and latest investigative article. David Please keep me updated re your rulings and developments. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Dec 18, 2014, at 11:43 AM, David Sufrin <dsufrinPlaw-ni. com> wrote: Don't forget to send me your perjury motion. We are now arguing summary judgment and discovery motions up here tomorrow against him. The attached is my reply to a pending motion to produce medical records. These documents are attached for the defense of the claims he's filed against YOU PERSONALLY, and not with respect to your role as an attorney for a municipal agency or office, whether for Guifstream or any other public entity. This email is therefore confidential, and the subject of joint defense and/or work product privileges, Thank you. <reply meo.pdf> 1 Cynthia Miller From: Deborah Smith Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:00 PM To: dsufrin@lavv-nj.com Cc: Robert Sweetapple; Cynthia Bailey Subject: 1W: Transcript - EUO- Sweetapple/ Joel Chandler/ 7-23-14 Attachments: 14072* - Vol_l_txt; 140723jc.ptx Mr. Sufrin, Attached is the transcript of the Statement of Joel Chandler for your file. Very truly yours, DEBORAH L. SMITH, CP, FRP Certified Paralegal, Florida Registered Paralegal Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. 20 SE 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 3924230 (t) x. 300 (561) 394-6102 (f) dsmith@sweetapplelaw.com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, maintain, save or otherwise use this email. Please contact the sender at the above number immediately. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. Original Message From: Cynthia Bailey Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 12:24 PM To: Deborah Smith Subject: 1W: Transcript - EUO- Sweetapple/ Joel Chandler/ 7-23-14 CYNTHIA J. BAILEY Certified Paralegal/Florida Certified Paralegal/Florida Registered Paralegal Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. 20 SE 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 392-1230 (t) x. 305 (561) 394-6102 (f) cbaliey@sweetapplelaw.com I STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, maintain, save or otherwise use this email. Please contact the sender at the above number immediately. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. --Original Message From: Kim Williams [maiito:kim@sclafaniwilflams.com] On Behalf Of print Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:19 AM To: Cynthia Bailey Cc: Robin Bence Subject: Transcript - EUO- Sweetapple/ Joel Chandler/ 7-23-14 Attached to this e-mail are the E-Transcript file (.ptx) and the ASCII files (.txt) for the deposition of Joel Chandler taken on July 23, 2014. Please note the original and condensed hard copies will follow per your request. Open the attachment to display the transcript. The free E-Transcript Viewer may be downloaded, «http://www.reallegal.com/demosAndtours.asp». For technical support visit, «http://www.reallegalcom/support.asp>›, To Print transcript - from E-Transcript Viewer go to File and scroll down to print and select what you want to print from Full-sized transcript, condensed tr «140723,1c.ptx» a nscript or word index. An additional bonus! E-transcript files work like any windows product. You can use your copy and paste features. 2 Cynthia Miller From: Cynthia Bailey Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:14 AM To: dsufringaw-nj.com Subject: O'Boyle Attachments: TranscriptJoel Chandler.7.23.14.txt; SKMBT_C36014111015160.pdf Mr. Sufrin: Please see attached documents and link to the article below. Thank you. http; //fcir.org/2014/11/09/ inTlawsuits-statewide-auestions-of-nrofits-and-oublic-records/ Please confirm receipt. CYNTHIA J. BAILEY Certified Paralegal/Florida Certified Paralegal/Florida Registered Paralegal Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. 20 SE 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 392-1230 (t) x. 305 (561) 394-6102 (f) cbailey@sweetapplelaw.com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, maintain, save or otherwise use this email. Please contact the sender at the above number immediately. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. 1 stal Boca Raton Volume 7 Issue 10 tV-4 yrick enjoy a day on the beach in al Society Boca (Ntilf St( EArt Town pursues RICO case against litigious residents By Dan Moffett The hostilities between the town of Gulf Stream and two litigious residents appear destined to get a whole lot more hostile in the weeks ahead. And the case the town is preparing against Martin O'Boyle and Christopher O'Hare could ripple through dozens of communities across the state. Gulf Stream commissioners have given unanimous approval to a legal strategy that will invoke the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute against O'Boyle and O'Hare, alleging they have engaged in a pattern of behavior intended to intimidate, harass and force settlements from public officials and governments. Beyond Gulf Stream, town officials say the classaction RICO suit will allege that O'Boyle used a group he founded called the Citizens Awareness Foundation to generate settlements from frivolous public records suits across the state — ie ier, a ige 5 in communities such as Fernandina Beach, Miami, Bradenton, Cutler Bay and Miami Lakes. "We thought this was about a feud in Gulf Stream," said Mayor Scott Morgan. "But we learned it was a lot more." Commissioners unanimously approved hiring a team of outside lawyers that includes Gerald Richman, a prominent West Palm Beach attorney, who will spearhead the federal RICO case. Richman told the commission that O'Boyle and his Citizens Awareness Foundation had used a "scorched.earth strategy" See RICO on page 6 own the fa sets. up: ray's RA, Thilirtsftper `Kiss of the Ocean' explores art of the Panama Canal. Page AT11 Rews. e01)7ASIr_g_i:STAIC: RICO Continued from page 1 against Gulf Stream and many other communities. "We're well familiar with their tactics," he said. Said Morgan: "All the talk about open public access and white knights on chargers helping the common man is nonsense. This has all been about money." 'Volume of cases' described O'Boyle founded Citizens Awareness in 2013 and Joel Chandler served as its executive director until the relationship soured after a few months earlier this year. A longtime advocate for Florida's public records laws, Chandler says he quickly became disillusioned with how CAF was run. "I thought the foundation as originally presented to me would be a wonderful resource for open government across the state," Chandler said. "What it ended up being is nothing more than a scheme to generate lawsuits for The O'Boyle Law Firm." Chandler said he had a quota of 25 public records lawsuits per week to fill and, though he recommended other attorneys, O'Boyle insisted that all the work be done at The O'Boyle Law Firm. "The money was in the sheet volume of the cases," Chandler said. "A lawyer could use a template and file a suit in 15 minutes. We filed hundreds of cases. The typical settlement started at $5,000. It all adds up O'Boyle O'Hare to millions in legal fees." Fernandina Beach paid $5,000 to settle a lawsuit with Citizens Awareness this year. Miami Lakes paid $2,000. Cutler Bay paid $2,250. In February, Citizens Awareness sued the city of Miami over a dispute about Mayor Tomas Regalado's records. The complaint was signed by Marrett Hanna, a lawyer with The O'Boyle Law Firm who is the wife of attorney Mark Hanna, who represents O'Hare. Though O'Boyle and O'Hare filed most of their complaints individually, the town's federal case will argue they often acted together. Chandler said he wanted to work with Gulf Stream, meet with Town Manager William Thrasher, and work out the foundation's differences over public records. "O'Boyle was adamant that we wouldn't do that," Chandler said. "Marty said we'll sue and that is all we do." After Chandler resigned his $120,000 -a-year job at Citizens Awareness in June, O'Boyle sued him, alleging he had misused the group's funds. O'Boyle did not return calls seeking comment for this story but has maintained his goal is to promote transparency in government. Suit greeted with applause Gulf Stream has already spent about$370,000 since January in the legal fight against O'Boyle and O'Hare, and billable hours are likely to skyrocket with a new stable of lawyers onboard. Besides Richman, the town hired a team of three Broward County lawyers who specialize in laws governing sober houses — a business venture O'Boyle says he is planning in the town. Morgan says Gulf Stream has no choice but to defend itself, and if it can win the RICO case, the town can collect attorneys' fees and triple damages from O'Boyle and O'Hare. "In my opinion, the town of Gulf Stream has suffered enough," Morgan said. "The town has been expending funds, and time and resources and morale, and the difficulties of hiring and retaining employees as the result of the scandalously malicious and frivolous lawsuits and public records requests by Mr. O'Hare and Mr. O'Boyle. I think it's time for the madness to stop." Between them, O'Boyle and O'Hare have filed dozens of lawsuits in the state and federal courts against Gulf Stream, as well as more than 1,500 public records requests with the town. The two have joined in at least one of those suits. O'Boyle and Morgan IMI11111111111111111111111.11111111111111=EIMM O'Hare have both accused the town of being unwilling to negotiate a settlement. "It's disappointing and unfortunate when a town sues one of its citizens," said Mitchell Berger, a Fort Lauderdale attorney who represents O'Boyle. "It's unfortunate it has come to that over such a matter as public records." In September, O'Boyle told the commission he was prepared to "cost the town a million dollars" in legal fees, if commissioners did not negotiate with him. He did not attend the October meeting, saying he was out of town, but had an associate deliver a letter to Morgan. "In connection with the proposed RICO action, Mr. O'Boyle wishes to provide the commission with a warning that any such launch will be met with an unfriendly response," the letter said. "Mr. O'Boyle reminds the commission that the mayor has been inviting a fight for some time now. Mr. O'Boyle further reminds the commissioners, that should they decide to embark upon and support the mayor's grand battle, the likely result will be the demise of Gulf Stream." O'Hare told the commission that filing a federal case ensures a long and expensive battle "I bet you $5 million from now, it's still going on." He urged the commission to settle "RICO is for criminal activity, O'Hare said "I didn't know it was a clime to ask for public records." O'Hare said he didn't know about Citizens Awareness until recent weeks and is unaware of the group's activities. He said he only filed one lawsuit jointly with O'Boyle but did use The O'Boyle Law Firm, "Mr. Morgan's claim that this is all about money is simply not true," O'Hare said. "There is no profit to be had by asserting your right to a public record in court." He told commissioners they will cost the taxpayers millions in legal fees on the RICO strategy: "And it's not your money." A duster of 20 residents at the October meeting broke into applause over the commission's decision to file suit in federal court, "I don't usually agree with what Mr. O'Hare says, but he did say something with which • I fully agree," resident Anthony • Graziano told the commission. "It is our money. And we would like you to spend it fighting these gentlemen." Morgan said the RICO action allows the town to settle many disputes in one case. "We can either take the approach of defending these individual cases as they come in and bleed to death by a thousand cuts," he said, "or we can take steps necessary to stop those cases by advancing this case. Flom the evidence that I've seen, it's a conspiracy of sorts to advance actions that essentially do nothing other than shake down municipal agencies.' 'k In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcir.org/2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... gaj I I a: FLORIDA TIGATI CENTER FOR mr3 II NV INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING thttp: / /fcir.org) Nome ( http: //fctr.org1 > Government ( http://fcir.org/categor y (government/i In Lawsuits Statewide, Auestions of Profits and Public Records O Novefiber 9, 2014 South Florida millionaire Martin O'Boyle founded the Citizens Awareness Foundation. (Photo courtesy of the Coastal Star.) By Tristram Korten (mailto:korten@fcir. org) and Trevor Aaronson (mailto: aaronson@fcir,org) Florida Center for Investigative Reporting The nonprofit Citizens Awareness Foundation was founded to "empower citizens to exercise their right to know," according to its mission statement. The South Florida millionaire backing the foundation hired one of the state's most prominent public records activists to run it, rented office space, and pledged to pay the legal fees to make sure people had access to government records. But a review of court records and internal communications obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting shows that the foundation is less interested in obtaining records and educating the public than in workof 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM > In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records Media Partners Bradenton Herald arttp: //www.bradenton. com i_211W1111.25165172:jr . suits-statewicie-questions.html?rh=1) Creative Loafing (http: //cItampa.com/politic alanimal/archives/2014/1 1 /13/public-recordsploy-ma king-hay-out-of-thesunsbjne-law#, VGTPc1 PF Florida Times-Union (http: //jacksonville.com /breaking-news/2014-12-05 /story/lawsuits-statewide: questions-profits-and-publicrecords) Key West Citizen /node/60385) The Ledger . fhttp: //www. theledger.com /article/20141109 /NEWS/141 109319/1410?iitle=Florida-s-5unshineLaw-Lawsuits-Spur-Psof itFrom-Public-Records1 Miami Herald (http: //www.m ia mih erald.co min ews/stateg lorida /a rticle3683176.html) Naples Daily News (http://www.naplesnews.c _onl /news/state/florida-nonprofits-ties-to daw-firm-quest ioned-after-dozens-of-lawsuits-filed 04174729) The Tampa Tribune http://feinorg/2014111/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... ing with a partner law firm to collect cash settlements from every lawsuit filed. Citizens Awareness Foundation and the O'Boyle Law Firm set up shop in the same building at about the same time. The two share more than an address. They also share personnel, money and a mandate to sue as many state and local government agencies and businesses as they can for violating Florida's Sunshine law. Since January, the foundation and a sister group, Our Public Records LLC, have filed more than 140 lawsuits in 27 coun2 of 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records ittp://fbiLorg/2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... ties, court records show. A lawyer with the O'Boyle Law Firm filed all of the cases FCIR reviewed. The close partnership between Citizens Awareness Foundation and the law firm prompted the foundation's first executive director, Joel Chandler, to quit over concerns that the coordination "may be criminal, fraudulent and unethical," according to an affidavit he filed. Both organizations are housed at the offices of the Commerce Group, the Deerfield Beach real estate development firm owned by millionaire Martin O'Boyle. O'Boyle is best known for inundating the Palm Beach State Attorney's office with more than 1,300 public records requests, and for suing the wealthy town of Gulf Stream, where he lives, after filing 1,200 public records requests. Citizens Awareness Foundation's board is comprised of employees of the O'Boyle Law Firm and the Commerce Group. According to an email from one board member, the foundation had a quota to refer a minimum of 25 lawsuits per week to the law firm. The foundation has threatened so many engineers with legal action that the Florida Engineering Society sent a warning to members. "It is debatable whether they are truly seeking records or just attempting to obtain legal fees for a violation of this requirement," Craig Varn, the organization's general counsel, said in the May 23 memo. The road-building industry in Florida also has been swamped with public records requests and lawsuits from Citizens Awareness Foundation. "It's a sad game of igotcha,' the only purpose of which is to generate an attorney fee claim rather than obtain any actual public records," said Bob Burleson, president of the Florida Transportation Builders' Association. State Sen. Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, has received similar complaints, and has begun drafting legislation to better define the public records law. In October, the town commission of Gulf Stream, in Palm Beach County, voted unanimously to hire an outside lawyer to bur3 of 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcirorg/2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a . sue a federal racketeering case against O'Boyle. Representatives of Citizens Awareness Foundation and the O'Boyle Law Firm referred questions to Fort Lauderdale lawyer Mitchell W. Berger. "We are new to this process and undertaking an investigation of the facts and circumstances which have resulted In the current controversy," Berger said. 'We will not litigate this matter in the press on a question-by-question basis and will leave our responses to be filed in the appropriate proceedings where we are sure justice will be done and our clients will be exonerated in the process." Lawsuit 6uota The foundation and the law firm are exploiting an April 2013 amendment to state law that requires private companies holding public records to make them available. Hired as executive director of the Citizens Awareness Foundation, Joel Chandler resigned due to behavior he thought "may be criminal, fraudulent and unethical," according to an affidavit he filed. (Photo courtesy of Joel Chandler.) After the 2013 amendment passed, Martin O'Boyle contacted Joel Chandler, a well-known -tof13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records littp://fcir.org/201 4/11 /09/in-lawsuits- statewide-questi ons-of-profits -a... open government activist, about starting Citizens Awareness Foundation. Chandler, who lives in Lakeland, had worked as a volunteer his entire career. O'Boyle offered him a $120,000 annual salary, a company car and health insurance. " 1 went from being completely broke to getting paid $10,000 a month," Chandler said. "It was a very cool gig." The foundation was incorporated on Jan. 27. The O'Boyle Law Firm opened on Feb. 10. They both listed the same address in Deerfield Beach on incorporation records. Martin O'Boyle's son, Pennsylvania lawyer Jonathan O'Boyle, was listed as the law firm's director. Jonathan O'Boyle is not licensed to practice law in Florida, and records show he may have been acting as the firm's full-time managing director and supervising other lawyers. Under Florida Bar rules, lawyers supervising cases must be licensed in the state. "He was in the office just about every day," Chandler said. "I was in the room multiple times when Jonathan was directing other attorneys in their work and no one was supervising Jonathan." In emails FCIR reviewed, Jonathan O'Boyle wrote about assigning himself a case. Another lawyer described O'Boyle directing settlement negotiations in a separate case. When setting up the foundation, Chandler said he talked with the O'Boyles about the need to avoid conflicts of interest. He was worried because all of the foundation's board members either worked for Martin O'Boyle's real estate company or the law firm. 'That was a sticking point, whether I could only refer cases to his son's law firm," Chandler said, "I didn't want to be involved in something where we file lawsuits just to file lawsuits. I was assured I would have sole discretion about who to litigate and which law firm to use." That never happened, he said. By April, Citizens Awareness Foundation board member Denise DeMartini, who works for the Commerce Group, was demanding more lawsuits. 5 of 13 6/312016 11:47 A./%.4 » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcir. ore2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... " I am in the law meeting now and have been told that you have only provided eight new cases for this week. We were expecting a minimum of 25 a week," she emailed Chandler on April 28. The law meeting she referred to was the O'Boyle firm's staff meeting. DeMartini is not a lawyer. Citizens Awareness Foundation was filing so many lawsuits that Chandler was not able to vet them all, as he had negotiated from the start. In some cases, lawsuits were filed in his name without his knowledge or permission, he said. On June 2, Chandler emailed his board about using another law firm. "[I]f we use the O'Boyle Firm exclusively it will appear to be 'self dealing' by the IRS," Chandler said. William Ring, the foundation's president and a lawyer with the Commerce Group, replied: "I'm not inclined to authorize [Citizens Awareness Foundation] to engage another law firm." Ring is now the registered agent for the O'Boyle Law Firm, state records show. Settletients Detianded The foundation targeted governments big and small, but it also filed complaints against obscure companies contracted by government agencies. Many weren't aware the records law applied to them. The records requests often came in over the weekend, from "An Onoma" with the email address vendor.contract.publishing@gmail.com. 4 sfr f http://fcirorg/wp-content/uploads/201 4/1 1 / f ia-county-map-colorpg) Citizens Awareness Foundation and 6 of 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcitorg/2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... its sister organization, Our Public Records LLC, have filed lawsuits in 27 of Florida's counties, shaded here in blue. (Graphic by Grant Smith/Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.) Dave McIntosh, who runs an environmental mitigation bank that does work for the state, said his records request from An Onoma came at 9:48 a.m. on Sunday, May 18.1 was totally convinced it was bogus," he said. McIntosh wrote back asking who they were. The reply: "None of your business." The lawsuit arrived a month later, along with a settlement demand for $2,500. McIntosh offered to pay the $410 filing fee and $500 for costs. The lawyers rejected the offer and added a nondisclosure agreement, meaning the settlement couldn't be discussed afterwards. 'To me that was hilarious, another brick in the wall that makes the case that these guys are a scam," McIntosh said. He's fighting the lawsuit. In June, Miami's River of Life, a small social services agency, contacted Chandler saying they didn't realize their records were public and that they were willing to comply but the settlement demand for nearly $4,000 was too much. Chandler called the O'Boyle lawyer handling the case, Nickalaus Taylor, on June 27. After the call, Chandler emailed Taylor: "In our conversation this morning I understood, from you, that the O'Boyle Law Firm has about $1,200 in costs and fees in the case up to this point. I also understood that you have been instructed by Jonathan O'Boyle to demand $3,800 to settle the case. If such a demand is accepted by the Defendant that would create a windfall of about $2,600 beyond actual fees and expenses." Taylor responded: "This email is to confirm our conversation today and to reiterate that all offers for settlement are made pursuant to the policies of the O'Boyle Law Firm." On June 30, Chandler resigned. Worried about 7 of 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records littp://fcir.org/2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... the damage he had inadvertently caused, he contacted defendants in the lawsuits and offered his help. Citizen Awareness Foundation sued him for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty, Since Chandler's departure, Citizens Awareness Foundation and Our Public Records LLC have filed 70 more lawsuits around the state, Among the latest defendants: a Catholic charity in Sarasota County, an accountant in Hillsborough County, and ChildNet, a nonprofit in Broward County whose mission is to "protect abused, abandoned and neglected children." ;ifi, Print Friendly COM ents 14 comments Citizens Awareness Foundation_ foundation/) Joel Chandler (httpl/L cir.org/tag/joe1chand) er ' ) Atlartin O'Boyle (Littp://fcir.olg./tag/martin-ohoyle/1 Elua,512.Loe Law (http•Mcir,orgftegisurishine-law/) Ir_e3Lar_tarDns_dallittp://fcir,org t tag/trevor-aaronsory ' ) Tristram (torten Wttp://fci r.org /tag/trIstram-korten/) 8 of 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcir.org/2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions- of-profits-a... SHARE ON: Like < ‘44. G+1 4 Tweet RELATED POSTS FCIR-WLRN Report on Clifiate Change' Ban Na(' ed IRE Finalist'thttp://fcir.org /2.016/04/07/feir-wIrn-reporton-clifiate-ehange-ban-ndie dire-finalist/) aittp: // fcirsogi i ( 0 1 / KOiticir-wIrn-reporton-climate-change-ban-named-ire-finalistn Study: Florida Not,Regulating Hazardous Wage Polluters thttp: //f t irl igi20§ 4COMEtudy-floridanot-regulating-hazardous-waste-polluters/) of 13 6/312016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcir.ore2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-q uestions-of-profits-a . ( /donate) SUBSCDIDE TO FCI0 Email Address Subscribe Advertisement Advertisement l0of13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcir.org/2014/11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... © Florida Center for Investigative Reporting Corrections Policy fht tp : / /fcir.org/correctionsn Ethics aj td Diversity Policy Chttp: //f . cir.org/ethics/) Reader Comment Guidelines ( http: //fcir org treader-comment-guidelines/) 1 1 of I3 6/3/2016 11:47 AM » In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcir.org/2014/11/09/1n-lawsuits-statewide-questions-ofprofits-a... thttp: //twitter.qattp: //facebook.com ticir) /f lorjdacir) 12 of 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM In Lawsuits Statewide, Questions of Profits and Public Records http://fcitorg/2014 /11/09/in-lawsuits-statewide-questions-of-profits-a... SE VE COM SE INSTALS). CO 13 of 13 6/3/2016 11:47 AM arthia Miller From: David Sufrin <dsufrin@law-nj.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:30 AM To: Cynthia Bailey Subject: RE: O'Boyle Thank you!!!! Confrirmed From: Cynthia Bailey [mailto:cbailey@sweetapplelaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:14 AM To: dsufrin@law-nj.com Subject: O'Boyle 11111=1111111111111M111111, Mr. Sufrin: Please see attached documents and link to the article below. Thank you. http: // fcir.org/2014/11/09/ in-lawsuits-statewide-c luestions-of-orofits-and-public-records/ Please confirm receipt. CYNTHIA J. BAILEY Certified Paralegal/Florida Certified Paralegal/Florida Registered Paralegal Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. 20 SE 3`d Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 392-1230 (t) x. 305 (561) 394-6102 (f) cbailev@sweetapolelaw. com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, maintain, save or otherwise use this email. Please contact the sender at the above number immediately. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. Cynthia Miller From: Deborah Smith Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:56 AM To: dsufrin@Iaw-nj.com Cc: Robert Sweetapple; Cynthia Bailey Subject: O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream Attachments: Defendant's Motion for Sanctions,pdf Mr. Sufrin, Attached is another Motion for Sanctions which we filed in the above-referenced matter. 'Very truCy yours, DEBORAH L. SMITH, CP, FRP Certified Paralegal, Florida Registered Paralegal Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. 20 SE 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 392-1230 (t) x. 300 (561) 394-6102 (f) dsmithPsweetapolelaw.com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, maintain, save or otherwise use this email. Please contact the sender at the above number immediately, Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474XXXXMB DIVISION: AG Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. DEFENDANT' S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, MARTIN E. O ' BOYLE, COUNSEL OF RECORD, THE O' BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C. , JONATHAN WAND WILLJAM RING, ESQUIRE Defendant, Town Of Gulf Stream, moves this Court for the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., its President, Jonathan O'Boyle, and William Ring, Esquire, for unprofessional, unethical and abusive litigation tactics, and as grounds therefore would show the Court that: 1. On May 30, 2014, Defendant, through its counsel, Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L., and Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A., filed Defendant's Motion to Disqualify the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., or in the Alternative, for an Evidentiary Hearing (hereinafter the "Motion"). 2. This Motion has been withdrawn without prejudice as Defendant is seeking other remedies with regard to the matters addressed in the Motion. 3. Significantly, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., registered as a Florida foreign profit corporation on February 10, 2014, claiming its principal office as 2146 E. Huntingdon Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Upon information and belief, at the time of registering the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc. (hereinafter the "O'Boyle Law Finn"), as a Florida foreign profit corporation, the O'Boyle Law Firm LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPFLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S .E. 3RD STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432-3911 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstrearn CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG ( PALM BEACH COUNTY) appears to have had no real business presence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although it was registered as a Pennsylvania Corporation on November 14, 2013, it further appears that: a. The O'Boyle Law Firm did not own or lease any commercial space there. b. The O'Boyle Law Firm did not have a business telephone line. c. The O'Boyle Law Firm had no employees and paid no salaries. d. The O'Boyle Law Finn did not pay city, state or federal taxes because it had no employees. e. The O'Boyle Law Firm did not obtain an occupational license to conduct business in the City of Philadephia. f . The O'Boyle Law Finn's sole principal, officer and director, Jonathan O'Boyle, used his Florida cell phone number (561-758-1223), as the firm telephone number. g. Jonathan O'Boyle is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, but not of the Florida Bar. h. Jonathan O'Boyle advised the Pennsylvania Bar that he is an out-of-state attorney with an address in Florida. i. Jonathan O'Boyle advised the Pennsylvania Bar that his address is in the Town of Gulf Stream, Florida at 23 N, Hidden Harbour Drive, his parent's home address. j . At the time of the opening of the O'Boyle Law Firm in Florida, Jonathan O'Boyle resided and was domiciled in Florida. k. When the O'Boyle Law Firm opened in Florida, it was operated out of his father, Martin O'Boyle's, office at West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida. It is still operated out of this building, which is owned or controlled by Martin O'Boyle. 2 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE,13ROEICFA & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E, 3RD STREET, Boca RATON, FLORIDA 33432.3911 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) 1 . Since opening the O'Boyle Law Firm, Jonathan O'Boyle has had a constant presence in the State of Florida handling legal matters for his father and his father's businesses, including at least four (4) pro hac vice appearances. m. Jonathan O'Boyle has misrepresented his residence as part of his filings with the Court and/or the Bar. 5. Immediately after Defendant filed "the Motion", Plaintiff, Martin O'Boyle (hereinafter "O'Boyle") and his counsel, William Ring, requested a meeting with Joanne M. O'Connor, John C. Randolph and Sidney Stubbs of the Jones Foster law firm. 6. On June 4, 2014, O'Boyle, William Ring, Joanne O'Connor, and John Randolph met in the offices of Jones Foster. Mr. Stubbs was not in attendance. 7. O'Boyle indicated the meeting should be confidential in nature as it was called for the purpose of arriving at a settlement. However, Plaintiff then proceeded to issue implicit threats, stating that as a result of the Motion, which was directed at O'Boyle's son's law fiat, O'Boyle intended to take steps against opposing counsel and their children. O'Boyle also made art implicit threat of physical violence stating, "You know I've never been a violent person. These hands have never touched anyone." O'Boyle inquired regarding opposing counsel, Joanne O'Connor's, marital status and threatened to hire investigators to "watch counsel's daughter to see if she slips up." 8. O'Boyle further stated that he was going to open sober houses throughout the Town of Gulf Stream. 9 . These statements were made for the purpose of intimidating counsel, including undersigned counsel. The above conduct has caused undersigned counsel's co-counsel to become witnesses with regard to these events and this motion. 3 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEICER & VAR1CAS, 20 S.E.3" STREET, BOCA RAToN, FLORIDA 33432,3911 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM REACH COUNTY) 10. Following the meeting, John Randolph wrote a letter to William Ring informing him that the meeting did not involve settlement discussions and therefore it would not be treated as confidential, Exhibit "1". 11. After the meeting, O'Boyle commenced to have airborne banners flown on a daily basis over Palm Beach County. Some of the banners read: DATE TIME ACTIVITY MESSAGE 06/05/14 @ 2:00 pm Banner Plane "JONES FOSTER CLIENTS, CHECK YOUR BILLS" — 06/06/14 —@2:00 pm Banner Plane "SF DON'T DRINK & DRIVE — WE'LL BE WATCHING" 06/10/14 @2:00 pm Banner Plane "HAS JONES FOSTER EMBRACED A BAD APPLE'?" 06/13/14 @I1:10 am Banner Plane "JONES FOSTER — YOUR BILLS MAKE ME PUKE" 06/20/13 @II:00 am Banner Plane "SWEET APPLES ARE ROT I1 APPLES RIGHT JF" 06/24/14 @10:38 am Banner Plane "SWEET APPLES ARE BEST BOILED IN OIL" 12. On June 6, 2014, O'Boyle had his attorney and business associate, William Ring, Esquire, form a Florida limited liability company called "Sweet Apple Sober Houses, LLC", Exhibit "2", an obvious reference to a defense counsel's surname. 13. In addition, on June 13, 2014, O'Boyle appeared before a meeting of the Gulf Stream Town Commission and made false and defamatory allegations against Gulf Stream's co-counsel, Robert Sweetapple, stating that a Judge of the First District Court of Appeal had found that "Mr. Sweetapple consistently misrepresented testimony and failed to acknowledge well-established case law, including Supreme Court precedents." (Exhibit "3") This statement is patently untrue, and was made to undermine the Town's confidence in its attorney. 14. The above threats and conduct have occurred with the knowledge, cooperation and complicity of William Ring, Jonathan O'Boyle and the O'Boyle Law Firm. Specifically, this misconduct is being 4 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAFTLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3R° STREET, BOCA Rarom, FLORIDA 33432-3H I Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulistream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) undertaken to pressure and intimidate defense counsel into not pursuing the issue of whether the O'Boyle Law Firm is a bona fide Interstate Law Firm. 15. The issue of whether the O'Boyle Law Firm is a bona fide Interstate Law Firm is one that should be resolved according to law. It should not be the subject of harassment, intimidation and air raids by opposing counsel and their client. 16. The misconduct is unprofessional, unethical and it constitutes an egregious example of litigation abuse. These tactics go beyond zealous representation and are designed to interfere with defense counsels' ethical obligation to their client. Such conduct undermines society's commitment to the resolution of disputes in courts of law, rather than in the streets or in the sky. 17. While citizens enjoy the constitutional right of free speech, that protection is afforded to truthful speech, and while attorneys must zealously represent their client's interests, they are also officers of the court, and are prohibited from disparaging witnesses and attorneys, or otherwise undermining the administration of justice. 18. It is well settled that the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to sanction parties and their counsel for litigation abuse. In this instance, Plaintiff and his counsel have sought to cease any litigation or determination of the bona fides of the O'Boyle Law Firm by threatening and instituting reprisals against counsel, their client and families. 19. While O'Boyle has the right to continue to make a spectacle of himself, he, with the assistance of counsel, cannot impugn, malign and attempt to extort opposing parties or their counsel as part of the litigation process. 20. Abusive conduct is not a novelty for O'Boyle, who has left a historic trail of abusive litigation. 5 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPFLE, BROEKER. & VARXAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3P1) Smarr, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432-3911 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXlvIBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) 21, O'Boyle has abused the legal system in several states by overwhelming local municipal governments and a State Attorney's office with the filing of thousands of public records requests and abusive litigation. 22. The case of Martin E. O'Boyle v. Peter Isen, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.), issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on appeal from case no. L-2341-08, is attached hereto as Exhibit "4". The Court noted, From September 2007 through early July 2008, plaintiff and members of his family filed multiple requests pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. Longport's only clerk worked part-time, and she did not address the requests within the time required by statute. At one point, the clerk went to the emergency room because of the stress she attributed to the flood of OPRA requests. And, in February 2008, the Borough's solicitor notified plaintiff that it would not accept any additional OPRA requests he filed, explaining that the numerous requests were substantially disrupting governmental services. The solicitor claimed that Longport had received 190 requests on October 16 and 17 and thirty filed October 31, 2007. In the Isen case, O'Boyle sued a resident of Longport for claiming O'Boyle was "the enemy of Longport". The suit for defamation was dismissed by summary judgment and affirmed by the appellate court. 23, Similarly, when his daughter was being prosecuted for driving under the influence, O'Boyle inundated the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office both individually and through companies he controls with over 1,300 requests for public records. (attached hereto as Exhibit "5"), 24. In an interview with the Palm Beach Post discussing his dealings with then candidate Dave Aronberg, O'Boyle stated, My view in life is: Take whatever shots you like at me, because I'm a big boy and I can handle them. But don't mess with my kids, my wife or my home. Don't do it. Don't. Because come at you with every resource 1 have, And there's a lot. (attached hereto as Exhibit "6"). 6 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER ft V ARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3 1u ) STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432-3911 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG ( PALM BEACH COUNTY) 25. In litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Mr. O'Boyle received an adverse summary judgment ruling on a legal malpractice claim against a law firm, arising out of a representation where O'Boyle defaulted on an $8.9 million mortgage. The Court ordered O'Boyle to pay fees and costs to the defendants, and additionally sanctioned O'Boyle. In so ordering, the Tennessee court noted that: "More than seven years of frivolous litigation, litigation spawned by the zealous temperament of O'Boyle, has placed an extreme burden on the Clerk of this Court over and above the everyday course of business... The Court believes and finds that O'Boyle's conduct is the result of intransigence and stubborn litigiousness on his part, which the Court is not willing to tolerate." See O'Boyle v. Shulman, Rogers, et, al., 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6 (Tenn.) (attached hereto as Exhibit "7"). 26. O'Boyle and his counsel fail to recognize that a Plaintiff and its counsel are subject to the Rules of Court. The fact that the bona fides of his son's alleged interstate law firm are being challenged is not justification for his use of intimidation, threats, extortion or slurs. 27. O'Boyle's counsel must be careful not to advise or condone conduct that interferes with or illegally exploits the legal system, An attorney must control the client or, under certain circumstances, subject himself to a claim of complicity. " [A] lawyer is ... an officer of the legal system, and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice." Preamble, Chapter 4, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. An attorney has a duty to refrain from advocacy that undermines or interferes with the functioning of the judicial system. See Malautea v, Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir.1993) "An attorney's duty to a client can never outweigh his or her responsibility to see that our system of justice functions smoothly. This concept is as old as common law jurisprudence itself."); see, e.g., rules 4-3.5(c) ("a lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal"), and 4-8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not "engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the 7 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BI OEKER & V APSAS, 20 S.E. 31w STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432-3911 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO, 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) administration of justice, including to knowingly disparage ... witnesses or other lawyers on any basis...."), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. When professional judgment does not restrain a lawyer's zealous advocacy, however, the courts must act to assure that aggressive advocacy does not frustrate or disrupt the administration of judicial proceedings. See In Re Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302, 9 S,Ct. 77, 79, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888); Sandstrom v, State, 309 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. dismissed 336 So.2d 572 (Fla.1976); see also Louis S. Raveson, Advocacy and Contempt: Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Contempt Power, Part One: The Conflict Between Advocacy and Contempt, 65 Wash.L.Rev. 477, 539-40 (1990). Carnival Corp v. Beverly, 744 So.2d 489 (FIa. 1st DCA 1999) 28. The O'Boyle Law Firm and William Ring have continued to represent O'Boyle in perpetrating these unethical and abusive activities, That conduct should also be sanctioned. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this Court enter appropriate sanctions for litigation abuse against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, his Counsel of Record, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan O'Boyle, President of the O'Boyle Law Firm, and William Ring, Esquire, including striking Plaintiff's pleadings, entering an order prohibiting Plaintiff from exploiting his right to litigate in a manner that impugns and threatens opposing counsel. Defendant also seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs for bringing the motion. Respectfully submitted, SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL Co-Counsel for Defendants 20 SR 3rd Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 392-1230 E-Mail:pleadings@swee tapplelaw.com By: */ ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No. 0296988 8 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER. & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E.3u' STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432-3911 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 5020111CA004.474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the E-Filing Portal this 3rd day of July, 2014 to: Giovani Mesa, Esquire, Nick Taylor, Esquire, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:I-954-574-6885; E-mail: gmesa@oboylelavvfirrn.coin, ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com); Jonathan O'Boyle, Esquire, President, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:1-954-574-6885; E-mail: joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com); Joanne O'Connor, Esquire, John C. Randolph, Esquire and Ashlee A. Richman, Esquire, Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, PA., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (Telephone: I -561-659-3000; Email: joconnorgonesfoster.COM; jrandolph@jonesfoster.com ; arichman@jonesfoster.com); and William Ring, Esquire, Commerce Group, Inc., 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33224 (Telephone: 1-954-570-3510; Email: wrimg@commerce-group.co m). By: ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No. 0296988 9 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, 20 S.E. 3HP STREET, Boca RATON, FLORIDA 33432-3911 JONESFOSTER. JOUNS t oN ik Si Mtn John C. Randolph Attorney 581-650-0458 Fax: 551-660-5300 jrandolph@jonesfoster corn June 4,2014 VIA EMAIL (wrinc iacommerce-groub.com) AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL William F. Ring, Jr., Esquire 1280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 RE: Meeting of June 4,2014 Dear Mr. Ring: Yesterday you requested a meeting between you and your client, Martin E. O'Boyle, and me and my partner, Joanne O'Connor. We represent the Town of Gulf Stream. I inquired as to the subject matter of the meeting, but you would not disclose it in advance. At the outset of this afternoon's meeting, your client requested that our communications be treated as privileged settlement communications regarding pending litigation. We agreed that our communications would be treated as such only to the extent that they were, in fact, communications regarding the settlement of pending litigation. We specifically advised you that the privilege would not apply to any discussions relating to future litigation or threats of future action: Please be advised that because none of today's discussions concerned the potential settlement of any pending litigation between our clients, we do not consider them to be privileged settlement discussions under Florida law. Sincerely, JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. JCR:mtm PAdocst1314 A00051 Ilir11p/I98 docx EXHIBIT Since 19241 West Pulm Beach I Jupiter f lagkr ( tau, r 1inkur r ioS South rittglur I )rivu• Suite I UM \Vot licault noricia ti ;01 www.jonnufn5sur-untn Detail by Entity Name Page I of 2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION o CORPORATIONS Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company SWEET APPLE SOBER HOUSES, LLC Filing Information Document Number L14000091296 FEI/EIN Number NONE Date Filed 06/06/2014 State FL Status ACTIVE Effective Date 06/05/2014 Principal Address 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442 Mailing Address 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442 Registered Agent Name & Address RING, WILLIAM F, JR. 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442 Authorized Person(s) Detail Name & Address Title MGR O'BOYLE, MARTIN E 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442 Annual Reports No Annual Reports Filed Document Images 06/05/2014 -- Florida Limited LiabiiitY View image in PDF format EXHIBIT C ; ) . http://search.sunbizorg/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail/EntityName/fla1-11... 6/11/2014 Excerpt from the meeting of the Town Commission held on 6-13-14 listed on Agenda as Item VII. Communinations A.2. from Residents (5 minutes maximum) Martin O'Boyle: Good morning everyone. I have a few things I would like to go over, but first I just want to give an explaination to the Commission and the public. You will notice that I no longer stand for the flag salute, and the reason (don't know what made it do that....cell phone signal) and the reason for that is----when I woke up this morning I was an American. When I walked thru those doors, that did it. This is no longer America and here the flag salute means something and in this chamber it means nothing. I just wanted to make that explanation so that if anybody asks they will have the explanation from the horses mouth.um--the Mayor sent a letter out about litigation and boy it sure is expensive--um--I didn't see Mr. Randolph pull up in a Roles Royce so I know he is not getting all the money although his firm as of Feb. to Feb. billed close to *300,000. um--frankly looking at the bills, and we looked at them, makes me puke. To my knowledge, the Town has never wont a case.since Jan. 13th in a hall of justice. And, by the way, I have no issues with Mr. Randolph, I think he is a good attorney, I thinkAis price, is sensational and I think he represent6 this Commission in the best fashion he knows how and one that this Commission should be very pleased with. Thats my opinion. Then, you brought in Mr. Sweetapple whose clearly the fair haired boy. I don't know why a firm like Jones, Foster isn't enough, but I guess the Mayor doesn't have any buddies at Jones, Foster. Thats the only solution I can come to. ah---Mr. Sweetapple's clearly a hot shot lawyer--um--tleMayor gave the Commission and the residents a build up that was, frankly exciting, $500 an hour, charging us $350 an hour and he had experience in public records law. Well, there has been another law suite filed against the Town and the law suite that was filed against the Town was based upon Mr, Sweetapple's noncompliance with the State Statute Chapter 119 for public records. He redacted portions of his bill and anyone who knows anything about public records knows if you are going to redact, you have to tell under which exception, -if thats the right word, under which exception you are redacting. Mr. Ganger could say I am redacting my Social Security number in accordance with this section. That would be proper. Mr. Thrasher has done redaction the same way. Here he didn't, here you got a law suite. Also on his bill he talks about the Sunshine Law, well there's a document called the Sunshine Manual which teaches you how to navigate through the records act. So, where this guy came from, I guess it will always be a secret to me. We--ugh--one of my lawyers was in the court house and learned a little bit about Mr. Sweetapple. Be had a case in the 1st Dist. Court of Appeals before Judge Benton, the Judge found that Mr. Sweetapple consistently misrepresented testimony and failed to acknowledge well established case law including Supreme Court precedence. There was another case in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, the Judge Elizabeth Moss says that Mr. Sweetapple l,s filing was a slander Mayor /Organ: I've got 5 minutes Mr. O'Boyle. O'Boyle: Yes, you do don't you. You want to let me---Mayor: That'concludes your public comment. O'Boyle: Pardon Mayor: That concludes your public comment. O'Boyle: Well, I know. Do you want to let me finish is my question. Mayor: No, I don't. O'Boyle: 1 can understand why Mayor. Mayor: You have 5 minutes. Make your point in 5 minutes. Thank you -- 4 -EXHIBIT Wettaw. Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.) (Cite as: 20/4 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.)) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Martin E. O'BOYLE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Peter ISEN, Defendant—Respondent. Argued Dec. II, 2013. Decided Jan. 31, 2014. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-2341-08. Jonathan R. O'Boyle, of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (Jacobs & Barbone, P.A. and Mr. O'Boyle, attorneys; Lucille A. Bongiovanni, on the brief). David W. Sufrin argued the cause for respondent (Zucker Steinberg Sonstein & Wixted, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Sufrin, on the brief). Before Judges GRALL, WAUGH and ACCURSO. PER CURIAM. *1 Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Peter Isen on a complaint alleging defamation.FNI For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FNI. We do not detail the complicated procedural history of this case in the trial court because it is not material to the issue raised on appeal. It suffices to note, this complaint was consolidated with others for a time and several of plaintiffs claims were dismissed. Page 1 This claim of defamation by defendant was ultimately severed, and the grant of summary judgment is the only matter before us. Plaintiff and defendant are both residents of the Borough of Longport, and plaintiffs cause of action rests on a single statement made by defendant. The events preceding defendant's statement provide context, In 2006, Bruce Funk, the assistant chief of Longport's fire department and an employee of its building department, responded to a call received by the fire department about plaintiffs property. While there, Funk observed alterations of the ground level of the premises that, in his view, violated the Borough's building code. That December, plaintiff was issued a notice charging him with violations of the zoning ordinance. Defendant was a member of Longport's planning and zoning boards between January 2007 and January 2010.m He was a long-time and year-round resident of Longport, and for about four years he was plaintiffs neighbor. Although plaintiff resided in both Longport and in Florida, he and defendant had both worked on the mayoral campaign for the candidate who was the mayor during the relevant time period. FN2. Defendant issued a public statement on January 12, 2010, advising that he was resigning from the boards, In that notice he indicates that he held the position for the past three years. In August 2007, Funk pursued the zoning violation charges he had levied against plaintiff. Funk notified the federal and state offices of emergency management, and he made an inquiry to the Department of Homeland Security about canceling plaintiffs flood insurance because of the zoning violations. In Funk's estimation, violation of floodplain regulations C 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EXHIBIT 1 -1 Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.T.Super.A.D.) (Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N,J.Super.A.D.)) would increase flood insurance premiums for the community of Longp art. From September 2007 through early July 2008, plaintiff and members of his family filed multiple requests pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A—I to —13. Longport's only clerk worked part-time, and she did not address the requests within the time required by statute. At one point, the clerk went to the emergency room because of the stress she attributed to the flood of OPRA requests. And, in February 2008, the Borough's solicitor notified plaintiff that it would not accept any additional OPRA requests he filed, explaining that the numerous requests were substantially disrupting governmental services. The solicitor claimed that Longport had received 190 requests on October 16 and 17 and thirty filed on October 31, 2007. In April 2008, plaintiff filed a civil complaint to compel Longport's compliance with OPRA. And in June, Longport retained NFC Global, an investigative firm, to uncover any prior difficulties plaintiff may have had with federal and state agencies. The firm completed its report later that month. On July 2, 2008, the Press of Atlantic City reported on the numerous OPRA requests. There is no dispute that Longport incurred significant legal fees in defending against plaintiffs suit. Plaintiffs OPRA suit was pending when defendant made the allegedly defamatory statement on July 5, 2008. That day, plaintiff was walking and conversing with Leonard Sylk and Fred Kremer, both residents of Longport, near an entrance to the beach by defendant's home. According to plaintiff, defendant said, "what are you guys doing with him, he's the enemy of Longporn" Plaintiff further asserts that defendant made the same comment to William Simon, when Simon stopped his car to talk to the men. According to Simon, defendant, referring to plaintiff, said "he is the enemy of the people of Longport[,][s]tay away from him." Page 2 *2 Those present had different views of defendant's comment. Defendant said he was joking, and Sylk thought the same. According to Sylk's testimony, defendant was "sort of laughing" and "sounded like he was joking" when he and Kremer were asked "why [they were] consorting with the enemy." Sylk also noted that plaintiff laughed. In contrast, Simon thought defendant was angry and serious. While insisting that he made the remark about plaintiff being the enemy in jest, defendant admitted that he believed plaintiff was fairly characterized as the enemy of the residents of Longport. He based that opinion on plaintiffs conduct, which in his view, led to Longport's unnecessary expenditures for legal fees. In plaintiffs opinion, defendant made the remark intending to have the residents of Longport ostracize and isolate him and succeeded. He based that opinion on subsequent municipal actions singling him and his friends out for unfavorable treatment and affording defendant favorable treatment. In plaintiffs view, defendant's comment was the cause of his ill-treatment. Plaintiff gave several examples. Days after defendant made the comment, Longport's mayor called the County Health Department, which subsequently directed plaintiff to remove portable toilets from his property on the beach. In August, plaintiff filed a complaint against another resident for threatening his life, which the police did not investigate. Moreover, a friend of plaintiffs asserted that in May 2009, a police officer, who had detained him for forty minutes without proper cause, admitted that he had been directed to give him a hard time because of his friendship with plaintiff, who was an enemy of the people. Plaintiff also had evidence of defendant's favorable treatment. Another police officer admitted that he had not issued defendant a ticket when he saw him violate the law prohibiting use of a cell phone while driving. 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.) (Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.)) Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging defamation on July 15, 2008, while his OPRA complaint was still pending. One month later, the Law Division ruled on one issue in the OPRA action. The court directed Longport to accept future OPRA requests from plaintiff In that decision, the court did not address the merits of plaintiffs claim that Longport's disposition of the OPRA requests it had accepted violated the law, and the record does not include the final order in that action. The zoning violations were resolved in plaintiffs favor later in August 2008. Longport and plaintiff reached an agreement under which the municipality dismissed the charges based on plaintiffs alleged non-compliance. Summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs defamation claim was not entered until September 23, 2011, Judge Higbee determined that defendant's statement describing plaintiff as "the enemy of Longport" cannot, as a matter of law, support a finding of defamation, because the asserted description is an opinion, not a fact. *3 In reviewing a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. The question is whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, because a jury giving the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable evidence and inferences could not return a verdict for plaintiff. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). Applying that standard, we agree with and affirm Judge Higbee's determination. Plaintiff contends that the judge erred in concluding that defendant's comment was incapable of having a defamatory meaning. That is a question of law for the courts, DeAngelis v, Hill, 180 NJ 1, 14 (2004), which we must review de novo, Toll Bros., Page 3 Inc, v, Twp. of W Windsor, 173 N../. 502, 549 (2002). Judge Higbee, in our view, correctly resolved this question. Liability for defamation is imposed based upon publication of a false statement that injures the reputation of another. Salzano v. N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 512 (2010), cert. denied, —U.S. , 131 S.Ct, 1045, 178 L. Ed.2d 864 (2011). The tort recognizes that people should be free to enjoy their reputations without suffering false and defamatory attacks. Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Corp., 139 NJ. 392, 409 (1995), cart, denied, 516 U.S. 1066, 116 S.Ct, 752, 133 L. Ed.2d 700 (1996). Thus, to establish defamation, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered damages as a result of a statement of fact made by the defendant concerning the plaintiff, which was false and which was communicated to a person other than the plaintiff. Singer v. Beach Trading Co., Inc., 379 N.J.Super, 63, 80 (App.Div2005). A statement is not defamatory unless it is false. W.J.A. v. D.A ., 210 NJ: 229, 238 (2012). In determining whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning, courts consider three factors: the content, the verifiability and the context of the challenged statement DeAngelis, supra, 180 N.J. at 14, To analyze the content of the statement, courts consider the fair and natural meaning that the words would be given by persons of reasonable intelligence. !bid Although "epithets, insults, name-calling, profanity and hyperbole" may be offensive, they are not actionable as defamatory. Ibid. Thus, courts must distinguish defamation from offensive "obscenities, vulgarities and other verbal abuse." Ibict Plaintiff relies on Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.Ct, 2695, 2706, 111 L. Ed.2d 1, 18 (1990), a case involving an expression of the writer's opinion that a coach committed perjury. © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works, Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.) (Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.)) Recognizing that opinions cannot be "false," the Court stressed that there is no "wholesale defamation exemption" for any statement that might be labeled en opinion. Id. at 18, 110 S.Ct. at 2705, 111 L, Ed.2d at 17. The Court explained that if a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the speaker implied plaintiff committed perjury, then the implied assertion of fact would amount to defamation, if proven false. Id. at 20, 110 S.Ct. at 2706-07, I 1 1 L. Ed2d at 19. *4 The Court's opinion in Milkovich points out the difference between the statement at issue in that case and this one. The Court stated: "unlike a subjective assertion[,] the averred defamatory language [here] is an articulation of an objectively verifiable event," La, whether the plaintiff had actually committed perjury. Id at 22, 110 S.Ct. at 2707, 111 L. Ed2d at 20. But in this case, defendant's characterization of plaintiff as the town's enemy, while arguably insulting, does not imply any particular conduct or event that could be verified as true or false, For example, defendant did not refer to the zoning violation or the number of OPRA requests. He simply indicated that plaintiff was an "enemy" of Longport. It is well-settled that a statement is not actionable when it has an imprecise meaning. Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882, 893 (2d Cir.1976) (holding that the terms "fascist," "fellow traveler" and "radical right" were too imprecise, loose and insusceptible of proof to be considered defamatory). When the meaning of an insulting assertion—here the enemy of Longport—is not settled, its truth or falsity cannot be proven. On similar reasoning, this court has held that a statement that could be understood to describe another as one who is not "a decent resident" cannot support a defamation claim because it does not state or imply something amounting to slander per se, such as criminality. Taurus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 381 N.J.Super. 412, 427-28 (App.Div.2005), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 189 N.J 497 (2007); see also Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. 282, 291 (1988) (discussing slander per se). Page 4 Like a statement implying that one is not "decent," a statement that one is an "enemy" of a municipality does not imply any verifiable fact. Relying on the various contexts in which the phrase public enemy has been used over time, plaintiff argues that defendant's statement could be understood as calling him a traitor, an outlaw, a criminal or a pirate. That may be, but it could just as easily be understood to describe a person who disapproveS of the town's leaders, the way they do business or their goals. We reject plaintiffs attempt to equate this statement of uncertain meaning to a "false attribution of criminality," which is deemed slanderous as a matter of law. Romaine, supra, 109 N.J. at 291. As previously noted, statements alleged to be defamatory or slanderous must be assigned the " 'fair and natural meaning' " that would be assigned by "reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence.' " Id, at 290 (quoting Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 48 NJ:Super. 420, 431 (App.Div.), aft d on rehearing, 49 N.J.Super, 551 (App.Div.1958)). So viewed, defendant's labeling of plaintiff as an enemy of Longport or its people could not be understood as anything other than name calling. Because defendant's statement did not imply any verifiable conduct or event and simply voiced his opinion, it cannot be proven false. Even if every resident of Longport other than defendant deemed plaintiff to be a friend of the municipality, it would not make defendant's opinion false, because he did not imply that his view was universally held or was based on a verifiable event. *5 Our resolution of the case on the ground that this statement is not, as a matter of law, defamatory makes it unnecessary to consider the arguments addressing plaintiff's status as a public figure. Affirmed. 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov, Works. Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 349104 (N.J.Super.A.D.) (Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.)) NJ.Super.A.D.,2014. O'Boyle v. Isen Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.) END OF DOCUMENT C 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 5 Millionaire deluges state attorney with public records requests after daughter's DUI convi... Page 1 of 1 Government Law Millionaire deluges state attorney with public records requests after daughter's DUI conviction Posted Mar 26, 2013 3:10 PM CDT By Martha Neil Corrected: At one time, Martin E. "Marty" O'Boyle was a political ally of Florida state attorney Dave Aronberg, helping him position himself to get elected. But after Aronberg refused to take a position concerning the 2011 misdemeanor driving-under-the-influence conviction o O'Boyle's daughter, Sara, the two parted ways. They still have regular dealings, however, due to the deluge of public records requests regularly submitted by O'Boyle, whose daughter has performed community service and paid a fine but is also appealing her conviction, reports the Palm Beach Post. Florida has one of the broadest public records laws in the country, allowing citizens to access material such as emalls and texts. And Marty O'Boyle, determined to help his daughter reverse her conviction, is seeking to take full advantage c it, according to the newspaper. In a single month, a company he controls submitted 1,328 requests for public records to Aronberg and the office for the prosecutor overseeing Sara O'Boyle's case, after Aronberg recused his own office from doing so. The problem is, the public records requests submitted by O'Boyle's company—which, altogether, are among the most massive in state history—require review and redaction of records before they can be turned over, the newspaper explain: "I have been, and am, a supporter of the public records law," said State Attorney Bruce Colton of the 19th Judicial Circui whose office is now overseeing Sara O'Boyle's case. 'But I think the law can be abused. When you look at the number c requests ... these requests could amount to an abuse of the public records law." Related coverage: Palm Beach Post (July 2012): "Dave Arenberg, millionaire ally behind stealth attacks in state attorney's race' Updated on March 27 to correct Aronberg's job title. Copyright 2014 American Bar Association. All rights reserved. http://www.abajournal.cornlnews/article/millionaire deluged__state_ attorneys with 1328 Fellow us on • Thursday, July3,2014 1223 pm. Subscribe (Today's paper (Customer care Sign In I Register l ' i r 1-he I I'll 1) ,11.-" , ivirl , . • 000 ,••• .00. Breaking news starts here Search Posted 10:13 a.m Sunday, July 22, 2012 Dave Aronberg, millionaire ally behind stealth attacks in state attorney's race !1(E if Icy fXr x , r tty KGAlijyr4 4 ?bit Related By Joel Engelhardt and Adam Playford Palm Beach Peat Staff Writers EXHIBIT CO Waving handmade signs and grasping yellow balloons, a small group marched last fall outside State Attorney Michael McAuliffe's once, angrily calling for him to resign. McAuliffe had just negotiated a plea deal that meant Paul rvIchael marhige. who killed tour relawes on Thanksgiving Day2009, would escape the death penally. But most of the protesters weren t there out of outrage. They were there because they were getting paid. They were getting paid because the man who wanted MrAullffe's Job, Dave Arenberg, wanted a protest, but didn't want his name linked to it Since he could not deliver enough protesters himself, M asked a newfound ally. Gulf Stream millionaire Marty O'Boyle. to help. An O'Boyle as s Went lined up a party planner And that's how a protest trumpeted on the nightty news as an outpouring of communItyanger actually starred a half-dozen actors more accustomed to playing princesses, clowns and dinosaurs That wes onlythe start. Over lour months, Arenberg and O'Boyle learned up for a campaign of attacks against McAulins, cautiously skirting Florida laws designed to assure transparency in electrons, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Palm Beach Post. They worked in strict secrecy. Arenberg — now the front.rurvrier for slate attorney—had not yet declared himself a candidate, so he took help from O'Boyle without discies Mg to the public what otherwise would have amounted to donations. For O'Boyle, it was just one act in his relentless quest to wipe a DUI convichon off his daughter's record, For Aronberg, it was an opportunity to take advantage of a millionaire's displeasure to undermine a rival. They moved assertively, running advertisements, paying protesters and digging up dirt Al stake: one of Palm Beach County's most important elected lobs. The state attorney has enormous discretion in deciding which criminal cases to pursue, Including political corruption. Arenberg, than a statewide prosecutor, guided O'Boyle's efforts, occasionally on taxpayer time, He em ailed Instructions to O'Boyle's assistant from his BlackBerry during work hours, a potential violation of state rules. Once, he accepted a round-trip ride to Tallahassee on O'Boyle's private plane. Throughout, Arenberg toyed with running. In one rare inOtorioo, an email reveals Aronberg's Intent Just six days before he announced, he urged en O'Boyle employee to pay for Facebook ads, saying, "I think they need to run before I become e candidate Aronberg's collaboration with O'Boyle tapered off after Jan 17, when McAuliffe —influenced in part, he said, by the nastycampaign swirling around him —announced he would not seek re-election. Arenberg declared his candidacy three days later end within six months had raised 3471,000, none of it from O'Boyle. But In enlisting O'Boyle, Arenberg miscalculated After months together, O'Boyle turned on him, releasing to The Post hundreds of emalls — including about 100 written by Arenberg—documenting their contacts in the time before Aronberg announced Ultimately, O'Boyle would turn on The Post as well. After a reporter told O' Boyle the newspaper was cnecking whether one of his exchanges with Arenberg could be viewed as an attempted bribe, he told the paper that he was "revisiting" the information he had provided "to confirm its validity?' and that the paper was not authorized to use the information or to attach his name lo It. Experts later told the paper that O'Boyle's actions like ty did not meat the legal definition of attempted bribery. Aronbarg. a Democrat, refused repeated requests for an interview to discuss his actions, addressing through his campaign manager only feu r of more than SO questions asked in writing by The Post. Sent hundreds of pages of his own em ails and asked to verify them, konberg didn't respond. In a one-paragraph statement, he blamed rrBoyle's revelations on one of his opponents: no-party candidate Robert Gershman, a criminal defense attorney who represents 0' Boyle's daughter. 'This is a dishonest political attack cooked up by m yopponent, Mr. Gershman full of misrepresentations and gross exaggerations," Aronberg said, 'As special prosecutor, have always acted according to the letter and spirit orate laws of the state of Florida and the policies of the Office of the Attorney General. I'm proud of my record of proven ethical leadership as an assistant attorney general, special prosecutor and state senator." be the end of mypolitical career," Arenberg said in a May TVappearance. O'Boyle, though, had plenty of money— and, with the banners, had shown a willingness to spend it tormenting McAuliffe. Arenberg reached out to Gars hman, O'Boyle's daughter's attorney and now Aronberg's rival for state attorney. Back then, Gershman had no plan to run, but it seemed to him that Aronberg did, "His pitch was he wanted financial support for his run and he viewed Martyin teatfashione Gershman said- Gershman told O'Boyle he had talked to Arenberg, The political courtship between Arenberg and O'Boyle began In late July over lunch at The Office, a Delray Beach hot spot. They started exchanging smalls. Arenberg peppered O'Beee with links to stories about McAuliffe. O'Boyle gave Arenberg a crypfic heads-up to "enjoyyeer lunch" at'Bannar's Coffee Shop around the Court House," Two days later, as promised, a plane flew the banner. "Smile If you think livikeykreAuliffe is a put." Arenberg asked O'Boyle to take a trip with him to Tallahassee, On 001.3, theydrove to Fort Lauderdale, loaded into O'Be yie's single-engine Cessna and flew north. The next morning, they met with a political consultant O'Boyle said that with Aronberg out of the room, consultant Screven Watson talked to him about paying $180,000 for tourpage mailers targeting Palm Beach County Democrats. O'Boyle wasn't buying, Watson said he was slang up O'Boyle at Pronberg's request. Wats on's conclusion:The guyhad moneybut never would be a reliable contributor. ells rest Interest iayln messing with tvicAuli ft. While they ware there, Arenberg took O'Boyle around the Capitel.They lunched, O'Boyle said, at Andrew's Capital Grill— home of the "Aronberg-er Spicy Veggie Burger," named during Arenberg's Senate days. They reviewed polling results with a police union lobbyist that showed Arenberg leading McAuliffe in a hypothetical m atchup. They discussed whether Arenberg should declare his candidacy. They visited the state Commission on Ethics to pick up a complaint against McAuliffe. Arenberg pressed the commission director to explain why the complaint had been dropped, O'Boyle said. On the eight back, O'Boyle said, Arenberg continuouslyreturned to a point he had made on the way up.11's just so wrong what theydid to your daughter," O'Boyle recalled Arenberg s aerigel Just can't believe Iheywould do such a thing' Protesters assembled outside the Palm Beech County state attorney's office Thursday morning in opposition to a plea deal that sent Thanksgiving massacre kilter Paul Wheal Merhigo to prison forlife.11,knvi than a dozen people stood outside slate attorney Moira& McAuliffe e office holding signs...' . ..WABF-ChinnattSW ob report on 010v .10 A few weeks later, a news story caught Areriberg's eye, At the end of October, McAuliffe agreed to a plea deal with Merhige, In 2009, Marhige had killed four relatives —including 6-year-old Makayla Salon —over Thanksgiving dinner in Jupiter. The plea would put Me rhige away for life and bring closure to one o(Paim Beach Countys most horrific crimes, But Jim Steen, Makaea's father, detested the deal and begged the judge not to lake it He wanted a trial and then the death penalty, Arenberg saw an opportunity. After they first tri et. O'Boyle assigned one of his assistants to work with Arenberg. Trained as a paralegal, the assistant, Denise Delvtarini, was one of aliloyle's best. "She'll move a mountain with one hand," O'Boyle said. Arenberg asked DeMartini to organize a protest of the deaf outside the state attorneys office, DeMarilni began moving mountains. She and O'Boyle consulted lawyers to find outwhere protesters could stand. She directed another O'Boyle employee to make fliers and to order bright yellow balloons Imprinted with 'DUMP MCAULIFFE" They drew up signs. Arenberg proposed several slogans, DeMartini wrote in an email, including: 'McAuliffe coddles killers," "Resign, tvireauliffe, Resign," "Democrats Against McAuliffe" and — more alrikingiy— "Justice for Makeela." The protest was almost ready. Only one thing was missing: protesters. Initially, Arenberg told DeMartini he would find them. But he came up empty "He was of the mind, 'We gotta get it done, we gotta de it You guys got contacts — you guys can get it done,' "O'Boyle recalled. DeMartini got it done, She called Kids Fairlyend, a Coconut Creek company that throws children's parties. A contract called for "10 people to participate in Rally Protest" The cost $1,400 for four flours.A few protesters left early, so O'Boyle got a $500 discount On Nov. 10, a rAdecgrapher hired by aBoyle captured the scene, More than a dozen protesters walked in a loop in front of the state attorneys office. Almost all were either O'Boyle employees or paid actors. O'Boyte himself wore a cap that said Drexel his daughter's school—and a sandwich board:"McAulifte Accept This Plea Resign.' Almost immediately, Arenberg asked for a second protest — this time outside McAuliffe's campaign kickoff party at E.R. Bradley's Saloon on the Flagier Drive waterfront. The fist one was so much work and money, O'Boyle wasn't eager to do it again. But Arenberg pushed, O'Boyle said. On Nov. 1611 happened, with alx actors for $600. As they prepared, O'Boyle em ailed a worker who had put Arenberg's name in an email: 'Arenberces name is not to be mentioned." And in both cases, Arenberg was nowhere to be seen. But Arenberg's presence was fell. He drove by the flea t protest several times, sending gleeful text messages to O'Boyle and DeMartini, they said, And his hand was evident They used several of his slogans, including *Democrats Against McAuliffe" and "Resign, McAuliffe, Resign.' O'Boyle: 'Dave —being the amateur that l am, I do not see a materiel difference in the ads. So I can not give you intelligent input' Aronberg: 'Pair enough.— ill send u the one I prefer in a separate email._ Happy Thanksgiving!' ernai Wham*, d 99In9 IS 991144049ff* eltstk ad to run In the Jew90 lama) Even as they prepared the protests, Arenberg wanted O'Boyle to pay for a more traditional attack. One theme Arenberg thought would resonate: conviction rates. State statistics showed MtAuliffe's office had the lowest rates in Florida. After McAuliffe resigned, those rates would be deemed statistical aberrations byhis replacement. Peter Antonacci. Months earlier, however, the issue looked like campaign gold. Arenberg asked 01800 and DeMani to place an ad in the Jewish Journal. The weekly newspaper targets a crucial Palm Beach County voting bloc and one that's personal to both Arenberg and McAuliffe, who are Jewish. Arenberg provided the ad end em ailed DeMartint contact information for a Jewish Journal ad executive. It ran Dec. 14 and cost O'Boyle $3,400. In bold letters, it proclaimed; ' Michael McAuliffe is Florida's Lowest Ranked State Attorney: An imposing chart compared Palm Beech Countys conviction rates with top-ranked Pinellas County and the much higher state average. Across the bottom, it said, "We need a new state attorney? Below even thatwas a tinyline of text "Paid for by Families for Justice LLC," The company had been incorporated two weeks before the ed ran. Its registered agent was a willing O'Boyle employee. Its name was picked byAronle erg, after the employee rejected his first choice, "Democrats Against McAuliffe." One of Arenberg's friends gave, the employee a script to read In case reporters called to ask why he had founded the group: "Asa mother of a child In Palm Beach County, I was so disturbed bythe state attorneys recent actions that t started this group to Interne the community that Michael McAuliffe has put all of our safety at risk. The alarming facts speak far themselves." No one called. The ad was legal, several lawyers said in interviews, because It didn't specifically urge a vote for or against McAuliffe. lilt had, Families for Justice would have been forced to register as a political organization. Inside McAuliffe's camp, the attacks ware infuriating. "Michael was like, 'We need to respond to this,'" said McAuliffe's campaign manager, Rick Asnani.lwas like, 'Respond to who? We don't haver a target to shoot air " Internally, theysuspeded Arenberg. Polls had surfaced, showing Aronberg as a ',table candidate. Donors told Asnani that Arenberg had contacted them, urging them not to commit to McAuliffe, "There was an anti-McAuliffe campaign being run behind the scenes where the onlyone who would benefitfrom itwas Arenberg," Asnani said. "He was hiding in the shadows," Vs so good, if shout) be spread over Facabook); —.9toribarg In an .9030 , 0 anis! ard, Jan. i1 As 2012 began, Arenberg was getting closer to declaring his candidacy. He began preparing a new attack. Almost a year before, one of Arenberg's friends, Melissa McKinley, had filed an ethics complaint against McAuliffe. McKinley, art aide to Palm Beach Countys legislative delegation, accused McAuliffe of following tier out of a meeting and threatening her in lee parking lot, "He than told me I had better be careful about who I spent time with," she wrote. He had seen her talking to Mike Edmondson, a former McAuliffe aide who left after a falling-out. The Florida Commission on Ethics found no cause for the complaint. But !McKinley told Arenberg about It, and in September he asked her for a copy. She didn't have one, so Arenberg and O'Boyle picked up the file during their October trip to Tallahassee, Later that month, McKinloy was called for jury duty. She told Palm Beech Countyarcult Judge John Kastrenakes she could not serve. The exchange was captured on video. "I was threatened by the state attorney," McKinley said to a stunned Kastrenakes. In an inter view with The Post, McKinley said she didn't know she was being videotaped. But she said she told Arenberg about the exchange with Kastrenakes. Edmondson, who was helping Arenberg's furtive campaign, obtained a copy of the video, court records show. In January, the video appeared on Gossip Extra, a local website run by ex-Post columnist Jose LambieL Almost immediately, Arenberg set out to promote the video. "It's so good, it should be spread over Facebooki er he wrote to DeMartinl. Within two days, working with a paid consultant, Aronberg had created a Facabook ad linking to the Gossip Extra post: "SHOCKING VIDEOI State Attorney Michael McAuliffe threatened a West Palm woman and abused his power. Watch the video,: Arenberg personallydirected the ad's designer, telling him in an email: "I like the first one.... Can you use the term 'Watch the video' as the last 3 words of the teaser?" Finally, he wrote on Jan. 13, "I think Iheyneed to run before I become a candidate ... and white the story Is still fresh' The consultant's proposal listed Arenberg as his client, but O'Boyle paid the $500 bill. The ad targeted Facabook users who "like" one of several local Democratic politicians. It launched on Jan. 14, a Saturday. By Monday, it had 440 clicks. But by Tuesday, it no longer mattered. McAuliffe announced he MR dropping out of the race to take a job with Oxbow Carbon, billionaire Bill Koch's energY comP anY. Aronberg, rejoicing, thought the Facabook ad forced out McAuliffe, O'Boyle said. Told so by The Post, McAuliffe chuckled. The attacks, he said, didn't farce him out. But the "prospect ear' insurgent primary campaign „, made me more open to alternatives." Newel the attacks, "I might never have opened the door" to private-sector opportunities at that point, he said. By Thursday, Arenberg had launched his campaign for state attorney. "The most Important thing is that the next state attorney needs to have a passion for justice," Arenberg told WPTV-Channal 5, 'So Dave —1 got the screwing of my life. Both you and Gershm an have taught me good ... and the bad thing is that my daughter suffers. A sad day, which only Atzheltners will remove from my memory. in any even t, I couldrr have bean more honest or blunt. t only wish that - you shared my views on how friends treat friends.' .01391199mill to ionherp,rprri With McAuliffe out of the race, Nonberg's work with O'Boyle and his assistant slowed. For months, DeMarlinl had been tiling public records requests crafted and edited byAronberg, emails show. The requests, sent to public agencies, aimed for Information about McAuliffe. Dee/teeter turned the responses over to Arenberg. When there was a charge, O'Boyle paid the bill. Arenberg pressed DeMartini to follow up on one request that was still pending. He wanted McAuliffe's email exchanges with The Post's editorial board, which had been critical of Arenberg, When Arenberg left the request had been unduly delayed. he wrote to DeMartini: "You rnaywant to have a lawyer send a reminder letter. I assume Martywouid agree?" DeMartini sent the smalls to Arenberg on Feb, 24. Six days tater they appeared on two local websites, including Gossip Extra. Despite being an official candidate, Arenberg never declared DeMartinrs help as a campaign contribution. But the Web postings would prove useful to Aronberg's campaign. After The Post ran a story in June about Arenberg, he linked to one of them In an email to supporters, willing thatthe paper's "false accusations and manufactured sources have been discredited by independent observers." Mostly, though, Aron berg's relationship with O'Boyle shifted. Now that he had an official campaign, he asked O'Boyle for an official contribution. At first, 01300 said, Arenberg asked for $80,000. For O'Boyle, that meant more than writing one big check. State law caps donations at $500 per person; O'Boyle would have to find a bundle of 1603500 checks from himself, his companies, fa mllymembers , employees or friends, "Wow, that's kind of strong, Dave," O'Boyle recalled saying. instead, he offered Arenberg $25,000. Arenberg readily agreed, writing in a Jan, 30 email that "your commitment of raisin $25K goes a long way.' But weeks passed, and O'Boyle didn't send Arenberg the check. Instead, he sent him documents from his daughter's case. By then, O'Boyle said, he had spent $28,000 helping Arenberg. "I said to my wife, 'Before I put up another $25,000, I want to make sure that this guy is thinking like we're thinking, O'Boyle recalled. Arenberg never reqelichly had promised to help, O'Boyle said. But O'Boyle said he believed he and Arenberg had an understanding, "Dave kept saying: 'I can't believe Iheydid this to your daughter. (just can't believe they did this. So wrong for them to do. You know that McAuliffe, I can't believe he did thisi' Now when somebody's saying that to you about your daughter, what are you thinking?' O'Boyle asked. In mid-March, Aron berg prepared far an end-of-month deadline to disclose for the first time how much money he had raised since announcing his candidacy. He wanted to deliver a huge sum to deter potential opponents. One opponent already had been scared off. Circuit Judge Krista Marx had considered running as a Republican, but backed down, The Post reported, after she received threats l inked to Arenberg, On March 15, O'Boyle said, he mat with Aronberg for nearly three hours In his Deerfield Beach office. His accountof that meeting, prmided to The Postwithout variation in several interviews. went like this: O'Boyle asked Milberg what he thought of his daughter's case. Arenberg demurred. Finally, Arenberg said that if he were elected, ha would turn the case over to an assistant Prosecutor, who would have final say, O'Boyle pressed, "I said, 'But you're the boss; you should decide what should happen:" Arenberg fled the morn, "I chased him into the parking lot.' O'Boyle recalled, "I said, 'At least say goodbye!' ' Later, Horenburgar — the women who had introduced Arenberg to O'Boyle — told O'Boyle that Arenberg thought O'Boyle had been wearing a wire. O'Boyle was livid. "Here's the wayl read it rve get your moneynow. I don't need you. rm getting out of here," O'Boyle said. O'Boyle never delivered the S25,000 contribution, Still, after the meeting, both O'Boyte and Arenberg did one favor for the other. Atkronberg's request, O'Boyle approached Gershman, his daughter's attorney, who by then was considering his own run for state attorney. O'Boyle told Gershman he stood no chance against Arenberg. Gershman responded bitterly, O'Boyle said, end threatened to drop his daughter's case. Gershman said he was disappointed but meant only that ha would withdraw from representing O'Boyle In Iwo civil suits related to the DUI arrest, He still represents O'Boyfe's daughter in her criminal case, which is being appealed. Arenberg, meanwhile, helped O'Boyle line up a meeting with the new state attorney—Antonacci, an old friend — to discuss the DUI case. "Pete Antonacci will meet with you and you should call his assistant" Arenberg said in a hearch 20 voicemail left for O'Boyle's in-house attorney, Bill Ring. Arenberg provided a number.Aetonacci took the meeting. Antonacci told The Post that Arenberg had nothing to do with It. 'I'm a public servant," he said. "I meet with everybody." On April 3, Antonacci sent O'Boyle a letter calling the legal arguments in Sara O'Boyde's case "wanting." The stele would let her appeal play out, Antonacci wrote. On April 9, if ell came to a head. Marty O'Boyle wrote Arenberg a scathinu'em a if, Gershm art would net enter the race, O'Boyle predicted. But he had lost Gershman as a friend and an attorney, he wrote, The !attar loss would cost O'Boyle $30,000, he told Arenberg--the price for a new attorney to catch up on the tengthyreconi in his daughter's DUI case. " I got the screwing of myllfee O'Boyle wrote, "Both you and Gershman have taught me good," And In reference to Arenberg's fears that O'Boyle may have been recording their conversation, O'Boyle added: "if you want to spend a few minutes and have a chat chit, we could have it in a steam bath and I will agree to a rectal so there is no concern that I am wearing a wirer Arenberg never responded. In April, he reported raising $275,000, none of it from Marty O'Boyle. Soon after, Gershman entered the race. O'Boyle remained angry, "I was swindled," he said "There's no doubt in my mind." in May, Marty O'Boyio got a phone call from a Post reporter. He returned the call. And started talking. •__ SHADOW CAMPAIGN: CAMPAJGN: Read more • Series homepage • Did Arenberg break the law? • Details on $3,400 advertisement attacking McAuliffe • Arenberg leaked emote between t*Aullffe, Post • How The Post got, confirmed the story More News We Recommend • 2 women killed, 1 in critical after hit-and-run (Palm BeachPost.com) • Authorities: Arrest 'Imminent' in Wellington gas station homicide (PaimBeachPos Loom) • NC Lottery (PalmEleachPost.com) • Delray Beach woman wins $6 million verdict against tobacco company (PalmBeachPostcom) • Report 12-year-old makes up abduction storyto avoid dentist (PalmBoactiPostcom) • Burger King Introduces gay Whopper (PalmBeachPos teem) Comments If you would like to post a comment please Sign In or Register Cancel 59 Comment(s) Commends) 1-20 of 59 next >last » Edit comment • Posted by TrafficAvenger This comment has been removed for violation of the visitor agreement. From Around the Web • El Paso Releases Video of Cop Executing Handcuffed Man —Where's the Anger? (VICE) • Man Who Assaulted Dad After Finding Him in Bed With His Wife Gets Off Easy (Stirring Daily) • Teen Dies on Vacation After Drinking Energy Drink (Stirring Daily) • A Grieving Father Pulls a Thread That Unravels BNP's Illegal Deals (The New York Times) • Life insurance:what you don't know could hurt 9ou (Black Enterprise) • Woman is Found Hanged In Indian State (The New York limes) 1?) • Posted by teals dy at 11:07 a.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • ReportAbuse Mr. Aronberg will not have my vote! indeed, can anyone vote for Mr. Aronberg after reading this? More dirty polllics-as-usual. Nonetheless, We The People are not fooled! PAC's and Super-PAC's can buy all the ads they want; most voters know the true game now. Whenever we see an "ad" about an Issue-,we know who's behind it.. and why, NO ONE thinks such ads are impartial; they are disingenuous distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, And we think even LESS of the people/corporations who buy these ads. Great scoop, Palm Beach Post wrftersll • Posted byFatCa10711 at i 1:28 a.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • ReportAbuse I 'd still vote for him, arid I'm sure maryothers will. i mean, this Is FLORIDA, people actually voted for Rick Scott. • • Posted byPESOTalk aill :50 a.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse Yes, great scoop. Typical Palm Beach Post, n ot crediting PBSOTelk.co in, who provided the start of this story and sent Them the information in April, complete with laws, to get the ball rolling. Ifs amazing theywIll use PBSOTalk.com information the owner provides to them yet theypublicly disavow the site, linking It to disgruntled deputies. There is more documented coruption on The Sheriff than Sheriff Bradshaw's blends at the Post will ever discover or write about. Thanks Joel! ! have to go see a doctor now to see If theycan remove the knife from my back. • Posted by TruihWins This comment has been removed for violation of the visitor agreemenL • Posted byJupiterGuy at 12:06 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse But tea lady, the big money corporations have been backing the tea partyfor years, They are backing almost everytea party candidate running for office this year, as well as the presidential campaign. Whet happened to the grass roots organization that the tea party used to be? • Posted byThoreas11 at 12:21 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse O'Boyle has zero ethics, and everything you need to know about Aronberg corn es from his close assocition with O'Boyle. O'Boyle is the twice( rich piece of crap who want his daughter exonerated, not because she's Inocent, but because he's rich. • Posted by metallsback This comment has been removed for violation of the visitor agreement Posted byteaman This comment has been removed for violation of the visitor agreement • Posted by SnedlyFackle at 1:12 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 ✓ Report Abuse Palm Beach politics, especially tn the judicial/legal arena, are as weird and bizarre and sleazyas they are shot through with abysmally fow ethics (if any), populated byhypocrites and bully wannabes. Judges (both state anbd federal) talk to attorneys about cases before them, privately and out of court. People who shoud be calling things as fheys ea therm are instead either protecting their buddies or covering their own chops, Aronberg is a supreme hypocrite who everybody knows tong ago sold out to eygosie, moo is a New yore schlemiel who fell into his own cesspool and managed to grasp on to some precious stones (certainly not his own) on the way out--but has never lest the stench. The county is a reallyire probable combination of backwater hicks and nouveau riche arrivistes, cranky little brats angrybecause somebodyelse has wandered Into what they think to be their private sandbox(es); people of low or no class who use whatever money they have to try to buy statuses and reputations they don't deserve and haven't earned. The little dramas laid out in this storyare simply new installments in an ongoing telenovela, possessed of the same low qualitycharacters and plot lines, Those who populate them are all trailer trash, even if some of their trailers have been externallyglItzed up. They all deserve one another; but, please, keep them all inside the county lines, Thayre surety not wanted nor welcome anyplace else - - except, from time to time, to pick up other people's tabs. • Posted byrad31709-e986-4 bcc-9770-153890 at 1:54 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse Thanks Palm Beech Post for uncovering Mr. Arenberg's true colors, He certainlydid not learn these sleamball tactics at Harvard. Or, maybe he did? Mr. Aronberg needs to permanently retire from any position of public trust. So long, farewell, auf wledersehen. goodbye. Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye! • Posted byGaryHill This comment has been removed for violation of the visitor agreement • Posted by Truthshallselyoufree at 2:04 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 - Report Abuse Aronberg is disgusting. Ran out of a meeting because he thought O'Bre.ie was wired? That's what we call consciousness of guilt. He wouldn't know because he has never tried a case, So Antonacci is Aronberers buddy? How convenient Explains why certain judges have been targeted by that office. Funny how Pete has time to file frivolous motions at the behest of Dave and meet with Anertbere's supporter about his DUI but does not have time to investigate serious allegations relative to his buddy Dave. Let's be clear: money was spent by Oboyle for Dove's upcoming campaign: illegal. Dave alluded to how 'awful' the DU) was handled and he alluded to expunging the crime and that's how he got the money: bribery. He threatened Judge Marx He conspired to remove Judge Cohen, with Antonacci's help. He hangs out with the most CORRUPT individuals in this county Including Mary (rm a convicted felon but !still think I'm relevant and powerful) McCarty, We need help and fast, We need the reds, I urge every person in PBC to call our local FBI branch because we can't have a state attorneywho Is criminal himself. This Is juetlike the Babock furniture DUI debaucte. Pay to play. can see the swearing In: Burt, Andre, Fumed, McCarty and every other cancerous 'political operative' In PBC, Oh, and they will also own Jaime Goodman If he gets elected because McCarlyis running his campaign. Remember 'take back the judiciary' McCarty and Rebecca Shelton do. Ws all to make sum they can continue their criminal behavior and shakedowns wto an SA who cares. would like to thank Joel and the Post because this Is getting attention...from authorities who enjoys tapping the cuffs on self-proclaimed 'rock star' Dave. You can't get the Aronburger In jail so enjoy now. Antonaccl...your in overyour head. Watch your 6 because Mink you would make a great prison trustee • Posted byDouglas3 at 2:26 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse Need a connection from Aronberg to Mary McCarty? Try gning through her mother Jeanne Raywho recently worked as a receptionist for A-onberg. Aronberg should qult this race. He has proven himself unfit to serve In any government capacity. You can't clean up Palm Beach County by putting dirt In charge of the broom! • Posted by Truthshallsetyoufree at 2:26 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse And to all the lawyers who turn a blind eye to this and continue to treat Dave like royalty because you think it's a given he will be SA and you want to ingratiate yourselves—get some m waist We took an oath to uphold the law! If you condone his behavior and that of his 'supporters' lust rip up your bar card because you are as bad as him. can't waltfor the front page photo of him, handcuffed, being led to an awaiting blacked-out WV. Ws Imminent. • Posted by Robertf3Halgh at 2:4? p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse So, Jet me get this straight 'Arenberg and his allies skirt the law on bribery, *Arenberg and his allies skirs the law on blackmail, *Arenberg and hls allies skirt the law on extortion, *Arenberg and his allies skirt the law on slander, *Arenberg and his allies skirt the law on defamation. Yap, pay to play Is alive arid well in Palm Beach County. Resign? No, he should be in a jai! cell awaiting trial. I knew more than a decade ago that he would do anything — and I mean ANYTHING— to mow his way up In office. Let me guess, with his eyes next on running for Governor. Mark mywords: If he gets elected to the position of State Attorney, he will run for Governor within ten years and the corruption will be much, much worse. If this doesn't get the reds Involved (once again) then nothing will. I also agree with the previous poster, tealady, these corporate bigwigs have been funding the Tea Partyfor a long time. Watch how quickly the Tea Party boll' settles down to a ' simmer' ff Romney is elected President. (And the ultra-rich orgy of asset transfer from the middle-class to the 1% wffl resume at an accelerated pace.) • Posted by RegularJoe at 3:46 p.M. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse Can you believe Marie did this again? made Horenburger has been the campaign manager arid consultantfor 10 years for suspended Mayor Jose Rodriguez Look atwhat a crook he Rodriguez used to be buddybuddywith Mr. MM. Made Is BFPs with Anne Gannon who is smarter than DAVE because when she got out of Taffy then Marie made it happen with Gannon's tax chiefjob as the CONSTITUTIONAL THIEF! • Posted by youraildumb at 3A8 p.m. Jui. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse You cannot believe a single word putout by the liberal rag known as the Palm Beech Post. They have their own agenda and will spin a storyto fit the outcome theywant, Arenberg has a good track record and has served the State of Florida well. He should be judged on past performance and not the attacks of a bankrupt newspaper that is so poorly run ft is actually printed by the Sun Sentinel for them. Tile paper has a specific hatred for Aronberg that has no basis In this race.The facts are the facts. • Posted by kola123 at 3:52 p.m. Jul, 22,2012 • Report Abuse I think thls whole article is a crock of crap. Look to the REAL problems in Palm Beach County, Ms. Marcus and friends. • Posted byJohnElarbien at 4:28 p.m. Jul. 22, 2012 • Report Abuse Palm Beath Countypofitics are one awry to begin with. Aronberg comes across as a particularly nasty piece otwork even torus. Here's hoping that the voters will do themselves and the county a big favor by e topping his "public service career" et the newt election . 59 Comments) Comment(s) 1-20 of 59 next >last >> W6sttaw Page 1 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6 (Tenn.)) (Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) (Cite as: 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A,6 (Tenn.))) H This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter. Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also Sixth Circuit Rule 28. (Find CTA6 Rule 28) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Martin E. O'BOYLE, Individually and as General Partner in New Midland Plaza Associates; Catherine O'Boyle, Individually and as General Partner in New Midland Plaza Associates; New Midland Plaza Associates; Commerce Partnership No, 1147; Commerce Partnership No. 117 I, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P.A.; Ross D. Cooper; Mark S. Guberman, Defendants—Appellees. No. 10-5551. Aug. 11, 2011. Background: Former clients filed legal malpractice action against law firm and attorneys. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 2010 WL 1408444, dismissed complaint, and clients appealed. Holding: The Court of Appeals, Kethiedge, Circuit Judge, held that action was untimely. Affirmed. West Headnotes Limitation of Actions 241 0='95(11) 241 Limitation of Actions 24111 Computation of Period of Limitation 24111(F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and Concealment or Discovery of Cause of Action 241k95 Ignorance of Cause of Action 241k95(10) Professional Negligence or Malpractice 241k95(11) k. Attorneys, Most Cited Cases Under Tennessee law, clients knew or had reason to know of their injury as result of their attorney's alleged legal malpractice during mortgage dispute, at latest, when court dismissed all of clients' claims and ordered them to pay fees to attorneys, and thus legal malpractice suit filed more than one year later was untimely. West's T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(2). *449 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Before: MOORE and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; MARBLEY, District Judge.FN* FN* The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. **I Martin O'Boyle, Catherine O'Boyle, and their partnerships (collectively, "O'Boyle") owned a large shopping center in Tennessee, In 1988, O'Boyle mortgaged the shopping center for $8.9 million. He defaulted on the mortgage in 1998. The bank that held the mortgage note foreclosed on the center in April 1999. After unsuccessful negotiations to end the C 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6 (Tenn.)) (Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) (Cite as: 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6 mortgage dispute, O'Boyle sued various defendants in Tennessee state court. He essentially claimed that these defendants had conspired to bankrupt his partnership and to take unlawful control of the center. Representing O'Boyle, among others, was the law firm of Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker P.A. ("Shulman Rogers"), * and specifically two of its attorneys, Ross Cooper and Mark Guberman (we refer to Shulman Rogers, Cooper, and Guberman collectively as "Defendants"). In December 2004, the Tennessee circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants in that case on each of O'Boyle's claims, On September 27, 2005, the court also ordered O'Boyle to pay over Si .6 million of fees and costs to those defendants, per a loser-pays provision in the mortgage note. O'Boyle moved to amend that order that same day. In December 2005, the court denied both that motion and a separate motion to vacate its December 2004 summary-judgment order. The court then entered judgment against O'Boyle. The state-court defendants moved for sanctions against O'Boyle in January 2006. The Tennessee court granted this motion in November 2006, ordering O'Boyle to pay $1.25 million to the defendants and $5,000 to the court, O'Boyle thereafter moved to amend the sanctions order. In January 2007, the court granted this motion and vacated the $1.25—million award, so long as O'Boyle paid the $5,000 sanctions awarded to the court. Meanwhile, in October 2006, Shulman Rogers and Cooper entered into a tolling agreement with O'Boyle. Guberman was not a party to the agreement. The agreement stated that it did not revive any claims that had already become time-barred. The agreement expired in October 2007, but Shulman Rogers and O'Boyle extended it through February 2009. Cooper did not sign the extension. Page 2 (Team))) O'Boyle sued the Defendants in New Jersey state court in December 2008, claiming that he had lost the Tennessee case as a result of their alleged malpractice. The Defendants removed the case to federal court. O'Boyle voluntarily dismissed the suit and refiled in Tennessee federal court in April 2009. That case is the one now before us. The district court dismissed O'Boyle's claims as untimely under Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations. This appeal followed. We review de novo the district court's determination that O'Boyle's suit was untimely. See In re NM Holdings Ca, 622 F.3d 613, 618 (6th Cir.2010), The parties agree that Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations applies. See generally Tenn.Code. Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(2). The statute begins running when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he was actually injured by his attorney's malpractice. See John Kohl & Co. P.C. v. Dearborn & Ewing, 977 S.W,2d 528, 532 (Tenn.I998). Although knowledge "is usually a fact question for the jury to determine," Wyatt v. A—Best, Co., 910 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tenn.1995), a defendant nonetheless is entitled to dismissal for failure to state a claim where "the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts consistent with its allegations that would entitle it to relief." La. Sch. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 622 F.3d 471, 477-78 (6th Cir,2010). *.2 Here, O'Boyle's own pleadings state that the Defendants had "repeatedly advised [him] that [his] claims would defiantly withstand any motion for summary judgment and would, to a reasonable probability, result in a successful outeomel.1" Compl. 19(c). Those assurances were proven false in December 2004, when the Tennessee court dismissed all of O'Boyle's claims. Thus, by then O'Boyle had reason to know that he had been injured by the Firm's alleged malpractice. And O'Boyle had all the more reason to know that alleged fact by September 2005, when the court ordered him to pay over $1.6 million in fees to the defendants. Both of these dates precede by more © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6 (Tenn.)) (Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) (Cite as; 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6 (Tenn.))) than one year the date of the tolling agreement--which means that O'Boyle's claims are untimely. *451 The district court's judgment is affirmed. C.A.6 (Tenn.),2011. O'Boyle v, Shulman, Rogers, Ganda], Pordy & Ecker, F.A. 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6 (Tenn.)) END OF DOCUMENT C 2014 Thomson Reuters, No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 3 Cynthia Miller From: Deborah Smith Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:54 AM To: dsufrin@law-nj.com Cc: Robert Sweetapple; Cynthia Bailey Subject: O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream Attachments: Second Motion for Sanctions against O'Boyle.121214.pdf; Amendment to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions.pdf Mr. Sufrin, Attached are two of our Motions for Sanctions against Mr. O'Boyle. I will send a separate e-mail with the transcript of the statement of Joel Chandler and one other Motion for Sanctions. Very truCy yours, DEBORAH L. SMITH, CP, FRP Certified Paralegal, Florida Registered Paralegal Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. 20 SE 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 1561) 392-1230 (t) x. 300 (561) 394-6102 (1) dsrnith@sweetapplelaw. com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, maintain, save or otherwise use this email. Please contact the sender at the above number immediately. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confide ntiality. 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474XXXXMB DIVISION: AA Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. AMENDMENT TO DEFENDANT' S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, MARTIN E. O ' BOYLE, COUNSEL OF RECORD THE O' BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C, INC. , JONATHAN O' BOYLE AND WILLIAM RING, ESQUIRE Defendant, Town Of Gulf Stream, files the within Amendment to its Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring, Esquire (hereinafter referred to as "Motion for Sanctions"), filed with the Court on July 3, 2014, and says: I. Since the filing of the Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff, Martin O'Boyle, and/or his attorneys or son have caused additional plane banners to be flown and has caused large signs to be displayed on the back of a truck in the Town of Gulf Stream. Pictures of two plane banners and two large signs are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A". A chart outlining the date and messages contained in the plane banners flown is incorporated below. A Non-Criminal Offense Report from the Gulf Stream Police Department (Exhibit "B") provides that the pickup upon which the large signs are being attached is registered to Mr. O'Boyle's wife, Sheila O'Boyle. LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, 20 S.E. 3RD STREET, Boca RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG ( PALM BEACH COUNTY) DATE TIME ACTIVITY MESSAGE 06/05/14 @ 2:00 pm Banner Plane "JONES FOS 1ER CLIENTS, CHECK YOUR BILLS" 06/06/14 @2:00 pm Banner Plane "JF DON'T DRINK & DRIVE — WE'LL BE WATCHING" 06/10/14 @2:00 pm Banner Plane "HAS JONES FOSTER EMBRACED A BAD APPLEr 06/13/14 @11;10 am Banner Plane "JONES FOSTER — YOUR BILLS MAKE ME PUKE" 06/20/14 @11:00 am Banner Plane "SWEET APPLES ARE ROTTEN APPLES RIGHT JF" 06/24/14 @10:38 am Banner Plane "SWEET APPLES ARE BEST BOILED IN OIL" 06/28/14 Banner Plane "CHIEF WARD IS A HORSE'S ASS" 07/05/14 Banner Plane "MAYOR MORGAN IS A PUTZ AND AN ASS" 07/12/14 Banner Plane "AMERICA'S BIGGEST LOSER—MAYOR SCOTT MORGAN" 07/19/14 Banner Plane "GS VICE MAYOR BOB GANGER — A LEGACY OF FAILURE" 07/26/14 Banner Plane "MAYOR SCOTT MORGAN (ILLEGIBLE) 08/02/14 Banner Plane "GS MAYOR MORGAN IS A WIMPY LITTLE TURD" 08/09/14 Banner Plane "BOB SWEETAPPLE LAY SMELLY FARTS" 08/11/14 Banner Plane "JONES FOSTER — YOUR BILLS MAKE ME PUKE" 2 . At the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Martin O'Boyle and Motion to Strike Notice of Hearing and Scheduling Order Regarding Summary Judgment on August 28, 2014, Nick Taylor, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Martin O'Boyle, admitted that Mr. O'Boyle was involved in flying the above-referenced banners. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this Court enter appropriate sanctions for litigation abuse against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, his Counsel of Record, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan O'Boyle, President of the O'Boyle Law Firm, and William Ring, Esquire, including 2 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3 1u1 STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG ( PALM BEACH COUNTY) striking Plaintiff's pleadings, entering an order prohibiting Plaintiff from exploiting his right to litigate in a manner that impugns and threatens opposing counsel. Defendant also seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs for bringing the motion. Respectfully submitted, SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL Co-Counsel for Defendants 20 S.E. 3rd Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 392-1230 E-Malpleadings@sweetapplelaw.com By: ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No. 0296988 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the E-Filing Portal this 29t h day of August, 2014 to: Nick Taylor, Esquire and Verhonda Williams, Esquire, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone: 1-954-574-6885; E-mail: vwilliams@oboylelawfinn.com, ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com); D. Culver Smith, III, Esquire, Culver Smith, III, P.A., 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (Telephone: 1- 561-598-6800; E-mail: csmith®culversmithlaw); Jonathan O'Boyle, President, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:1-954-574-6885; E-mail: joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com); Joanne O'Connor, Esquire, John C. Randolph, Esquire and Ashlee A. Richman, Esquire, Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (Telephone:1-561-659-3000; Email: 3 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAITLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, 20 S.E. 394 STREET, BOLA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA04447430O0CMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) j oconnorgonesfo sten com ; j randolphg onesfost er. clam; arichmang on.esfoster.com); and William Ring, Esquire, Commerce Group, Inc., 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33224 (Telephone: 1-954-570-3510; Email: wring@commerce-group.com), B : ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No. 0296988 4 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, 20 S.E. 3' s ' STREET, BOLA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 he COASTAL STAR News 11 -47' :•• ''• ' • ' ' - 4 r ni,tii .-4... -, ...:'t , ,t• ) 01,, •: , , 1 1t, 4 ,, -47,.. A sign hangs from a truck parked in the Gulf Stream Town Hall parking lot. Dan Moffett/The Coastal@ Star ％雀 了考不干 Page 1 of 1 Incident Type: Gulf Stream Police Department 246 Sea Road ' Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Phone: (561) 278-8611 Fax: (561) 276-2528 NON CRIMINAL OFFENSE REPORT TOWN ORDINANCE VIOLATION Complaint Number: 14-1502 • -cr . Location of Incident: 100 SEA RD. Zone: 2 GULF STREAM FL 33483 Type of Premises: GOVERNMENT BLDG Processed By. SGT. JOHN HASELEY Time of Call: 0700 Tune of Arrival: 0700 Time Completed: 0705 Officer Injured: NO Datefrime Reported: 08/27/2014 07:00 Occurred From: Domestic: NO Juvenile Involved: NO Reporting Officer: SOT, JOHN HASELEY Name: SHEILA O'BOYLE Race: WHITE Date of Birth: 01/22/1956 Home Address: 23 HIDEEN HARBOUR GULF STREAM FL 33483 Officer Killed/Assaulted: NO OTHER Sex: FEMALE Driver's License: . INCIDENT SUMMARY • Marital Status: MARRIED = FL ON ABOVE DATE AND TIME (0650 HRS.) I OBSERVED A WHITE FORD F-150 PICKUP PARKED IN THE FRONT (SOUTH) PARKING LOT OF THE GULF STREAM TOWN HALL. THIS VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN A POSTED RESTRICTED PARKING AREA. THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT IS POSTED NO PARKING FROM 7:00 PM TO 7:00 AM. THIS AREA OF THE PARKING LOT IS ADDITIONALLY POSTED PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES AND TOWN BUSINESS ONLY FROM 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM., REF TOWN ORDINANCE 14/1 SEC 31-2. THE PICKUP DISPLAYS A TAG OF 1131-7DX, REGISTERED TO A SHEILA O' BOYLE OF 23 HIDDEN HARBOUR, GULF STREAM FL THERE WAS NO ONE AROUND THE PICKUP AND THE GULF STREAM TOWN HALL WAS NOT OPENED FOR BUSINESS AT THIS TIME, THEREFORE THE ABOVE VEHICLE IS IN VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE 14/1. THE PICKUP ALSO WAS DISPLAYING A LARGE APPROXIMATELY 7' BY 7' YELLOW BANNER ACROSS THE REAR WHICH READ : MAYOR SCOTT MORGAN IS A DOUCHE BAG, BILL THRASHER TELL THE PEOPLE ABOUT THE WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN. AT APPROXIMATELY 0750 HOURS THE VEHICLE WAS REMOVED BY UNKNOWN PERSONS. END. EXHIBIT Cynthia Miller From: Deborah Smith Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 11:54 AM To: dsufrin@law-nj.com Cc: Robert Sweetapple; Cynthia Bailey Subject: O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream Attachments: Second Motion for Sanctions against O`Boyle.121214.pdf; Amendment to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions.pdf Mr. Sufrin, Attached are two of our Motions for Sanctions against Mr. O'Boyle. I will send a separate e-mail with the transcript of the statement ofJoel Chandler and one other Motion for Sanctions. 'Very truly yours, DEBORAH L. SMITH, CP, FRP Certified Paralegal, Florida Registered Paralegal Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, 20 SE 3rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 392-1230 (t) x. 300 (5611394-6102 (f) dsmith@sweetabplelaw.com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, maintain, save or otherwise use this email, Please contact the sender at the above number immediately. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474)000(MB DIVISION: AA Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. / SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAI NST PLAINTIFF, MARTIN E. O ' BOYLE FOR PERJURY AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF' S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERYI Defendant, Town Of Gulf Stream, moves for sanctions against Plaintiff; Martin E. O'Boyle for Perjury and states: 1. On or about July 3, 2014, Defendant filed its Amended Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring, Esquire ("Motion for Sanctions") for unprofessional conduct described in detail in paragraphs 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 27. 2 . Paragraph 17 specifically stated The misconduct is unprofessional, unethical and it constitutes an egregious example of litigation abuse, These tactics go beyond zealous representation and are designed to interfere with defense counsel's ethical obligation to their client. Such conduct undermines society's commitment to the resolution of disputes in a court of law, rather than the streets or in the sky. 1 The title of Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle's response which is being responded to by Defendant has been abbreviated in the title of this Motion. The entire title is as follows:Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle's Response to Request for Additional Discovery in Connection with (1) Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring, Esquire and (2) Amendment to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring, Esquire. LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3" STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) 3. The reference to misconduct "in the sky" involves Plaintiffs' employment of airborne banners flying daily over Palm Beach County. 4, Paragraph 11 lists eight instances where the banners on the plane impugned the reputation of Defendant's counsel, Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. and Jones, Foster, Johnson and Stubbs, P.A. 5. In paragraph 15 it is alleged that the threats and misconduct described in the Motion for Sanctions occurred with the knowledge, cooperation and complicity of William Ring, Jonathan O'Boyle, and The O'Boyle Law Firm. Quoting paragraph 15, specifically, "this misconduct is being undertaken to pressure and intimidate defense counsel into not pursuing the issue of whether The O'Boyle Law Firm is a bonafide interstate law firm." 6. In paragraph 20, Defendant states that "while O'Boyle has a right to continue to make a spectacle of himself, he, with the assistance of counsel, cannot impugn, malign and attempt to extort opposing parties or their counsel as part of the litigation process." 7. In paragraph 22, Defendant states "O'Boyle has abused the legal system in several states by overwhelming local municipal governments and the state attorney's office with the filing of thousands of public records requests and abusive litigation." 8. In paragraph 23, Defendants reference the abusive litigation tactics employed by Plaintiff in Longport, New Jersey. 9. Having filed the Motion for Sanctions, Defendant proceeded to exercise its rights of discovery by setting Jonathan R. O'Boyle, William Ring, Esquire, and Denise DeMartini, for 2 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3R0 STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstreatn CASE NO. 5020 14CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) depositions to take place on September 161h and 17 th of this year. A Motion for Protective Order has been filed and a Motion to Compel these depositions is pending. 10. On September 15, 2014 Defendant took the deposition of Plaintiff. One of the purposes of that deposition was to discover the patterns of litigation abuse perpetrated by Plaintiff, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring, Esquire, 11. On page 102 of the deposition, Defendant's counsel proceeded to make inquiries about Plaintiff flying banners in Longport, New Jersey maligning certain individuals. 12. On page 103 of his deposition, the following question and answer appears: Q:Let me rephrase it. Did you fly any banners — did you cause any banners to be flown in Longport in conjunction with your litigation in that town? A:No. 13. On page 104 of his deposition, the following question and answer appears: Q:Let me rephrase it. Did you fly any banners — did you cause any banners to be flown in Longport in conjunction with your litigation in that town? A:No. Q: Did you cause any blimps to be flown? A:No. Q:Are you aware whether or not any banners were flown in Longport at any time while your dispute with them was ongoing? A:I don't know. 14. On page 105 of his deposition, the following questions and answer appears: Q:Okay. And do you have any knowledge as to who was flying banners in Longport, New Jersey? A:Several people. Q:Who — anyone that is in your employ? A:No. 3 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKM. & VARKAS, 20 S.E. 3" STREET, BOCA RATO14, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 5020 14CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) Q:Any entities you had any control over? A:No. Q:Did you have any discussions with anyone about flying banners? Mr. DeSouza:in Longport during the time of this litigation? Q:In Longport during litigation. Al don't know. Q:Did you pay anyone to fly banners? A:No. Q:Do you have any idea who was involved in the flying of any banners in Longport during the time of this litigation? A:There were several people, one of which was Peter Isen; one of which was Frank Alfano. 15. The above quoted testimony of Plaintiff was intentionally false and perjurious. Prior testimony under oath evidences Plaintiff's scheme which was calculated to interfere with Defendant's right to discovery and the judicial systems ability to adjudicate Plaintiff's conduct as a litigant 16. On June 11, 2011, in the New Jersey case styled as O'Boyle v. Longport, Plaintiff was deposed on the issue of litigation abuse. In the course of his deposition, he was asked about whether he flew banners in Longport in order to obtain an advantage in the litigation of the above-described action. On pages 220 through 222 the following questions and answers appeared: Q:That phone call was not to fly a banner for this weekend I hope. A:It was. Q;Wonderful. So let's talk about these banners. Have you had a chance to look at O'Boyle-6, the photos of the various banners? A:Yes. 4 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAP7LE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P,L 20 S.C. 3" STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) Q:Did you have anything to do with creating the texts for these banner ads? A:1 did. Q:1 might say they were very clever many of thorn. However, is that all of them or one or two of them? In other words did you have anything to do with all of them or some of them? A:Sorne of them. Some of them, some of them might be areas of a rough piece of wood and then it would get refined into a nice piece of furniture. Q:Who helps you refine them? A:My secretary Brenda in Florida. Bill Ring in Florida. My son Jonathan. My son Mart. Qllt was a collaborative effort? A:Me. Yeah, Like people, Myron Vaughn in West Virginia. Q:Bill Simon? A:Never. Q:Do you—by the way, the company that flies these banner airplanes over the beach, do you own that company? A:No. Q:Do you have any stock in it? Does anybody in your family own that company? A:No. Q:Do you have any management interest or control over that company? A:No. Q:These are paid, for somebody pays for this banner ads to fly over the beach? A:Yes. Q:Fee for service? A:Pardon? Q:It is a serve that is paid for, it is service for hire? A:Yes. Q:Do you know who paid for these banner ads to be flown? 5 LAW OFFICHS OF SWEETAPPLE, EROEKER & VARKAS, 20 S.E. 3g) STREET, BOCA RAToN, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstrearn CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAC (PALM BEACH COUNTY) Al don't. •••••••.0.1.10.1••••••••,.... ..• Q:Do you know whether the money came from Citizens for Open Government, did the money come from you or did it come from somebody else? A:It came from I think my son's trust. Q:Do you know of any money that came from Commerce Group, Incorporated? A:No, for sure, no. Q:Do you know if any of it came from Martin O'Boyle or Sheila O'Boyle? A:Not from Sheila. From me personally perhaps. 17. The answers given by Plaintiff with respect to the content of the banners reveal the participation of his secretary Brenda in Florida, Bill Ring in Florida, and his son Jonathan O'Boyle, 18, Based on the conflicting testimony, Plaintiff should lose all credibility with the Court with respect to any defense to the Motion for Sanctions and any justification to support his Motion for Protective Order with respect to the taking the depositions of Jonathan R. O'Boyle, William Ring, Esquire and Denise De Martini. 19, Plaintiff has demonstrated a gross disregard for the truth when testifying under oath. 20. Apparently, Plaintiff has experienced a pain of conscience by stating in paragraph I that Plaintiff admits that he caused Airborne Banners to fly over Palm Beach County with the messages stated in paragraph 11 of the Motion ("Motion for Sanctions"), paragraph 2 of the Amendment ("Amended Motion for Sanctions"), and pages 1 and 2 of composite Exhibit "A" to the Amended 6 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3RD STREET, Boca RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E, O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) Motion for Sanctions. The Court is directed to paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's request for additional discovery and Amended Motion for Sanctions. ("Response"). 21. In paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Response, Plaintiff admits that he caused signs to be displayed on the back of a truck in the Town of Gulf Stream that contained the message set forth in pages 3 and 4 of the composite exhibit to the Amendment. 22. In paragraph 3, Plaintiff further admits that he made the threats described above and that both his statements were misconstrued and "Plaintiff apologizes". 23. In paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, Plaintiff makes additional admissions which Plaintiff now claims justifies the cessation of any discovery related to the Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff's claim that his son and other lawyers were not involved in the subject conduct should have no bearing on Defendant with regard to discovery. 24. It is blackletter law that Defendant can proceed to pursue discovery which. is calculated to lead to admissible evidence. In the case sub judice the pursuit of discovery requires the taking of depositions of the three individuals described above. Defendants are not required to believe Martin O'Boyle or his perjury. WHEREFORE, the Court should further sanction Martin O'Boyle for perjury including striking his pleadings in all public records cases against Defendant presently before the Court and 7 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, 20 S.E, 3" STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v, Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) enter an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Respectfully submitted, SWEETAPPLE BROEKER & VARKAS, 20 SE 3rd Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 392-1230 Email: Pleadings@sweetapplealw,com ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE Fla. Bar No,: 0296988 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the E-Filing Portal this/ ovv- day of December, 2014 to: Mitchell W. Berger, Esquire and Steven B. Weber, Esquire, Berger Singerman, LLP, 350 E, Las Olas Blvd, Suite 1000, Ft, Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (Telephone: 1-954-525-9900; Email: drtZbergersingerman.com; mberger@bergersingerman, com;sweber@bergersi ngerman. co m;mvega@b ergers ignerman. co m); D. Culver Smith, III, Esquire, Culver Smith, P.A., 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (Telephone: 561-598-6800; E-mail: csmith@culversmithlaw.com ); Daniel DeSouza, Esquire, DeSouza Law, P.A., 1515 University Drive, Suite 209, Coral Springs, Florida 33071 (Telephone: 954-551-5320; E-M ail: DDesouza@des ouzalaw. co m); Nick Taylor, Esquire, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone: 954-574-6885; E-mail: oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirrn.com; ntaylor@oboylclawfirm.com); William Ring, Esquire, Commerce Group, Inc., 1286 W. Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone: 954-574-6885; Email: 8 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLF-, BROEKER & V ARKAS, P.L. 20 S,E. 3} u' STREET, Boca RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXIABAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) wring@commerce-group.com); Joanne O'Connor, Esquire, John C. Randolph, Esquire and Ashlee A. Richman, Esquire, Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (Telephone: 561-659-3000; Email joconnorg on esfoster.com;jrando 1phg o nesfaster. com; arichmang ones fo ster. co m). ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No. 0296988 9 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PI, 20 S.E. 3tu) STREET, Boca RATON, FLORIDA 33432 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15114 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474XXXXMB DIVISION: AA Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. AMENDMENT TO DEFENDANT' S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, MARTIN E. O' BOYLE, COUNSEL OF RECORD, THE O' BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C., INC. , JONATHAN O' BOYLE AND WILLIAM RING, ESQUIRE Defendant, Town Of Gulf Stream, files the within Amendment to its Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring, Esquire (hereinafter referred to as "Motion for Sanctions"), filed with the Court on July 3, 2014, and says: 1. Since the filing of the Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff, Martin O'Boyle, and/or his attorneys or son have caused additional plane banners to be flown and has caused large signs to be displayed on the back of a truck in the Town of Gulf Stream. Pictures of two plane banners and two large signs are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A". A chart outlining the date and messages contained in the plane banners flown is incorporated below. A Non-Criminal Offense Report from the Gulf Stream Police Department (Exhibit "B") provides that the pickup upon which the large signs are being attached is registered to Mr. O'Boyle's wife, Sheila O'Boyle, LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, F.L. 20 S.E. 3RD STREET, BOCA RAToN, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Oulfstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) DATE TIME ACTIVITY MESSAGE 06/05/14 @ 2:00 pm Banner Plane "JONES FOSTER CLIENTS, CHECK YOUR BILLS" 06/06/14 @2:00 pm Banner Plane "JF DON'T DRINK & DRIVE — WE'LL BE WATCHING" 06/10/14 @2:00 pm Banner Plane "HAS JONES FOSTER EMBRACED A BAD APPLE?" 06/13/14 @11:10 am Banner Plane "JONES FOSTER — YOUR BILLS MAKE ME PUKE" 06/20/14 @I 1:00 am Banner Plane "SWEET APPLES ARE ROTTEN APPLES RIGHT JF" 06/24/14 @10:38 am Banner Plane "SWEET APPLES ARE BEST BOILED IN OIL" 06/28/14 Banner Plane "CHIEF WARD IS A HORSE'S ASS" 07/05/14 Banner Plane "MAYOR MORGAN IS A PUTZ AND AN ASS" 07/12/14 Banner Plane "AMERICA'S BIGGEST LOSER—MAYOR SCOTT MORGAN" 07/19/14 Banner Plane "GS VICE MAYOR BOB GANGER — A — LEGACY OF FAILURE" 07/26/14 Banner Plane "MAYOR SCOTT MORGAN (ILLEGIBLE) 08/02 /14 Banner Plane "GS MAYOR MORGAN IS A WIMPY LITTLE TURD" 08109/14 Banner Plane "BOB SWEETAPPLE LAY SMELLY FARTS" 08/11/14 Banner Plane "JONES FOSTER — YOUR BILLS MAKE ME PUKE" 2. At the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition of Martin O'Boyle and Motion to Strike Notice of Hearing and Scheduling Order Regarding Summary Judgment on August 28, 2014, Nick Taylor, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Martin O'Boyle, admitted that Mr. O'Boyle was involved in flying the above-referenced banners. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this Court enter appropriate sanctions for litigation abuse against Plaintiff, Martin E, O'Boyle, his Counsel of Record, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan O'Boyle, President of the O'Boyle Law Firm, and William Ring, Esquire, including 2 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETA.PPLE,.BROEKER & VARKAS, 20 S.E. 3RD STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstrearn CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBA G (PALM BEACH COUNTY) striking Plaintiff's pleadings, entering an order prohibiting Plaintiff from exploiting his right to litigate in a manner that impugns and threatens opposing counsel. Defendant also seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs for bringing the motion. Respectfully submitted, SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL Co-Counsel for Defendants 20 S.E. 3rd Street Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 392-1230 E-Mail:pleadings@sweetapplelaw,com By: ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE-----Florida Bar No. 0296988 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the E-Filing Portal this 29t h day of August, 2014 to: Nick Taylor, Esquire and Verhonda Williams, Esquire, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone: 1-954-574-6885; E-mail: vwilliams@oboylelavvfinn.com, ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com); D. Culver Smith, III, Esquire, Culver Smith, III, PA., 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (Telephone: 1- 561-598-6800; E-mail: csrnith@culversmithlaw); Jonathan O'Boyle, President, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:I-954-574-6885; E-mail: joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com); Joanne O'Connor, Esquire, John C. Randolph, Esquire and Ashlee A. Richman, Esquire, Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P,A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 (Telephone:1-561-6 59-3000; Email: 3 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 3RD STREET, BocA RATON,1 1oRroA 33432 Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Guifstream CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY) joeonnorgonesfoster.com; jrandolph@jonesfoster.com; arichman@jonesfoster.com); and William Ring, Esquire, Commerce Group, Inc., 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33224 (Telephone: 1-954-570-3510; Email: wring@commerce-group.com). By: ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE Florida Bar No. 0296988 4 LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, T3aosKsil & VARKAS, P.L. 20 S.E. 31eD STREE.1', BOCA RAProta, FLORIDA 33432 TI ie COASTAL STAR News 11 A sign hangs from a truck parked in the Gulf Stream Town Hall parking lot. Dan ftikffett/T rle Coastal Star , " Page I of I Incident Type: Location of Incident Type of Premises: Time of Call: Time ofArrival: Time Completed: Officer Irtjtued: Dateffime Reported: Occurred From: Domestic: Juvenile Involved: Reporting Officer: Name: Race: Date of Birth: Home Address: Gulf Stream Police Department 246 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Phone: (561) 278-8611 Fax: (561) 276-2528 Complaint Number: 14-1502 NON CRIMINAL OITENSE REPORT TOWN ORDINANCE VIOLATION 100 SEA RD. Zone: 2 GULF STREAM FL 33423 GOVERNMENT BLDG Processed By: SGT. JOHN HASELEY 0700 0700 0705 NO Officer Killed/Assaulted: NO 08/27/2014 07:00 NO NO SGT. JOHN HASELEY SHEILA O'BOYLE WHITE 01/22/1966 23 H1DEEN HARBOUR GULP STREAM FL 33483 OTHER Sex: FEMALE Marital Status: MARRIED Driver's License: ' FL INCIDENT SUMMARY ON ABOVE DATE AND TIME (0650 HRS.) I OBSERVED A WHITE FORD P-150 PICKUP PARKED IN THE FRONT (SOUTH) PARKING LOT OF THE GULF STREAM TOWN HALL. THIS VEHICLE WAS PARKED INA POSTED RESTRICTED PARKING AREA. THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT IS POSTED NO PARKING FROM 7:00 PM TO 7:00 AM. THIS AREA OF THE PARKING LOT IS ADDITIONALLY POSTED PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES AND TOWN BUSINESS ONLY FROM 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM., REF TOWN ORDINANCE 14/1 SEC 31-2. THE PICKUP DISPLAYS A TAG OF H31-7DX, REGISTERED TO A SHEILA O'BOYLE OF 23 HIDDEN HARBOUR, GULF STREAM FL. THERE WAS NO ONE AROTMIRE PICKUP AND THE GULF STREAM TOWN HALL WAS NOT OPENED FOR BUSINESS AT THIS TIME, THEREFORE THE ABOVE VEHICLE IS IN VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE 14/1. THE PICKUP ALSO WAS DISPLAYING A LARGE APPROXIMATELY 7' BY 7' YELLOW BANNER ACROSS THE REAR WHICH READ : MAYOR SCOTT 1VIORG AN IS A DOUCHE BAG, BILL THRASHER TELL THE PEOPLE ABOUT THE WRONGFUL DEATH SUIT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN. AT APPROXIMATELY 0750 HOURS THE VEHICLE WAS REMOVED BY UNKNOWN PERSONS. END. 4 EXHIBIT t•rom! David Sufrin 1.A.Ar* t4-1;. ',SI 0 Sui.j..ct: RE. Depos Da,o. November 10, 2014 at 328 PM To. Robert Sweetapple ot..tor n 0r At Here is the deposition I took of Mr O'Boyle 191 ask Mr Merenich to send you the one he took Regards, David W. Sufrin, Esq. ZUCKER STEINBERG & WIXTED, P.A. 415 Federal Street Camden, New Jersey 08103 856-365-0080 856-338-0217 (fax) dsufrindlaw-nj corn www.law-nj.com --Original Message-From Robert Sweetapple [malltozweetapple13@me.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 325 PM To- dsufringlaw-nj.com Subject. Depos Thanks Regards, Bob Sweetapple 5 ' 14 O'boyie deposition. PDF 1 INDEX SUPERIOR COURT OP NEW seem LhW DIWXSXON . ATLANTIC COUNTY =CERT NO. ATL•L-2141.l MARTIN B. 0,330YLS Plaintiff, DEPoSITIOR OF: waRria I, 0,SOZLE PETER ISSN, Defendant. • • • • Wednesday, Hey 25, 2011 • a rpoRrED a Y: PATRICIA P.. TERRACC/Axo, Certified Court Reporter (Licence No. 11541 and inscary Public Of Nov Jersey, on the above date, ceausencing it 11;14 Am, et the lay offices of .7aCobs A liaxborne, 1125 Pacific Avenue, Atlantic City, W4W Jexeey, 0-PATRICIA A. TIMAACCLAND CARTIrxan =ET REPORTER ONE SOUTH COLONIAL maw: sORDENTOWN, NEW JERSEY 0e505 609_598.0015 +office• / 525-298-2252 •fax' W Itn est P a g e M ARTIN E. O'BOYLE N UMBER By M r. Su frill 4 E XHIBITS M ARKED D ESCRIPTION FOR ID. R EQUEST FOR PRODUCTION A PPEARANCES: )ACOBS & BA P.BO N E B Y: EDW IN 1. JACOBS, JR., ESQUIRE 1 125 Pacific Avenue A tlantic City, New Jersey 08401 609-348-1125 F or the Plaintiff Z UCKER, STEINBERG, SO NSTEIN & WIXTED B Y: DAVID W. SUFR/N, ESQUIRE 4 15 Federal Street C amden, New 1ersey 08103 For the Defendant A LSO PRESENT: P eter Isen 4 M ARTIN S. o•BorLE, 2 having affirm ed, at 11:1.4 a.m ., was 3 exert: in ed and testified as follows: 4 5 EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. SU FRIN: * * * 7 Q. Whenever you are ready, Mr. 8 o'Bayle, Just let me know. 9 A. I am ready. 0 Q. Would you please state your -11 W ell, you stated your name for the record. Do you 12 have an address In New lersey? 13 A. / do. 14 Q. W hat is your address? 15 A. 107 South 13th Avenue, Longport, 16 New Jersey, 0 4 0 3 . 17 Q. And is that, that Is a house, 18 single -ram Ily residence? 19 A. U h-hu h. 20 CL You live there with who? 21 A. M y vflf 22 Q. W hat is her name? 23 A. Sheila. 24 Q. Is that house in your name or 25 som ebody else's nam e? 1 of 96 sheets Page 1 to 4 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 2 Z.1 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. It is in Sheila's name. Was It ever in your name? Yes. Do you know how long ago? If I had to guess, 25 years ago. I 'm going to give you some 7 preliminary instructions. 8 I assume you've been deposed 9 before, but I will ask you, have you? 10 A. The answer is yes I have, and, 11 excuse me, I just want to get a pad. 12 THE WITNESS: Unless there is 13 one in here, Ed. 14 MR. JACOBS: Take mine. 15 Q. Marty, whenever you are ready. 16 A. I am ready. 17 Q. Okay. I asked you if you had ever 18 been deposed before. 19 20 Q. Do you remember how many times? 21 You can guess. 22 I will give you a series of 23 instructions that you don't have to be specific. 24 If you can't remember the specific number, you can approximate. 6 -1 A. I want to say three, but I want to 2 say to you I think it is probably more than three. 3 Q. You don't remember specifically 4 what matters you were deposed in, do you, off the 5 top of your head? A. Yes. I was deposed in a matter 7 styled New Midland Plaza Associates versus First 8 Union National Bank. 9 Q. That was in Tennessee? 10 A. Yes. Welt, no, no. It was in 11 Philadelphia. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. That is all I can remember. 14 Q. Let me give you some preliminary 15 instructions. 16 17 18 19 Obviously you are under oath so the testimony that you are giving today is as if you were in a court of law. Do you understand that? So, what you say will be binding on you ".\ today and forever, depending on what this, whether ) this case goes to trial; the record will be sworn 22 testimony under oath. 23 Do you understand the significance 24 of that; correct? 26 A. Uh-huh. Yes. 7 1 Q. That was my next instruction, If 2 you answer, give verbal answers. A lot of times 3 we in conversation have a tendency to shrug our 4 shoulders, nod our head, say uh-uh, um-urn like you 5 just did. It Is best for the court reporter to get 6 a complete record if you answer your questions 7 orally with yes, no, affirmative, negative, and 8 then the answers to the questions specifically 9 orally instead of with gestures. 10 Again, the reason for that is just 11 to get a complete record. 12 If you answer a question, I'm 13 going to assume that you've understood the 14 question. So therefore don't answer a question 15 unless you've heard the question and you 16 completely understand it. Because if you do answer 17 a question that you either partially or didn't 18 understand, the answers upon you will be binding. 19 • So, make sure that if I ask a . 20 question you don't understand the question, you 21 say would you please clarify It. 22 If your lawyer objects, wait for 23 the objection to be resolved between the lawyer 24 and I, and, Mr. Jacobs and I, and then he will 25 instruct you whether or not to answer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 8 The other instruction obviously is if you would please wait until I finish my questions before you give answers to the questions so that there is -- so that we don't have a tendency to speak over each other in the record and that way we have a clear record, the court reporter can get the questions and the answers. Do you understand those instructions? A. Yes. Q. Can you follow them? A. Pardon? Q. Can you follow those instructions? A. I believe so. Q. Are you on any, under the influence of any medications this morning that would affect either your memory or your perception? A. I don't think so. Q. What medications did you take this morning? A, I am not going to discuss them. Q. Why not? A. I think they're doctor/client privilege. 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 5 to 8 of 279 2 of 96 sheets 9 Q. Actually they're not. So, unless 2 there is an objection from your lawyer, I will ask 3 you to answer, sir. 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • 20 21 22 23 24 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 MR. JACOBS: Well, I am going to object on the basis of confidentially, he said that there is no medication affecting his ability to answer your questions. And you're certainly entitled to that. Beyond that, what do you care i f he's taking Viagra? MR. SUFRIN: Well, okay, aside from Viagra -MR. JACOBS: That was just an example. MR. SUFRIN: Well, okay. The question is proffered to find out whether or not he understands dearly the questions,-can give clear. and responsive . answers and that he's not impaired by any medication. MR. JACOBS: He said he's not. And we're not going to rely on that as an excuse -MR. SUFRIN: Well, he said I 11 Q. But I will ask you a different 2 question. 3 Are you under the care of a 4 psychiatrist today? 5 A. I am not going to answer that 6 question. 7 Q. Why not? 8 A. Because I choose not to. 9 Q. Has the psychiatrist prescribed 10 any medications for you for today? 11 A. I am not going to answer that 12 question. 13 Q. 14 A. 15 16 17 18 19.. 20 21 22 23 24 Same reason? Generally stated, yes. MR. JACOBS: I'm just going to make the same objection. MR. SUFRIN: Yeah, I understand. MR,. JACOBS:..I.am not sure why. you are prying in to Mr. O'Boyle's medical history in this slander case, but, it is all confidential. MR. SUFRIN: I sort of take issue with that, but we'll hash that out 25 I guess at some point. 10 don't think so. I mean he didn't unequivocally say -MR. JACOBS: Well, ask him again. Maybe -MR, SUFRIN: Well, no, I don't want to ask him again. I have his answer on the record now, so I am going to ask him to answer the question. And if you are going to instruct him not to answer then we'll proceed that way. MR. JACOBS: Our position is what medicines he's taking in particular are confidential. Confidential is undefined in the court rules. Perhaps it is not a privilege, I don't know if it is or it isn't, but it is confidential. If you want to ask him additional questions on whether any medication he's taking has any effect to impair his ability to be deposed, he'll be happy to answer those questions. MR. SUFRIN: I've already sort of asked that. 3 of 96 sheets 12 It is clear, though, that you 2 are telling him it is okay not to answer 3 those questions? 4 MR. JACOBS: Well, there are 5 four objections that can be made properly 6 at a deposition. One is confidentiality. 7 MR. SUFRIN: Yeah, object to 8 the form. 9 MR. JACOBS: I am making that. 10 MR. SUFRIN: Okay. 11 Q. Have any of the medications that 12 you take, have they any effect or impact on your 13 ability to recall facts and incidents, your 14 memory? 15 A. I am not going to answer that 16 question. 17 MR. SUFRIN: I assume it is the 18 same objection, Eddie? 19 MR. JACOBS: Well -20 MR. SUFRIN: Or Edwin, sorry. 21 You know, look, I think it Is a 22 legitimate question, especially the way 23 it is couched. 24 MR. JACOBS: Well, it is 25 arguable. Maybe we' ll come back to that. to 12 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PMP age 9 13 15 1 2 3 6 7 that. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . .7f1 22 23 24 _25 06111/2011 12107:36 PM Q. All right. What doctors are you treating with right now, sir? MR. JACOBS: Objection. What is it? This Is not a personal injury case. MR. SUFRIN; No, I understand MR. JACOBS: What does this have to do with anything. MR. SUFRIN: Well, the allegation in the complaint is that he suffered humiliation and emotional distress. And — MR. JACOBS: Right. What does that got to do with doctors he's treating with? MR. SUFRIN; Public humiliation, ridicule. It goes to the subjectivity of-those perceptions _ obviously. It's goes to the subjectivity of those perceptions. MR. JACOBS: This is a bad start to a five-hour deposition. MR. SUFRIN: It is not going to be a five-hour deposition. 14 MR. JACOBS: So far I think you are way out of line In trying to scare -MR.. SUFRIN: I am not trying to scare him. That is absolutely not what I am doing. MR. JACOBS: Or a lawyer, neither one of which is going to be scared by these off-the-wall prying questions about his personal life. MR. SUFRIN: Ed, we ask this question, it is a standard question at the start of every deposition. What medications are you taking'and whether they impact or effect your ability to perceive fact from fiction, and whether they affect your memory. MR. JACOBS: Well, we used to kill Christians at the Colosseum, but that didn't make it right. MR. SUFRIN: I am sure you've asked the question yourself. MR. JACOBS: Well, not as you are doing it. Q. All right. Let me ask one final question on this line and I leave it for a later 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 date I assume. Mr. O'Boyle, do any of the medications that you are presently taking affect your ability to recount the facts that are alleged in this lawsuit with clarity? A. Y am not going to answer that question. Q. Let's move on to alcohol. Are you under the influence of any alcohol today, this morning, Mr. O'Boyle? MR. JACOBS: Marty, you can answer the question. It is a fairly routine question. A. No. Q. Thank you. Have you had an opportunity today before this lawsuit -- Well, let me backup. You said you understand my instructions. . . . . . . _ _ . Have you had an opportunity before today's deposition to review the complaint in the lawsuit encaptioned Martin O'Boyle versus Peter Isen, and it's docketed ATL-2341-08 Atlantic County? A. Can you read that back? 16 Q. Sure. Have you had a chance to review in preparation for your deposition today the complaint that you filed against Peter Isen in this action. And that is Martin O'Boyle versus Peter Isen, It's a defamation claim and it's docketed ATL-L-2341-08. I can show you a copy of the complaint if that would help you. MR. SUFRIN: Eddie, any objection? MR. JACOBS: No. Q. Mr. O'Boyle, just take a quick look at that. And I guess I will eventually mark that, I will mark that O'Boyle-1 if I could. Thank you. (WHEREUPON a Complaint was received and marked as Exhibit O'Boyle-1 for identification.) * * * MR. SUFRIN: You are marking that for ID, is that right, ID? MR.. JACOBS: As opposed to what? COURT REPORTER: Evidence. MR. JACOBS: How does one move 25 something into evidence? Page 1.3 to 16 of 279 4 of 96 sheets 17 19 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. SUFRIN: I want to know, 2 because I always do the M tagQ. Mr. O'Boyle, would you stick this on the top left, or top right of that, please? MR. SUFRIN: Note for the record we are about four minutes out from the last question we asked. A. Would you like me to read this? Q. The time lapse won't be recorded. MR. JACOBS: Who calculated the four minutes? MR. SUFRIN: I just looked at my watch. MR. JACOBS: Do you have time on your transcript? COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. JACOBS: So that will tell us. . _ Q. And my question was you have read 21 it today just as you sit here, but you had not 22 read it before today? 23 A. Oh, I may have read it before 24 today, but if I did it was years ago. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q. Years, as in some time in '08, A. Half hour. 2 Q. Okay. So, it would take you a 3 half an hour to read a three-page complaint? 4 A. In a -- it would take me a half 5 hour to read a three-page complaint in a way that 6 / could look at word by word by word by word. 7 What the words mean could mean, and tie them 8 together. 9 I think maybe ten minutes. Maybe 10 15 minutes. Maybe 40 minutes. I gave you my best 11 indication. And sorry if it doesn't please you. 12 Q. No, it Is not pleasing or 13 displeasing, but let me see if I can expedite the 14 process. I will read it to you and I will ask you 15 if the allegations are accurate. 16 Start Well, you know Peter 17 Isen; correct? 18 A,. Yes. 19..... Q. ...Where.does_he live?. . 20 A. At what point in time? 21 Q. Now. 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Does Mr. Isen own a home down the 24 block from you on 13th Avenue at the corner of 25 Beach Terrace? 18 '09, do you remember? A. Years. Q. Well, It was filed in 2008, so it wouldn't have been before then. Do you remember what specific year? A. No. Q. Okay. The allegation in the complaint as you've read it now, as you've sat here and read it, are they accurate? A. I read it in the scheme of reading a complaint, like I might read a newspaper article. I didn't read it in, as if I read it with a microscope and a complaint looking at each word and what each word can be construed to mean. If you'd like me to read it that way -Q. No, I want to know, can you ten us whether the complaint as you've reviewed it, as you've just explained, is it generally accurate? 22 A. Well, I would rather read itagaln 23 to make that determination. 24 Q. How long do you think that would 25 take you? ••••••.11Mk••••••••••••••••...••••••• . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 A. 6 that home. Q. A. 20 To my knowledge he does. Have you seen him in that home? I have seen you in that home. Correct. More than I've seen Mr. Isen in More than you've seen Mr. Isen? Yes. Q. including last night when -Strike that. Were you photographing Mr. Isen in his home last night? A. No. Q. Were you outside of Mr, Isen's home with your son and someone was taking pictures of Mr. Isen or his house? A. That is really a compound question, Isn't it? Q. Was anyone taking pictures last night outside of Mr. Isen's house? A. I can't speak for -Q. Were you and your son outside of Mr. Isen's house yesterday, last night? A. Me and my son were sitting on the sea wall next to Mr. Silver's house, next to the steps, next to Mr. Isen's house, back to the 5 of 96 sheets Page 17 to 20 of 279 06/11/2011 2;07:36 PM 21 23 1 steps, back to Mr. Silver's house. 2 Q. Were either of you in possession 3 of a camera? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Were either of you in possession a 6 telephone that had the capability of taking 7 pictures? 8 A. X can't speak for my son. But I 9 can speak for me. Yes. 10 Q. Did either you or your son take 11 any photographs of either Mr, Isen's house or him? 12 A. X can't speak for my son because I 13 don't know that he had a camera. But I can speak 14 for my son. I'm sorry. X can speak for myself and 15 the answer is no. 16 Q. Are you, were you standing in 17 front of the side -- strike that. 18 Are you by any chance -- I see two 19 devices-on •the. table-here. .Are-you recording 20 these proceedings today, Mr. O'Boyle? 21 A. I am. 22 Q. Why? 23 A. Because I want to. 24 Q. You are not permitted to do that, sir, so if I would just ask you to turn off those comply. But absent that -2 Q. Well, let me ask you. What is the 3 purpose of recording today's proceeding, Mr. 4 O'Boyle. 5 A. So that we can have a record of 6 today's proceeding. Q. The court reporter doesn't satisfy 8 that you'll have an accurate record Is what you 9 are saying? 10 A. The court reporter unfortunately 11 as fond as I am of the court reporter, the timing 12 of a digital recorder versus obtaining a 13 transcript, there is a large period of time that 14 is in between. 15 Q. Okay. 16 MR. JACOBS: Want me to look 17 for it while you question? 18 MR. SUFRIN: Yeah, I guess. . 19 mean.it is. not that important to.me. . 20 MR. JACOBS: Well, do I have to 21 look for it or not? If it is not that 22 important to you I will not look. 23 . MR. SUFRIN: You know what, 24 will not worry about it. 25 Q. So, so far you've told us It would 22 1 machines. The court reporter is the way we 2 capture the record of the deposition and I don't 3 think the court rules permit you to record a 4 deposition. 5 MR. JACOBS: Well, Is there a 6 rule that says that? If there Is we'll 7 officially comply. 8 MR. SUFRIN: Well, it is the 9 official record. 10 MR. JACOBS: Well, we are not 11 saying that the official record is 12 anything other than the stenographer's. 13 But is there a rule that says a person 14 can't run his tape recorder during a 15 deposition? I mean you are claiming there 16 is. 17 18 19 it is? ,9r1 MR. SUFRIN: I guess it would MR. SUFRIN: I think there is. MR. JACOBS: Where do you think be under official record. I don't know 22 that you are allowed to -23 MR. JACOBS: Do you want to 24 borrow my rule book? If you can find the 25 rule that says you can't do it, we'll 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 24 1 take you at least 15 minutes to a half hour to 2 review this complaint. 3 So, I asked you if Mr. Isen lived 4 across the street. You said you see me there more 5 than you see Mr. Isen. Did you see Mr. Isen there 6 last night? 7 A. I saw Mr. Isen and I think three 8 other people walk down Beach Terrace towards 9 Atlantic City. But I am not sure they came from 10 his home. 11 Q. You are familiar generally with 12 the location of the house that you know that Peter 13 Isen sometimes lives in on the corner of Beach 14 Terrace and 13th Avenue; correct? Big yellow 15 house right on the beach; correct? 16 A. I am not sure. Not sure what you 17 are asking. 18 Q. Are you familiar generally with 19 the place on 13th Avenue where Mr. Isen sometimes 20 comes to live? 21 A. You know I've never been in there. 22 Q. I mean you see him coming and 23 going from his house, do you not? 24 A. Similar to I see you coming and 25 going. Page 21 to 24 of 279 6 of 96 sheets 25 Q. Do you have any knowledge one way 1 2 or the other as to whether or not Peter Isen 2 3 addresses his mail at that address, or lists his 3 ) address on public documents as 1209 Beach Terrace? 4 A. I do have acknowledge that he does 5 6 not 6 7 Q. He does not list his address as 7 8 1209 Beach Terrace? 9 A. Right. 9 10 Q. Do you know where his address is? 10 11 A. According to the Ventnor police it 11 12 is in, somewhere in Pennsylvania. And I can't 12 13 think of the name of the just can't think of 13 14 the name of the street right now. 14 15 Q. You say according to Ventnor 15 16 please. How do you come by that information? 16 17 A. I made a complaint against 17 18 Mr. Isen in Ventnor, 18 .19.- . -Q.-- - For- what? ... 19.... 20 A. Driving a cell phone -- driving 20 21 while on a cell phone. And, the police asked me 21 22 to come in, give them the information. 22 23 They filled out a, I don't know 23 24 what it is, a police form. And, it said Peter 24 isen, and his address, was for his driver's 25 26 1 license, his address was whatever it was on the 1 2 it was a Pennsylvania address. 2 3 Q. He had a Pennsylvania driver's 3 4 license Is what you are saying? 4 5 A, Yeah. My understanding is that 5 6 Pennsylvania driver's license, Pennsylvania 6 7 domicility. 7 8 Q. And you have a Florida driver's 8 9 license; is that correct? 9 10 A. Uh-uh. 10 11 Q. So you are a Florida domiciliary? 11 12 A. Yes. 12 13 Q. That doesn't change the fact that 13 14 when you are in Longport you live at 107 South 14 15 13th Avenue; correct? 15 16 A. No, but It does change my 16 17 domicility, my voting rights, my income tax 17 18 obligations. It changes a whole lot of things, 18 19 yes. 19 ,on Q. I got that. But you have no way 20 to know as you sit here today whether Mr. Isen is 21 22 domiciled as a New jersey resident or as a 22 23 Pennsylvania resident; correct? 23 24 A. I believe -- I mean as of today? 24 2$ Q. Yeah. 25 27 A. Oh, I don't know. As of the date he had the ticket? Q. Yes. A. I believe he was a Pennsylvania resident. Q. How by the way did you get to Ventnor to see him on a cell phone? You just happened, it was a coincidence? A. I was actually on my way to see Mr. Barbone at Mr, .lacobs' office. Myself and Mr. Vonn were in the car. Mr. Isen was coming the other way in that little sports car he's got and he was on the cell phone. Q. And you weren't following Mr. Isen that day? A. I was going the other way. Q. Going the opposite way on Ventnor Avenue? Q. Or Atlantic Avenue? A. Yes. Q. Ventnor Avenue or Atlantic Avenue? A. The one where the Ventnor municipal building is. Q. Atlantic Avenue is my 28 representation. We tried that case, didn't we? A. I am not sure if we tried it or not. But, yeah, I was there, you were there, Lou Barbone was there, and he left. Yes. And we had, unfortunately on the ticket we had the wrong date, And when we received the right date the judge unfortunately, she said that she was not going to entertain it. How it occurred, unknown to me, but the day that I came to see Mr. Barbone and Mr. 3acobs is the day that Mr. Isen was in Ventnor on his cell phone, and make no mistake about it. Q. And, when you were confronted with the dates being wrong, you told the prosecutor that, and the judge, that Mr. Isen had other cell phones; is that right? A. No. Q. Did you tell the prosecutor that? A. Nope. Q. You didn't represent to the prosecutor in the back room that you believe Mr, Isen had other cell phones? A. No. What I said is I don't know if he has another cell phone. Because what I knew Is I knew I saw it. And I knew it was a cell phone. And I knew where I saw it. And if there 7 of 96 sheets Page 25 to 28 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 29 31 1 was no record of it, the only plausible 2 explanation I can come to, at that moment, was not 3 that there was a computer error but rather that there was another phone, a cell phone. And many people as you know carry more than one cell phone. 6 Myself excluded. 7 Q. Myself as well. Let's go through 8 the complaint, see if I can sort of expedite it a 9 little bit. Obviously the Defendant is Peter 10 Isen; correct? 11 A. Yes, 12 Q. And at the time of this complaint, 13 you allege that Mr. Isen was a zoning officer of 14 the Borough of Longport; is that right? 15 A. I don't think so. 16 Q. Well, let me read the paragraph to 17 you and you tell me if it is accurate or not. 18 "Upon information and belief -19 Defendant Peter•Isen is an officer of the-Borough- 20 of Longport and a member of the building, planning 21 and zoning department of the Borough of Long port. 22 Defendant Peter Isen Is being sued In his official 23 capacity as well as In his individual capacity." 24 Is that accurate, or was it at the time that It was filed? 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 hry 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -1920 21 22 23 24 25 to read it back if you'd like to hear It. Q. I really don't need to hear it. The record will reflect what I read: A. Okay, all right. Then it will be on the record. Q. Let us then, you've now read the paragraph out loud. I've read it to you out loud. Did you allege that in June or July of 2008 that Mr. Isen was an officer of the Borough of Longport and a member of its building, planning and zoning department? A. May I? That is what the words say. Q. Thank you, sir. Next paragraph. Starting -- And I 'm going to read this verbatim for you. "Starting in or about June or July of 2008, Defendant Peter Isen began to verbally publish-certain comments regarding-Plaintiff . Martin O'Boyle which were Infused by numerous false accusations of facts, including but not limited to Defendant's declaration that Plaintiff Martin O'Boyle was an enemy of -- and the words 'enemy of are In quotes — "an enemy of the citizens of the Borough of Longport and of the 30 A. I would have to read it again. But what your question was, was that I said that he was a member, that he was a zoning officer, and Mr. Sufrin, like you've done so many times in the past, you just didn't tell the truth. Q. What didn't I tell the truth about? I read the paragraph exactly as it read. A. You said that he was the zoning -that I said that he was the zoning officer. That is not true. Is it, sir? Q. Mr. O'Boyle, read paragraph two out loud, please. A. "Upon Information and belief Defendant Peter Isen is an officer of the Borough of Longport and a member of the building, planning and zoning department. Defendant Peter Isen is being sued in his official capacity as well as his Individual capacity," That is not a zoning officer, sir. Q. Mr. O'Boyle, did I not just read the exact words that came out of your mouth to you before you read the same paragraph? A. What you did is you read the words that said that he was a zoning officer, and I am certain that the court reporter would be delighted 1 governmental hierarchy of the Borough of 2 Longport," 3 4 7 5 9 10 11 12 13 write -14 15 16 17 18 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 Okay, That Is paragraph 3. At the time that you filed your complaint back in July of 2008, July 15 to be specific, was that allegation as you stated It accurate? A. May I see it? MR. JACOBS: What Is the marking you put on that complaint? MR. SUFRIN: O'Boyle-1. MR. JACOBS: I am just going to MR. SURFIN: Very well. MR. JACOBS: Marty, why don't you give him that back. So to expedite things I'm going to give you my photocopy. MR. SUFRIN: Very well. MR. JACOBS: So you can both have it in front of you. What is the pending question? THE WITNESS: I would like to read with or pencil -- could I -MR. JACOBS: What are you 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM page 29 to 32 of 279 8 of 96 sheets 33 1 asking me? 2 THE WITNESS: I would like to 3 read where -MR. JACOBS: Want to mark that `V up, you can mark it up. But why don't 6 you just answer the question. What is 7 the question? 8 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 9 MR. SUFRIN: I asked him -- I 10 read the paragraph, I said is the 11 statement accurate. • 12 Q. Were not going to keep doing this 13 because it's very obvious that the purpose of this 14 is to delay this deposition. 15 So what we're going to do Is I 16 will ask you an allegation and you're going to say 17 true or false. 18 So you can strike the last 19 question. You.can read:that. complaint. -But.,I 20 will ask you the questions. 21 Now I will start again. 22 "Starting in about June or July of 23 '08, Defendant, Peter Isen, began to verbally 24 publish certain comments regarding Martin O'Boyle ,"-- which were infused by numerous false accusations ) 34 1 of facts including but not limited to the 2 Defendant's declaration that Martin O'Boyle Is an 3 enemy of the citizens of the Borough of Longport, 4 and the governmental hierarchy of the Borough of Longport." 6 Is that statement accurate and was 7 it at the time that you filed your complaint? 8 Regardless of what it says on the piece of paper 9 that you are now reading. 10 Was it, was the statement itself, 11 was the allegation accurate, Mr. O'Boyle? 12 A. This is the complaint; correct? 13 MR. JACOBS: That is the 14 complaint. He just wants to know if what 15 we said in the complaint is true or not. 16 So you have to say it is true, or if it 17 is a lie you got to tell him it is a Ile. 18 It is that simple, Marty. 19 A. Okay. Q. Mr. O'Boyle, it's a yes or no question. You don't need to read anymore. I am 22 not asking you a question specifically designed to 23 be read through the complaint. I am asking you a 24 question as to whether the allegations, the 1 25 statement that I just made, is accurate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. 35 The longer you interrupt my -Mr. O'Boyle, I am not interrupting you. A. -- my thought process, the longer it is going to take. And I would ask you to please kindly allow me to utilize my mind. I want to give you the right answer, and that is my objective. Q. That is fine. But I am asking you whether the statement I just made was accurate in June or July of 2008. I gave you the statement. All I need you to do is tell me if It was accurate or it wasn't accurate. I don't need you to sit and read the complaint for 45 minutes, A. And I have to read the statement. Q. You don't have to read the statement. You can answer my question, sir. It doesn't pertain to the complaint. I am specifically asking.you.the.question.without. referring to the complaint. A. You are asking me the question for paragraph 3. I am going to read it, please don't interrupt me. MR. SUFRIN: Mr. Jacobs, I'm simply going to ask your client to answer 36 1 the question, Or ask you to instruct him 2 to answer the question. It is not 3 complicated. 4 I can get Judge Higbee on the 5 phone. I mean this is clearly an attempt 6 to drag this litigation out, to drag this 7 deposition out, it is very clear. It was 8 a simple question. 9 MR. JACOBS: What paragraph are 10 you asking him about? 11 MR. SUFRIN: I am not asking 12 him about a paragraph. I simply read the 13 allegations of the paragraph and asked 14 him to verify it. 15 MR. JACOBS: Can you tell me 16 what number it was? 17 MR. SUFRIN: Three. I read 18 paragraph three. 19 MR. JACOBS: I am trying to 20 help here. 21 Marty, he just wants to know 22 if you think paragraph three is true or 23 false. Why don't you just tell him. 24 A. Oh, X think it is true. 26 MR. JACOBS: Okay, Next 9 of 96 sheets Page 33 to 36 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 37 question. 1 39 allege in your complaint in a second. 2 MR. SUFRIN: Thank you. 2 But what took place during that 3 Q. Next question. And this Is 3 conversation? First of all, what time did that without referring. You don't need to refer to the 4 conversation take place? complaint. I will read you a statement or 5 A. If I had to guess, it was light 6 allegation and ask -- 6 out, so, I am going to say four to six. 7 MR. JACOBS: If the next one is 7 Q. Four to six PM? Where were you 8 4, why don't you just ask him If he 8 standing? 9 thinks number 4 is true or false. 9 A. I wasn't standing. I was sitting. 10 Q. Do you think number 4 is true or 10 Q. Where? 11 false, Mr. O'Boyle? 11 A. On the sea wall. If we were 12 MR. JACOBS: Just tell him if 12 looking at the ocean, Mr. Isen's house was to the 13 four is true or false. 13 right. I can draw you a map if you want. 14 A. Truth. 14 Q. No, you can just -15 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 5. It says 15 A. For the court reporter, And 16 you attempted to contact -- 16 Mr. Isen's house was to the right. I was sitting 17 MR. JACOBS: Is paragraph 5 17 to the left of the stairs waiting for Mr. Isen to 18 true or false, that is all he wants to 18 come off the beach. 19 • know. .19. . Q. .. He was.on the beach?. .. . . 20 THE WITNESS: Can I read It? 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 MR. JACOBS: Yes, but then tell 21 Q. Do you remember what he was 22 him if It is true or false. 22 wearing? 23 A. True. 23 A. I guess beach clothes. 24 Q. Okay. Paragraph S says Plaintiff 24 Q. You were wearing beach clothes 1 )Martin O'Boyle attempted to contact Defendant 25 also? 38 40 1 Peter Isen and attempt to have him cease and 1 A. Or shorts. 2 desist his false declaration. 2 Q. Were you with anybody else? 3 How did you have contact with 3 A. No. 4 Peter Isen in order to have him cease and desist 4 Q. Did you record the conversation? 5 his false allegations? 5 A. No. 6 A. On the evening of his suppository 6 Q. Who started the conversation, who 7 comments. 7 initiated it? 8 Q. Suppository? Defamatory you mean? 8 A. Me. 9 A. Defamatory, yes. 9 Q. What did you say? 10 Q. Suppository has a totally 10 A. I said Peter, that comment or 11 different meaning, we'll talk about that some 11 those comments that you made earlier today, they 12 other time. 12 were not kindly received, and I would hope that 13 A. Yes. I waited for him at the 13 you would not make any such comments again. 14 beach. 14 Q. Now when you said this to him, how 15 Q. And what evening was that? 15 far away from you was he? Was he right up next to 16 A. The night of his party. The one 16 you or was he still coming in from the beach? 17 where 17 A. Right up next to me. 18 THE WITNESS: You remember, 18 Q. He actually stopped in his 19 Peter, you didn't have a certificate of 19 progress and entered into a conversation with you? an occupancy and you had all those people. 20 A. Yes. Q. Would it have been somewhere 21 Q. What did he say -- This was -- the 22 around July 4th of 2008? 22 first person to start the dialogue was you, and 23 A. July 4th? Yes. 23 you said what you just told us you said; correct? 24 Q. So it was July 4th of 2008. We're 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 going to get to the specific incident that you 25 Q. And what did Mr. Isen say in 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 37 to 40 of 279 10 of 46 sheets 41 43 1 response? 2 A. I just remember grumbling and 3 mumbling and bumbling, Q. Grumbling, mumbling and bumbling? A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. Did he say anything specific that 7 you can recall as you sit here today? 8 A. No. 9 Q. And what happened next? 10 A. I left. 11 Q. Did he say anything after that or 12 did you say anything after that? 13 A. For the since -14 Q. Yeah, an hour after that. Within 15 the next hour. 16 A. No, no. 17 Q. Did you encounter him at all for 18 conversation purposes at all the rest of this July 19. . 4th holiday weekend? 20 A. He encountered me. 21 Q. How so? 22 A. The next day he walked up to me 23 and my son Jonathan and said you had to do it, 24 didn't you. And I said had to do what? And he said call the police on me to try to stop my want me to draw you a map? 2 Q. No. Just give us a basic gist of 3 on 13th Avenue assuming we understand the -4 A. Okay. 13th Avenue runs towards the 5 beach and away from the beach. Beach Avenue runs 6 towards Wildwood and towards Atlantic City. And I 7 was on the corner of Beach and 13th on the Then 8 side of the street. 9 Q. So that would be the south side of 10 the street? 11 A. No. That would be actually the 12 13 Q. The Ocean City side of the street? 14 A. Ocean City side of the street. 15 Q. Which is south of -16 A. No. 17 Q. Ocean City is not south of 18 Longport? 19.... A. 20 Q. Which direction is Ocean City from 21 Longport? 22 A. Ocean City is -23 Q. Let me amend the question. Is it 24 southwest of Longport? 25 A. It is west. 42 1 party. I said I don't know what the hell you are 2 talking about. 3 And he said I had a party last 4 night, and you tried to stop it because of the 5 musk. And I said you got the wrong guy. And he 6 kept it up. And, he sort of pushed me over the 7 edge. 8 Q. What do you mean he pushed you 9 over the edge? Did he physically touch you? You 10 said he pushed you over the edge, 11 A. No. I say that in a colloquial. 12 Q. It is metaphoric? Okay. So he 13 made you angry? 14 A. No. I wouldn't say angry. He 15 made me no. No. I wouldn't say he made me 16 angry. 17 Q. Do you know whether or not the 18 police told him that you were the one that called 19 the police? 24 A. I was -- the answer is I don't, but I would bet that they didn't. 22 Q. Where were you standing, where was 23 Mr. Isen standing during this conversation? 24 A. Well -25 THE WITNESS; Patty, do you 44 Q. Due west? Okay. 2 MR. JACOBS: Now that we've 3 trashed that out. 4 A. Those little things. Coastal 5 geodetic things that show you -5 Q, Okay. So, the next day you had 7 this conversation with him, he accused you of 8 having called the police, he had the party. 9 Do you know anything about the 10 party? You said that he didn't have a certificate 11 of occupancy or something. Tell me about that. 12 A. I know absolutely nothing about 13 the party, didn't even know it existed. 14 Q. Well, how is It that you — okay. 16 Fair enough. At the time you are talking about? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Since then you've obviously 18 learned something about that party? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What did you learn? 21 A. About the party or about the 22 house? 23 Q. Both. 24 A. About the house? I know it is not 25 in compliance with the zoning code and I don't 11 of 96 sheets Page 41 to 44 of 279 D6/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 45 1 know how he can rent it or sell it unless it is by 2 fraud. 3 Q. Okay. A. As far as the house not being in compliance or as far as me -- What was your next 6 question? 7 Q. As far as the party. 8 MR. JACOBS: Next question? 9 How about the one he's asking, the last 10 question. 11 Q. The last question was, you told us 12 about the house. Now about the party. 13 A. Someone told me or I learned It 14 myself through an OPRA request that Mr. Isen did 15 not have a certificate of occupancy but yet had a 16 party where all of the pubic officials -- and I 17 say all of them, I don't mean actually ail of 18 them, but a substantial number of the pubic 19 -officials-were there knowing full-well that-he 20 didn't have a certificate of occupancy. And I 21 thought that that was a very dangerous proposition 22 because the intent of the certificate of occupancy 23 of course is so that you're saying that the 24 property is, has been inspected, has been in proper condition for occupancy. And the fact that 46 1 it had not been and there were a hundred people 2 there, if there would have been some type of 3 calamity, God forbid Longport, God forbid. 4 Q. So, do you remember what public 5 officials were at this party? 6 A. Yes. Q. Who were they? 8 A, Now I don't remember them all. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. All the commissioners. 11 Q. Jim Leeds? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Nick Russo? 14 A. So. 15 Q. Dart Lawler. 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. Anybody else from borough 18 government? At the time, this would have been 19 July of '08 obviously. .20 A. Yeah, they were the three that interested me the most. I think Richard Hirsch 22 was there, but I don't -- I mean they're the three 23 that interested me the most. 24 Q. Why? 25 A. Because they're the commissioners. 47 They are the fathers of the town. And if the 2 fathers of the town aren't going to enforce the 3 law and are going to put people in harm's way, 4 that is a disgrace. 5 Q. When you talk about enforcing the 6 law, you are talking about allowing a party to 7 take place without a certificate of occupancy, Is 8 that correct? 9 Were there any other laws that you 10 are talking about specifically that were being 11 violated? 12 A. Well, in order to not get a 13 certificate of occupancy, there are other laws 14 that are not being that are being violated. 15 As an example as of today 16 Mr. Isen, of course he is aware of this, he has 17 inadequate parking facility at that property. 18 Q. Which property are we talking 19- about? 20 A. 1203 Atlantic Avenue. 21 Q. Okay. So this is not the house in 22 which he resides on 13th Avenue, it is the house 23 on Atlantic Avenue, the bay house? 24 A. Well, I think he resides in both 25 of them but I don't know. I don't follow him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 around. Q. All right. It is the house on Atlantic Avenue; correct? A. Is what house on Atlantic? Q. When we're talking about the party that took place on July 4th weekend of 2008, you were talking about the party having taken place at the house on Atlantic Avenue. That would be the house adjacent to the bay; correct? A. That would be 1203 Atlantic Avenue, yes. Q. 1203 Atlantic Avenue? A, Yes, uh-huh. Q. Not the house at the end of your street on the ocean side of the bulkhead or on the landward side of the bulkhead? A. Where you go all the time. Q. A . Q. Correct. Yes. Hold on. What specifically was the non-compliance issue with respect to the house? You said It was not compliant. What about It is not compliant? A. Well, what about it today? What about it then? What about it when? 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 45 to 48 of 279 12 of 96 sheets 2 Q. A. Q. A. 49 What about it then? What about it what? What about it then, July of '08. It didn't have a certificate of occupancy. So, I assume that it was in violation. 6 The parking requirements today are 7 inadequate so I assume the parking requirements 8 back then were inadequate. 9 Mr. Isen's, what do you call it? 10 The grassed area with those bricks in it. 11 Q. Grass pavers? 12 A. Yes. I think they were illegal at 13 the time. And, they were -- you were unable to 14 get a -16 Q. Variance? 16 A. . No, not a variance. A certificate 17 of occupancy absent a variance. 18 He has both docks which require 19 parking spaces. -He-does-not-have boat —.he does 20 not have parking spaces for his boat docks. 21 You can go on the Premier website 22 or I can pull out my commuter right now and we can 23 look at it right this second. 24 Q. You spent some time doing a little D . research on Mr. Isen 1 take it? 50 1 A. If you'd like to say so. 2 Q. I mean you certainly know a lot 3 about 1203 Atlantic Avenue? 4 A. I know enough about 1203 Atlantic 5 Avenue. I had spoken to Mr. Leeds and to 6 Mr. Funk. And Mr. Funk said when it comes to 7 Mr. Isen, we look the other way. 8 Q. Mr. Funk said that specifically to 9 you? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. 12 we look the other way? 13 A. Maybe not in that exact words bUt 14 pretty much. 16 Q. When did he say that? 16 A. It was while Jerome DiPentino's 17 18 19 1 ) 22 23 24 25 He said when it comes to Mr. Isen license was suspended for his five counts of tax evasion when he was convicted. Q. Do you know if it was before or after the July 4th weekend of 2008 when Mr. Isen was alleged to have made the defamatory statements that you had this conversation with Mr. Funk? A. I think after. Q. A. Some time after? I think so. 51 Q. Do you remember where you were 2 when you had this conversation? 3 A. Yes. City hall. 4 Q. You remember how the conversation 5 came up? 6 A. Yeah. I said how come he 7 think at that point he had a CO or a temporary CO, 8 I said how could that be? 9 Q. How could what be? 10 A. How could he have it. 11 Q. What was the reason that you said 12 that to Mr, Funk? Did you specifically say why 13 you thought that he should not have a temporary 14 CO? 16 A. I don't remember how specifically 16 it came up. But I think it came up in the context 17 of Mr. Funk was the zoning officer, is the zoning 18 officer. And he approves the zoning. And the 19•--zoning for-Mr. Iseres. house-and for-his house. on. 20 the beach by the way, it is not just the one at 21 1203 Atlantic. It is 1209. They are both in 22 reckless violation. Not violation, reckless 23 violation. And he and Mr. Funk have dearly 24 engineered that. 25 Q. When you say he, you are pointing 52 1 to Mr. Isen? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. When you say 1209, you are talking 4 about 1209 Beach Terrace, the house on 13th 5 Avenue? f i A. The one you stay at all the time. 7 Q. Very well. And, what is the exact 8 issue with 1209 Beach Terrace? 9 A. I don't know if I could give you 10 everything, but I will try. 11 Q. Let me backup by asking; you are a 12 builder. Correct? 13 A. Sort of. 14 Q. I mean you have engineering 15 expertise? 16 A. Not really. 17 Q. Do you have zoning or planning 18 expertise? 19 A. I think so. 20 Q. What is that based on? 21 A. Forty years of experience. 22 Q. In what field? 23 A. Zoning, planning, development. 24 I've developed hundreds of buildings throughout 25 the United States. 13 of 96 sheets Page 49 to 52 or 279 06/11/2011 12:07136 PM 1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 3 4 6 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 53 Q. Okay. And that is in your capacity as the president of Commerce Group? A. No. That is in my capacity as a builder of those buildings. Q. By the way, Commerce Group who owns that? A. Commerce Group is a, sort of a trade name. It is an umbrella name. It is a trade, it's a trade name. Commerce Group — Q. Like a management entity sort of? A. It's -- I don't know what a management entity sort of is. Q. Okay. Development entity, is it a developer? A. No, it is not a developer. Q. What does It do? A. I don't think it does anything. Q. What is your role with Commerce Group, do-you own any part of it? - -• - • - • A. I don't know. Q. You don't know or you don't, comma, N-O? You said you don't know. I don't know if it is K-N-O-W or N-O. A. Can 0-W? Q. K-N-O-W as In know. Or no, I 55 1 didn't and there is a different answer, I will ask 2 that question. 3 A. There is a different answer. 4 Q. What is it? 5 A. What is, what? 6 Q. What is Commerce Group 7 Incorporated? 8 A. Commerce Group, Incorporated is a 9 Florida corporation, I believe. 10 Q. Do you own it or does somebody 11 else own it? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Do you have any shares in it? 14 A. Don't know. 15 Q. Does your wife have stock in it? 16 A. Don't know. 17 Q. Are you Fisted as the president of 18 the Commerce Group, Incorporated? 19 • -A.- •Don't.know.-• • - - - . 20 Q. Are you an officer or director of 21 the Commerce Group, Incorporated? 22 A. I think I am an officer of the 23 Commerce Group, Incorporated. 24 Q. Do you know what specific office 25 you hold? 54 don't, no. A. Oh, I don't know, meaning we have probably one hundred companies. And they are all internally owned by family members and so forth. And I don't keep track of what, what I own, what trusts for me own, what trusts for my family own. I don't keep track of them. But generally stated if you are asking me is the Commerce Group Marty O'Boyle, I think the answer is yes. Q. Okay, fair enough. In fact on the letterhead of the Commerce Group you actually list yourself as president of the Commerce Group. A. I don't think that is true. Q. You never referred to yourself as president of Commerce Group? A . I think I may have referred to myself as president of Commerce Group, Inc. Q. That Is what I meant, sorry, I will accept the attempt. Commerce Group, Incorporated. 22 A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. Now, did you understand when we 24 were just talking about Commerce Group to mean 25 Commerce Group, Incorporated? Because If you 56 A. I think I hold president, but I am 2 not sure. 3 Just so it is clear, Commerce 4 Group is part of our family of companies. So it 5 is not as if I am trying to isolate Commerce and 6 distance myself from it. Not at all. I am just 7 trying to answer your questions. 8 Q. Fine, I think you actually did. 9 What kind of business is Commerce 10 Group, Incorporated in, what does it do? 11 A. Now, so that it is clear, because 12 I don't know that it is and you started there and 13 you never went back to it. The stationery that 14 you are reading from, if we can took at that for a 15 moment. 16 Q. Actually we can't. 17 A. We can't? 18 Q. Not yet. We will. I promise you, 19 we will. 20 A. Okay. That says Commerce Group, 21 not Commerce Group, Incorporated. 22 Q. Correct. 23 A. So, that Commerce Group stationery 24 is utilized for all one hundred companies. 26 Q. So as you said, you characterized 56 of 2790 6/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 53 to 14 of 96 sheets 1 it as an umbrella company. 2 A. I characterize it as an umbrella 3 company, as a -Q. Can I say alter ego maybe? A. No. You sure can't. 6 I would say an umbrella, umbrella 7 company. It is maybe like Coca-Cola. I don't 8 know that there is any company called Cora-Cola, 9 but I am sure there is a thousand subsidiaries of 10 Coca-Cola. 11 Q. They're licensed bottlers of the 12 Coca-Cola Corporation? 13 A. I mean I don't know. But Commerce 14 Group is our trade name. And when we use the term 15 Commerce Group for any corporation we use, it is 16 telling them that it is part of the Commerce Group 17 family of companies. 18 Q. And Is the Commerce Group, 19• Incorporated, also one of the Commerce-Group 20 family of companies? 21 A. Is Commerce Group, Incorporated, 22 part of the Commerce Group family of companies? I 23 would think so. 24 Q. And is there a specific owner of the mark, the right to use the mark, Commerce 58 1 Group? In other words, the use of the word 2 Commerce Group, is that owned by any of the 3 specific entities, does one entity own It, or do 4 you own it? 5 A, You know, that is a good question. 6 And the answer is I don't know. 7 Q. Okay, okay. So, let's go back to 8 July 4th weekend of 2008 if we could. Can I 9 direct your attention back to that time period? 10 A. Sure. 11 Q. So you said the next day Mr. Isen 12 had a party, and then he confronted you, you said 13 on -14 MR. ISEN: Same day. 15 Q. Sorry, the same day, The next day 16 Mr. Isen confronted you In the street. Did you 17 during that conversation say anything before that 18 conversation took place to encourage It or to 19 discourage it, was there any communication or did ' 1 . \ he just walk right up to you?n A. Walked right up to me. 22 Q. And you were both on the same side 23 of the street? 24 A. Yes. What I don't know for sure, 25 Is whether he was -- we were both an the Ocean 15 of 96 sheets 59 1 City side of 13th. What I don't know is if he was 2 on the ocean side of whatever it is, Terrace? 3 Q. Beach Terrace? 4 A. What is it? 5 Q. Beach Terrace. 6 A. The place you stay all the time. 7 Q. You got it. 8 A. Okay. And I may have been on the $ opposite corner, about 18 feet. 10 Q. Now, did he walk up to you or did 11 you walk up to him? 12 A. He walked up to me. 13 Q. Describe his demeanor. 14 A. He was a smart-ass. 15 Q. Okay. How so? 16 A. He said you had to do it, didn't 17 you. And I said had to do what? He said you had 18 to call the police on my party last night. And I 19 said-I donl•know what-you are talking about.. He 20 said yes you did, you called the police on my 21 party last night and tried to shut it down. I 22 said no, I didn't. He said yes, you did. And I 23 said no, I didn't. And -24 Q. Did he say to you the police told 25 me you did? 60 A. No., 2 Q. What else did he say? 3 A. That was pretty much, and I think 4 I said something like I've had it with you. 5 Q. What was your demeanor like? 6 A. Like it always is, cool, calm, 7 collected. 8 Q. And, where did you go at that 9 point at that time? Was there any other 10 conversation? 11 A. I was with my son. 12 Q. Which son? 13 A. Jonathan. 14 Q. And was he in front of you, to 15 your left, to your right, behind you? 16 A. I don't know. He was, he was in 17 my, immediately in my immediate vicinity. 18 Q. What were you two doing down 19 there, down by Mr. rsen's house? 20 A. You know, I don't remember. But, 21 I think we were doing something. We had made an 22 OPRA request I think in connection with the street 23 widths. 24 Q. The widths of the streets in 25 Longport? Page 57 to 69 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 61 1 A. Yeah. And, just you are a layman 2 and X don't mean that disrespectfully. 3 Q. I do planning work, but, okay. A. But you are still a layman. Q. Okay. 6 A. The street from curb to curb is 7 called a cartway. 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. The street from property line to 10 property line is called a right-of-way. 11 Q. Correct. 12 A. We were determining what the 13 right-of-way was compared to the cartway. Now, 14 that is not an easy proposition because of course 15 you have to find the center line of the road or 16 else -17 Q. You need surveying equipment to do 18 that generally, don't you? 19 - A. No. 20 Q. You were doing it with a tape 21 measure? 22 A. Yeah. 23 0. Why do you care about the width of 24 the streets In Longport? A. I don't remember. Again, this is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2n 2 3 4 5 Q. A. Q. A. Q. 63 2008, you remember what month? Early on. Like January February? Probably April to June. In what context? Why would he say 6 that? 7 A. We're getting rid of him. Q. Why? 9 A. We don't want him anymore. 10 Q. Why didn't he want him anymore? 11 A. I don't know. I wasn't -12 Q. Do you have a belief as to the 13 reason Mr. Isen didn't want Mr. Carter anymore? 14 A. Pardon? 15 Q. Do you have a belief in your mind 16 as you sit here today as to why Mr. Isen didn't 17 want Mr. Carter anymore? 18 A. I would have to speculate and say 19 that Mr. Isen• couldn't get Mr. Carter to do.what 20 Mr. Isen wanted him to do. Mr. Carter perhaps 21 wanted to obey the law and Mr. Isen didn't want 22 to. 23 Q. You are talking about with respect 24 to the construction of either 1203 Atlantic Avenue 25 or 1209 Beach Terrace? 62 three years ago. Q. Yeah, 2008. A. I don't remember, but we were interested, I had asked Mr. Carter to provide us information and he said there were no maps of any of the streets in Longport. And of course I didn't, I couldn't, I didn't believe that, so. Q. And this is Dick Carter you are referring to, the borough engineer? A. Dick Carter, uh-uh. Q. The borough engineer? A. Yes, the borough engineer. Planner. Q. He is the planner, I'm sorry. No, he is the — engineer? A. get rid of. Q. A. Q. of Mr. Carter. 22 A. 23 Q. 24 say that? 25 A. He is the one Mr. Isen is going to What do you base that on? What do I base what on? That Mr. Isen is going to get rid He said it to Mr. Simon, Bill Simon this is? When did he 2008. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 64 A. Or 2303 -- there is a couple of others in there. Q. That he's built, Mr. Isen is a builder in Longport, is that right, or has been a builder in the City of Longport? A. I have no idea. Q. But you know Mr. Isen has built more than two houses in Longport; correct? A. When you say Mr. Isen, Mr. Isen and his companies? Q. Yes, A. My understanding is that he has built two houses, and that he has rebuilt one of the houses which is I think 2303. But, I may not have the addresses down. Q. What other local builders in Longport are you monitoring and keeping track of their compliance? A. I'd have to think about that. Hopefully before the end of the deposition I would give you the answer. Q. A. Q. Let me ask you. Are there others? I think so. You can't think of the names of 25 them or the houses that they've built? 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 61 to 64 ❑f 279 16 of 96 sheets 65 1 A. I think 31m Leeds. As a matter of 2 fact I'm virtually certain 3im Leeds, but I think 3 that there are others. Q . And when you say Jim Leeds, have ‘--,) you seen any other builders build out of 6 compliance with borough code or local code? 7 A, To the extent that Mr. Ism has? 8 No. 9 Q. And is that why you -- Well, let 10 me strike that Why Is it you believe that you're 11 responsible to check Mr. Isen's work to make sure 12 that it is compliant? 13 A. I don't think that I am 14 responsible to check his work to make sure it is 15 compliant.. 16 Q. Why are you doing that? Why have 17 you been doing that? 18 A. Because he has, he has so -19 reckIesslyrhohas destroyed the laws, the.codes, 20 the procedures, in Longport, that it has to 21 change. 22 In other words my view is If you 23 got a code book, use it. And if you are not going 2.4 to use it, throw it in the trash. It is my view. Q. It Is your belief that -- Weil, do 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 67 Q. Okay. A. So when you -- I am a builder. When you build a home on an ocean or you build a shopping center for that matter, if Ed 3acobs has a lot that is 10,000 feet and he builds a 6,000 square foot home, and you have one that is 10,000 feet and you billed an 8,000 square foot home, your property is worth maybe millions more. And Mr. Isen, on his, what do you call it, the CAFRA approval, he's supposed to have a ten foot free board. He has three foot. Q. By the way, how do you know that, did you get In his house and measure It? A. Q. A. Q. Isen's survey? . .A.Q. A. Q. No. How do you know that? It is on a survey. Well, you have a copy of Mr. Yes. .. When did you get that? Oh, year, two, three ago. You sent an OPRA request in for Mr. Isen's survey? 24 A. Yeah. 25 Q. By the way, when you send those 66 you believe that you should be the one to be 2 enforcing the laws, the specific codes against 3 Mr. Isen? 4 A. Well, I think Mr. Isen, I think 5 Mr. Funk is on the take from Mr. Rise. 6 Q. You think Mr. Funk, when you say 7 on the take meaning Mr. Isen, you believe Mr. Isen 8 is paying Mr. Funk? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. A bribe essentially? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. To look the other way with respect 13 to Mr. Isen's construction? 14 16 16 17 18 19 .20 A. Yes, I believe that. Q. And when did you form that belief? A. When I -- and made an analysis. Actually Mr. Silver made the analysis and I went back — and Mr. Silver and I think a little bit differently by the way. And I went back and I looked at Mr. Isen's, the various approvals. As an example, you need X amount of parking spaces to 22 build X amount of square footage. He doesn't have 23 it. 24 Q. At both houses or just 25 A. Both houses. Neither. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i 25 68 OPRA requests in do you pay for those requests or does Commerce Group, Incorporated, pay the fee for those? A. Don't know, Q. You don't know whether the checks come from Commerce Group or whether they come from Marty O'Boyle's account? A. I think they come from Marty O'Boyle's account, but there are multiple entities that submit OPRA requests. As an example there are Citizens for Open Government which is my son Mort. They pay. There are Newport Deerfield Associates, they pay. They're are Forrest-English Associates, they pay. COURT REPORTER: What was the last one? MR. SUFRIN: F-O-R-R-E-S-T E-N-G-L-1-S4 -1 Associates. Q. Was I mistaken? A. You win the spelling bee. Q. So each of these entities pays for their OPRA request separately. Now about investigative services. For example, Stakeout Investigations, do you know Stakeout Investigations? 17 of 96 sheets Page 65 to 68 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 22 23 24 25 06/11/2011 12:07136 PM 69 A. Yes, 2 Q, Who paid Mr. — Well, the owner of 3 Stakeout Investigation, who paid for those services? Was it you personally or was it one of your companies? 6 A. You are talking about the fellow 7 who caught Mr. Isen fondling his genitals? 8 0. Allegedly, yes. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. That Is what you allege, sir. 11 A. No. 12 Q. Well, that is what you've alleged. 13 A. But you are talking about that 14 gentleman? 15 Q. I am talking about the gentleman 16 who prepared a report for you for Stakeout 17 Investigations, yes. 18 A. Who said in that report -19 - - Q. - -Do-you want his name? 20 A. Yes, that would be good. 21 THE WITNESS: Off the record. 22 By the way, is that a picture of me with 23 the horse? 24 MR. SUFRIN: I will get you one, I am sure I can find an extra. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 you remember, David, I said to you control your client. Q. Mr. O'Boyle -A. And you refused to control your client so at that point I hired an investigator. Q. Now the investigator, that is Dennis Magee; correct? A. That would be Dennis Magee, yes. Q. In fact you were with Mr. Magee just a few weeks back in Egg Harbor Township municipal court; correct? A. No, I wasn't with him. I was at the municipal court as was he. Q. And wasn't he listed as one of your witnesses in these allegations that you've made? A. He was, he was listed as a witness who saw Mr. Isen fondling his genitals. • •• Q. - Who paid Stakeout-Investigation- - Services? A. I don't think anybody. Q. So he hasn't been paid for his work? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Have any investigators been paid 70 1 2 (Off the record.) 3 * * * 4 Q. Stakeout Associates 5 Investigations. His name -- Dennis Magee. Are 6 you familiar with Mr. Magee? 7 A. I am. 8 Q. And, he sent a report on August 9 8th to William Ring, vice president and general 10 counsel of Commerce Group Incorporated. Correct? 11 A. I don't know. Let me see it. 12 Q. Have you seen that report? 13 A. I don't know that I ever seen it. 14 Q. Okay. You don't know if you've 15 ever seen it? That is fine. Do you recall 16 retaining Stakeout Investigations? 17 A. Well, I didn't know it was 18 Stakeout Investigations, but I recall Mr. Isen on 19 one day, eight times he was fondling his genitals, . ,,n and at one time he was stroking his penis towards my wife and I had had it. Q. You hired an investigator? A. Well, yeah. But before I hired the investigator I had had it and of course I walked over and you and he were together. And if 72 1 by Commerce Group, Incorporated, to work in New 2 Jersey? 3 A. Not to my knowledge. 4 Q. Have Jacobs & Barbone, your 5 lawyer, been paid by Commerce Group, Incorporated, for this particular lawsuit, O'Boyle versus Isen, 7 lawsuit you filed against Mr. Isen? 8 A. Not to my knowledge. 9 Q. Who paid those bills that you 10 submitted to the court with respect to your 11 damages in the DiLorenzo case, do you know who 12 paid those bills? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you know whether or not the 15 bills were paid by Marty O'Boyle, whether they 16 were paid by Marty and Sheila O'Boyle, a member of 17 your family, an individual or one of the entities 18 under your control? 19 A. Don't know. 20 Q. Do you know who pays the legal 21 bills that are rendered on your behalf? 22 A. I haven't signed a check In 20 23 years. 24 Q. Does that mean that the checks 25 weren't written or does that mean that you just Page 69 to 72 of279 18 of 96 sheets 73 1 have no personal knowledge who's been paying your 2 bills? 3 A. I have no personal knowledge of who has been paying my bills. Q. Who would know that? 6 A. I guess our chief accountant. 7 Q. Your chief accountant? 8 A. Uh-huh. 9 Q. What is his name? 10 A. Her? 11' Q. Her, Sorry. 12 A. Cathy Scarnan. 13 Q. And, where does she work? 14 A. She works at my office in Florida. 15 Q. Deerfield Beach? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Newport Center? 18 A. Yes. 19 --- • Q -Is-that Commerce-Group2t1 Incorporated's office as well? 21 A. That is the Commerce Group, I 22 guess you can say it is the Commerce Group, 23 Incorporate's office as well. It is where the 24 Commerce Group, not Commerce Group, Inc, family of companies operates from. 75 1 characterized It. And I don't want to put words in 2 your mouth, but I think that Is what you said, you 3 sort of had had enough; correct? 4 A. Well, we'd have to play, play it 5 back, 6 Q. Is it a fair characterization to 7 say that you were irritated by that conversation? 8 A„ I think we'd be best to play it 9 back. 10 Q. Instead of doing that, why don't 11 you tell me how you felt. 12 A. About what? 13 Q. About that conversation. 14 A. What conversation? 15 Q. The one that you had with Mr. Isen 16 on the street that you described with your son 17 next to you about the police being called on his 18 party. -19 --I am drawing a -blank.. — 20 Q. You don't remember that 21 conversation? 22 A. Well, no. I mean I remember 23 having a conversation the next day. I remember it 24 being on the Ocean City side of 13th. I remember 25 it was at Beach Terrace. I don't remember which 74 Q. You are friends with the Frank 2 Marla? 3 A. I know Frank. 4 Q. Frank filed a lawsuit against the 6 Borough of Longport and against one of its police 6 officers, Pierce Shaud. Do you know anything 7 about that lawsuit? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Who paid for the legal fees for 10 that lawsuit; did you? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Did any of your companies? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did any of your companies pay for 15 Mr. Aifano's *lawsuit against my firm 16 A. Nope. 17 Q. Did you pay? 18 A. Nape. 19 Q. Do you know who did? pn A. Nope. Q. So, let's go back to July 4th 22 weekend 2008. 23 You said you had that conversation 24 with Mr. Isen, you said, I think in your words, 25 you had had enough. I think is how you 19 of 56 sheets 75 1 side we were on. But I don't remember the subtle 2 of discussions that led up to the question that 3 you are answering. So the best thing to do is if 4 we ask the court reporter to read it back, then X 5 will be able to answer you precisely. 6 Q. Well, instead of doing that, I am 7 simply going to ask you, you've told us about that 8 conversation, right? You acknowledge that you 9 told us just a few minutes ago about the 10 conversation you had with Mr. Isen. Correct? 11 A. Well, whatever I told you I told 12 you. 13 Q. And how did it make you feel? 14 A. How did what make me feel? 15 Q. That conversation. 16 A, What conversation? 17 Q. You one you told us about. 18 A. Which one was that? 19 Q. You one you had with Mr. Isen the 20 day after the party, 21 A. What was the context of it? 22 Q. You indicated that Mr. Isen 23 confronted you because he had thought you called 24 the police. 25 A. I told him I didn't call the Page 73 to 76 of Z79 06/11/201112:07:36 PM 77 79 22 23 24 25 police. 2 Q. And then? In other words, was 3 there any other conversation? A. I'd have to sort of get the whole buildup to it to remember it. 6 Q. Well, I mean was anything else 7 said during that conversation? 8 A. I think, I think I may have made 9 the statement that I've had it. 10 Q. Okay. And then what, you walked 11 away? 12 A. Walked away. 13 Q. Where did you go? 14 A. I went to my home. 15 Q. And where if you know, did Peter 16 go? And when I say Peter, I mean Mr, Isen. 17 A. Didn't he come to see you? 18 Q. I am not answering questions, sir. 19 - I am-asking. you-do you-know where.he.went?---. 20 A. I am not sure. I thought he went 21 to see you. 22 Q. I wasn't in Longport in July of 23 '08. I didn't know Mr. Isen in July of '08. 24 A. Okay, then he didn't come to see you. I don't know where he went. 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 23 24 25 (Break taken.) * * * MR. SUFRIN: For the record, in the break we did talk about my golf game but I did not discuss the litigation. Right, Mr. O'Boyle. THE WITNESS: I think pretty much. MR. SUFRIN: I just don't want to run into any ethical problems. Mr. Jacobs, I assume you have no objection to me saying hello to your client, THE WITNESS: Hello. MR. SUFRIN: Hello. Okay, so let's continue. * * * EXAMINATION BY MR..-SUFRIN:— Q. I think before the break we talked a little bit about Mr. Isen having -- we talked a little bit about your statement that you believe that Mr. Funk was on the take, in your words, I think it was he was on the take. MR, JACOBS: Excuse me. 76 Q. Do you know whether -- okay, you 2 didn't see him at that point after that. 3 A. I mean we walked in a different 4 direction. I didn't, I didn't tag him. 5 Q. Fair enough. Were there any other 6 conversations that weekend with respect or between 7 you and Mr, Isen that you can remember? 8 A. I don't think so. 9 Q. Okay. Is it a practice of yours 10 to record those conversations? 11 A. Is it a practice of mine to 12 record, what is those conversations? 13 Q. Any conversation with Mr. Isen. 14 Let me ask a better question. Do 15 you have any conversations with Peter Isen that 16 you've recorded? 17 Can you actually pass that over 18 here Mr. Isen, off the record. 19 A. Your question is did I, Marty O'Boyle, have any conversations with Peter Isen that I, Marty O'Boyle, recorded? Q. Correct. A. I think the answer is no. Q. Okay. * * * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 * * * (Off the record.) * * * Q. Back on the record, please. Sorry. You said earlier during the deposition that you believe Mr. Funk had accepted or was on the take. Your words were he was on the take. And that Mr. Isen had potentially bribed Mr. Funk to'Ignore what you allege to have been building code violations or construction code violations, And I guess my question is aside from what you told us, you said you knew that from an analysis that you did, is there anything else you know about, any other facts that you can point to, admissions, statements, documents, something like that that would tend to prove that or show that Mr. Isen had in fact paid Mr. Funk a bribe? And if you can't think of anything that is fine. I just want to know if there is anything else other than that analysis you told us about. A. As I sit here today, I can't think of anything else. But I think if I had probably 06/11(201 12:07:36 PM Page 77 to 80 of 279 20 of 96 sheets 81 1 my files In front of me, I could make somewhat of 2 a list. 3 Q. A list? Do you believe there are documents that show that Mr. Isen paid bribes to Mr. Funk? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. Can you recall as you sit here 8 today having seen any such document? 9 A. I have seen documents which show 10 that Mr. Funk, who is a zoning officer, let 11 Mr. Isen do things that were out of compliance. 12 Q. And you've said that. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q, But, that is the quid, I am 15 looking for the quo, if you know what I mean. So 16 the question I ask is whether you have 17 documentation that shows that Mr. Isen paid 18 Mr. Funk something in order to have him as you say 19. - look-the-other-way? - - - .- --- - - • - - - -- • -- -- - • , - 20 A. The answer is I don't, but I think 21 it was more of a complex scheme than just a here 22 is $10,000 or here is $20. I think it was more of 23 a complex scheme. 24 Q. Do you believe that any other ) '-- borough officials are involved in this scheme as 82 1 you call It? Or when I say are, I mean were at the 2 time, were involved, 3 A. Again, I'd have to think about it. 4 But as I sit here right now I think Mr. Funk was 5 the main character. 6 Q. Is there any connection between 7 the scheme that you've just alleged and Premier 8 Properties? 9 A. I think there could be. 10 Q. Do you have any specific fact that 11 you can rely on with respect to that? 12 A. I think that the specific fact 13 would take some Information. When I say some 14 information, as an example, Mr. Isen and Premier 15 do a great deal of business together. Mr. Funk 16 and Premier do a great deal of business together. 17 Mr. Funk is the zoning officer and the, I don't 18 know that I am using the term right, but the 19 housing inspector, meaning you can't sell a home ' › or lease a home in Longport without Mr. Funk, and Mr. Funk's wife works in Premier. 22 So, there is a lot of ways for 23 money to find its way around. 24 And do I have any specific 25 knowledge that I have seen that money find its way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 26 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 83 from point A to point B? I no not have any specific knowledge. Q. Fair enough. Thank you, sir. Let's go back to July 4th weekend. We'll going to actually now talk more specifically about the incident that you allege in your complain. There was a conversation you told us about, you walked your way, Mr. Isen went, you didn't keep track, you said he wept back into his house. And that was the day after the July 4th statement was made. Were there any other conversations that you can think of between you and Mr. Isen in the next week, that is the week after July 4th? In other words can you recall any other conversation you had with Mr. Isen? A. No. Q. How about in-the-next month, any other conversations you had with Mr, Isen, if you can recall, sir? A. Yeah. The answer is I am trying to recall. And, I am just hitting a blank. Q. Can you recall any other conversations from July 4th weekend of '08 aside 84 from the one you've told us about, until the end of '08 between you and Mr, Isen, any other conversations at all after that? A. From July 4th, '08? Q. Let's say July 4th, '08 is when you heard the defamatory statements, you allege you heard the defamatory statements. So from that date including the date of the conversation you had with Mr. Then -MR. JACOBS: First of all object to the form of the question. If I heard correctly, you are changing the date. MR. StiFRIN: Let me amend the question because you are right, It is his Interrogatories I am relying on, but let me amend the question, I think that will clear it up. Q. I think we said that you had a conversation the day after -- you said you had a conversation with Mr. Isen -- Well, let me ask it a simpler way. After the defamatory statements 24 were made about you In or about June or July of 25 2008 -21 of 96 sheets Page 81 to 84 or 279 06/11/2011 12;07:35 PM 85 87 MR. JACOBS: So you concede 2 they're defamatory? 3 MR. SUFRIN: No. The alleged defamatory statement. MR. JACOBS; Well, that Is not 6 what you said. 7 MR. SUFRIN: Let me strike that question. 9 Q. From the date of the alleged 10 defamatory statements in June or July of '08, 11 until the end of '08, did you have any other 12 conversations with Mr. Isen other than the one you 13 just told us about? That is a better way of 14 putting it, sorry. 15 A. I, excuse me. I do not have a 16 timeline in front of me. If I did it would make 17 life a lot easier as you might imagine. 18 Q. Yes. 19 - • A-. -So, - it is•very difficult-to•say; - - .... 20 But, I can't recall now. If you'll give me sort 21 of a tip-off, meaning -22 Q. No, no. I am not -23 A. The answer is X can't think of any 24 right now. Q. And, have you ever had any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 86 conversations with Mr. Isen specifically about, aside from the one you told us about at the bulkhead where you said you didn't like what he said about you, any other conversation with Mr. Isen about him making defamatory statements about you? A. I do not believe so. Q. Who is William F. Ring, Junior? A. Bill is a real estate guy in my office in Florida. He has worked for me for almost 20 years. Q. Is he a lawyer? A. I am not sure. I think he is. He is not a practicing lawyer. Q. Does he represent himself to third parties as being your counsel, your lawyer? A. He has. Yeah. And let me make that clear. When I say he's Bill has never tried a case to my knowledge. Bill has handled zoning hearings, he has handled primarily real estate closings, mortgages, real estate related 22 law, and he has written and communicated with 23 people in connection with where he felt they 24 needed to be written or communicated with. 25 Q. Is he general counsel to either 0641/2011 12:07:36 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 •18 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 85 to 88 of 279 you or Commerce Group, Incorporated? A. He is not. Q. Is he general counsel to the entity more generically known as Commerce Group, that is the trade name? A. He is not. Q. Was he ever? Let me narrow that timeframe down. July of '08, at any time during July '08 was he general counsel to Commerce Group, Incorporated? A. He was the only lawyer in the house. Q. Does that mean, is that a yes? Is it fair to characterize him as general counsel? A. You would have to ask Kim. Q. Would you characterize him as your, Marty O'Boyle's personal counsel? And when I say Marty O'Boyle, I mean Marty O'Boyle Senior. •• -A.. • -No. I-donl-think would- — categorize him -- I think he was more of the company's counsel. If somebody -- if Peter as an example quit and said that he was being discriminated against, filed a lawsuit, it would go to Bill. And Bill would then decide what to do 88 with it. Q. I will show you what's been marked for identification purposes as O'Boyle-2. I show your lawyer first, sorry. MR. JACOBS: Okay. Copy of? MR. SUFRIN: Sorry, I don't have duplicates. I would have to drag 3,000 pages here. MR. JACOBS: Or in this instance, two. MR. SUFRIN: Well, there is a lot of stuff, but yeah. That is why I love him. Q. So you are looking at what's been marked for identification purposes as O'Boyle-2. Take a second, or take as much time as you need I guess, look at O'Boyle-2. It is a two-page letter written by William Ring to Peter Isen, and when you've had a chance to review it, I am just going to ask you a couple questions about it. A. William F. Q. William F. Ring Junior. A. I've read it. Q. Did you authorize Mr. Ring to send 22 of 96 sheets 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -i9 • 20 21 22 23 24 89 1 that letter to Mr. Isen? 2 A. I am going to say yes, but I want 3 to just make it clear. That I think what happened was I told Bill about the incident. He drafted up the letter and sent it. Sof to that extent is my answer. Q. Is what is contained in the letter, that is the allegations that are made by Mr, Ring towards Mr. Isen, are they accurate? A. I think it is accurate. I think t here may be a date that is wrong, like July 4th or 5th, or 5th or 6th. Q. Okay. A. Generally, yes. Q. Let's actually get In to the specific incident now. As you sit here today, can you recall the incident that occurred in July with Mr. Isen? - A.- - - You-got to be•clear. - -- • Q. Sure, let me do that. You allege Mr, Isen made defamatory statements, and you've said that he said that you were in your words the enemy of the people of Longport. is that right? A. Yes. Q. When did that happen? 2 3 4 5 B 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 beach. And that Beach Terrace is another street that is perpendicular to 13th Avenue. I call it 13th Avenue, And your house is somewhere down the middle of the block approximately on 13th Avenue, and Mr. Isen's house is closer to the ocean. So give me sort of a general -- I may ask you to draw a map if we can't figure it out this way, but give me a general understanding of where you were standing or what you were doing immediately before you heard the statement. THE WITNESS: Should I draw a map or no, Ed? Q. I think If you want to do that Mr, O'Boyle, that is tine. Here, I will give you a pen. MR. JACOBS: Weil, I think you want to draw a map, and I think you are wearing him down, he keeps saying maybe we'll draw a map, so-let's just draw the .. fuck'n map and get it over with, alright? THE WITNESS: You didn't get that "F" part, did you? MR. SUFRIN: Whatever. THE WITNESS: He's a funny guy. MR. SUFRIN; I could never, but 90 1 A. I think it happened July the 4th. 2 But it may have been July -- within 48 hours of 3 July, within 48 hours of July 4th. But I think 4 July 4th. 5 Q. In fact in your interrogatory 6 answer, that is when you say it occurred I 7 believe, And you were here for Mr. Simon's 8 deposition as well, were you not? 9 A. I was, but I wasn't listening that 10 closely. 11 Q. I think his testimony was that it 12 was July 4th weekend as well. 13 So, let's say for argument sake I 14 am going to say July 4th. 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. But, we'll accept your 17 characterization that it could be anywhere from 48 18 hours before or after to give you that leeway. 19 Okay? A. Sure. Q. When the statement was first made 22 that you heard, where were you standing? 23 A. Do you want me to draw you a map? 24 Q. No. I mean let's say for argument 25 sake that 13th Street runs perpendicular to the 23 of 96 sheets Page 89 92 whatever. 2 Hers wearing me down or I'm 3 wearing him down? 4 MR. JACOBS: He's worn you 5 down. He's been offering to draw a map 6 since about 11:30, and he has finally got you on the ropes. 8 MR. SUFRIN: I am on the ropes, 9 no question about It. I am definitely on 10 the ropes. 11 A. Us real estate guys just love to 12 draw maps. Okay. So, here is the map. 13 Q. This is 13th Avenue in the middle 14 of the map? 15 A. Yeah. 16 0. Just write down 13th Avenue just 17 so we know. 18 A. That is all I missed, was 13th 19 Avenue. 20 21 22 23 24 25 092 of 279 MR. JACOBS: Will you give it an exhibit number? MR. SUFRIN: After he finishes writing it I will ask for it to be marked, I will put O'Boyle-3 on it. (WHEREUPON a hand-drawn map 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 93 95 was received and marked as Exhibit 2 O'Boyle-3 for identification.) 3 Q. Let me just stick this on here. Thank you, Mr. O'Boyle. Okay. Go ahead. A. What was your question? 6 Q. My question was immediately before 7 the alleged--and I used the word 8 alleged--defamatory statements, the statements 9 that are at issue in this lawsuit, where were you 10 standing and what were you doing? 11 A. Myself, Lenny Silk, and Fred 12 Kremer, were all coming off the beach here. 13 Mr. Isen -14 Q. And what time was this? Sorry to 15 interrupt, what time was it, do you remember? 16 A. If I had to guess I would say it 17 was a tad before noon, but. 18 Q, You were all on the beach in beach 19 clothes? 20 A. Yes. Fred came over and asked me 21 if I wanted to go for a walk, so we went for a 22 long walk. 23 Q. Are you friends with Fred Kremer? 24 A. He is my next-door neighbor. Q. In Longport? A. Two hours. 2 Q. Is there any reason that you and 3 Mr. Kremer you know, were going for a walk on July 4 4th of '08? I mean was there any specific reason 5 you guys decided to hook up and go for a walk? 6 A. No. He said I am going to go for 7 a walk on the beach, do you want to come with us. 8 Me and Lenny Silk are going to go for a walk on 9 the beach, do you want to come with us. 10 Q. Where were you when that 11 conversation took place? 12 A. I was on my porch which was higher 13 than Fred's, and Fred was here, and I said sure. 14 Q. Fred was already with Lenny Silk? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Where was Lenny? 17 A. Lenny, we walked over to Lenny's 18 house which is on 12th Street. 19 • - -Q. • -Okay. -So, do.you know. Lenny Silk? 20 A. Never met him before. 21 Q. So this was the first time you had 22 met Lenny Silk? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So Fred Kremer came over just 25 before noon, said you want to go for a walk we me, 94 1 A. Yeah. 2 Q. Does he still live on 13th Avenue? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. He is still your next-door 6 neighbor in Longport? 6 A. Uh-huh, yes. 7 Q. And you are friends with him? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And do you have any business 10 dealings with Mr. Kremer, any business ventures, 11 anything like that? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Has he been to your house in 14 Longport? 15 A. I think one time. 16 Q. When did you see Mr. Kremer last 17 if you recall? 18 A. 19 Q. A . Fred has been my neighbor for 2 probably 15 years. I probably have spent less 23 than an hour with him. 24 Q. And that includes this walk on the 25 beach? 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Two years ago. Would you consider yourselves back . ..9h„\ in July of '08 sodally friendly? Page 93 to 96 of 279 96 1 saw you on your porch; correct? 2 A. Uh-uh. 3 Q. You said what? 4 A. Yeah. 6 Q. And, you walked down your steps 6 and you and Fred walked over to pick up Lenny 7 Silk? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And Lenny Silk was on 12th Avenue? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. This is again the first time you 12 had met Lenny Silk? 13 A. Uh-huh. 14 Q. Have you talked to him since this 15 date? 16 A. Maybe to say hello on the beach. 17 I don't think I spent more than -- if it was three 18 minutes it was — that Is it. 19 Q. Are either Lenny Silk or Fred 20 Kremer full-time residents of Longport If you 21 know? 22 A. Fred is not. Lenny I don't know. 23 Q. I mean do you see them around town 24 other than during the summertime? 25 A. Fred has had some serious health 24 of 96 sheets 97 1 problems as has his wife. And they have not been 2 around for a couple of years. But they're getting 3 ready to come around because their porch is, they're putting furniture out. Q. All right. And Mr. Silk same 6 thing, you don't know whether he's a seasonal or 7 whether he's a full-time resident of Longport as 8 you sit here today? A. No. 10 Q. Okay. So, you are leaving your 11 house, you and Fred Kremer, he asked you to take a 12 walk, you go over to Lenny Silk's house on 12th 13 Avenue. to you go by way of -- How do you go from 14 your house to Lenny Silk's house, do you go by way 15 of Beach Terrace or do you go up Atlantic Avenue? 16 A. Neither. We cut through Steve 17 Cozen's driveway., 18 Q. And Steve Cozen lives directly 19 across the street from you; right? 20 A. Well, more across from Fred. 21 Q. And you found Lenny Silk In the 22 front or the back of his house? 23 A. I think we knocked on the back 24 door. I just don't -- I think we knocked on the :I) back door or he may have been waiting out there 98 1 for us. 2 Q. And then -3 A. I just don't remember. 4 Q. Up to this point you had not seen 5 Mr. Isen that day; is that right, if you recall? 6 A. No. If I seen him, it would have 7 just been nothing, you know. 8 Q. In passing? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is it fair to say that at least up 11 to this point you and Peter Isen were friends or 12 friendly? Or let me retract that. Say you were 13 cordial to one another up to this point? 14 A. I would say no. 15 Q. Were you ever friends with Peter 16 Isen? 17 A. Well, I never knew Peter Isen. I 18 got to know Peter Isen in a very light fashion 19 right before the election, I would say within 30 911 to 45 days before the election. Q. The election of Nick Russo, Dan 22 Lawler and -23 A. Yeah, uh-uh. So that would be in 24 Flay cif -25 Q. '08? 25 of 96 sheets 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 97 to 100 99 A. Of '08, yes, uh-huh. Q. You supported them for their commissioner position, you were on the, sort of campaign trail with them? A. I would say that that probably Is a fair statement, yes. Q. And, how did you meet Mr. Isen during the course of that? A. He was hanging around Premier Realty, and I would go into Premier Realty from time to time. Q. Was he also a supporter of that campaign for Mayor and Council? A. Yes. Q. Or commission, sorry. Okay. Other than that, I mean at that point, and that was probably May or June of '08. Did you have any conversation with him where they you know, and-what were they_ like?. . _ A. I had one conversation with him. MR. JACOBS: Excuse me. Object to the form. Who are you talking about? MR. SUFRIN: Mr. Isen. MR. JACOBS: Talking about Mr. Isen? 100 MR. SUFRIN: Yeah. MR. JACOBS; Conversation with Mr. Isen. Not the other people he's mentioned? A. Right. I had one conversation with him and it was a strategy, and he sort of blew me off. Q. And when you say strategy, you are talking about how we could help the Mayor win basically? A. Or how we could help the other guys lose. I don't remember what it was, but it was some type of strategy, and he just blew me off. I remember him saying something about if he -- this is in connection with Commissioner Stroeble. If he loses, he loses. And if he wins, we'll just go to the prosecutor's office and get him arrested. Q. This is what Peter said to you, this was at Premier Property this conversation took place? A. In the conference room at Premier Property, yes. Q. Do you remember when this was, of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 101 1 what month? 2 A. It was very close to the election, 3 so I'm going to say it was within 30 days of May 20th. Q. Of '08? 6 A. Of '08, yes, uh-huh. 7 Q. And you don't know if it was 8 before -- Well, it was definitely before, 9 obviously it was before the election. 10 A. Yes, definitely before, yeah. 11 Q. Other than that conversation, had 12 you had any other conversation with Mr. Isen that 13 you recall? 14 A. Nothing of substance. Maybe a 15 hello, a goodbye, but nothing of any type of 16 substance. 17 Q. So, up to this July 4th date, had 18 he at least up to that point prior to the July 4th 19 statement that we're-going -to-talk about in a • 20 second, had he been, had you been cordial with one 21 another? 22 A. No. 23 Q. When did that -- okay. When did 24 the relationship if it did change at all? A. Again a timeline would really help 102 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .5401 22 23 24 25 me of course. Q. A. Q. Can you think of a month? Well — We know that in May of '08 shortly before the election you are talking — well, he's rebuffing your political strategy. After that at any point did the relationship between the two of you change? MR. JACOBS: Object to the form of the question. Change from what to what? What we have on the record so far is they were not cordial. MR. SUFRIN: Did it change? MR. JACOBS: To what, though? MR. SUFRIN: In any way. I don't need to set a -•- Did it change in any way? MR. JACOBS: Don't you need an intermediate question? He said they weren't cordial. Well, what were they? Hostile, antagonistic? MR. SUFRIN: That is fair. Q. What was the relationship in May of '08, how would you describe it? MR. SUFRIN: I think he said it 103 was cordial, we have his testimony but... 2 MR. JACOBS: He said they 3 weren't cordial. 4 MR. SUFRIN: In May of '08 they 5 were cordial. 6 MR. JACOBS: Were you cordial? 7 A. In May of '08, now we're talking 8 pre election? 9 Q. Yeah, sure, absolutely. 10 A. Pre election I had -- I knew who 11 he was. I had very limited interaction with him. 12 I had one strategic suggestion, which he sort of 13 blew me off on. And then the election took place, 14 and the election was over. 15 Q. How would you describe what you've 16 just said as the relationship if any that you had 17 with Mr. Isen? 18 A. When? 19 • - Before-the-election. - -. 20 A. You know, I can't think of a word. 21 But if I had to pick a word I would have to say 22 cordial. 23 Q. And did that relationship at some 24 point after the election, change? 25 A. Yes. 104 Q. When? 2 A. I was afraid you were going to ask 3 that question. 4 I don't, I would have to see a 5 timeline for it to -- but after -- what happened 6 was before the election -7 Q. By the way, just to backup one 8 second. Hold that thought. 9 Do you have such a timeline, have 10 you prepared a timeline like that? 11 A. I have not. 12 Q. Go ahead. You were saying just 13 before the election? 14 A. Just before the election, 15 Mr. Isen, Mr. DiLorenzo, and I believe Mr. Russo, 16 they wanted me to go after John Stroeble. 17 Q. And when you say go after him -18 A. Their -- they were afraid of 19 Stroeble. 20 Q. Why? 21 A. They thought he could win. 22 Q. Was he running against the 23 now-sitting Mayor? Was he the adversary, 24 political adversary? 25 A. Yes. 66/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 101 to 104 of 279 26 of 96 steets 6 7 8 9 10 ' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 105 1 Q. Okay. And what did they want you 2 specifically to do? 3 A. They wanted me to -- what they said is if he was not a resident of Longport, and therefore it was election fraud, and therefore he couldn't run, and therefore if he did run he would be disqualified or thrown out or whatever the case is. And they asked me to do some work. So, we did. When X say we, my office did a lot of work. And I went to the commission meetings and X am going to say I started around the early part of April, and I started making Inquiry about Mr. Stroeble's domicility. And needless to say he didn't like it. And, I think his domicility was such that he was not domiciled in Longport. And low and behold the election came around. Q. So you campaigned, fair to say you campaigned against-John .. ...... .. . Stroeble?•• A. It is fair to say that, yes, uh-uh. Q. And you did It by calling his residency Into question at borough commissioner's 24 meetings or one; correct? 2 3 4 A. 5 in Longport. 6 Q. 7 A. 8 30 years. 9 Q. A. I would say that is correct. 106 Q. And, did you speak to anybody else, for example, voters about your concerns about Mr. Stroeble's residency? The only -- I didn't know anybody Okay. I have never been off my porch in Well, I will assume that is a 10 little bit of a stretch. 11 But, did you, aside from appearing 12 at this borough commissioner's meeting and 13 questioning John Stroeble's domicile, did you 14 speak to any others about your concerns about 15 where he lived? 16 17 lives? 18 19 A. About my concerns about where he Q. Yes. A. I had never — I didn't know John Stroeble was a commissioner. I knew nothing about John Stroeble. I knew nothing about where he 22 lived. I knew nothing about his accomplishments. 23 I only did it because what they said Is you have a 24 problem with your house, you fix our problem, we 26 fix your problem. 107 Q. Who said that? 2 A. Joe DiLorenzo, Peter Isen, and I 3 think Nick Russo, but I can't say for sure. 4 Q. And you then conducted I assume 5 some sort of an investigation from your office 8 into John Stroeble's domicile and his activities, 7 you did some research on him; is that right? 8 A. Yes, that is correct. 9 Q. What kind of research did we do? 10 A. I think we did a Lexus Nexus 11 check. I think we did a check at the local 12 newspapers. I can't think of what else we did. 13 Q. Did you prepare same sort of a 14 dossier or a portfolio of what you had learned 15 about John Stroeble? 16 A. I don't think so. I think I had 17 notes at the various commissioner meetings. But 18 suffice it to say that I was satisfied that he was -19 a resident-of Flemington..... -• • --- -. . _ — 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A . Q. A. Q. County. Of Flemington, New Jersey? Yes. Which is not Longport obviously? That is correct. And I believe that Is Hunterdon 108 Did you share that information 2 with Mr. Isen or Joe DiLorenzo or Nick Russo? 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 yes? A. Uh-huh. Q. And when you say uh-huh, you mean A. Yes. I am sorry. Q. And was it one of them or all of them? A. I think It was aft of them. I know Mr. Isen for sure, because what he said is if we don't beat him, we go to the prosecutor and we'll have him put in jail. Q. What about Mr. DiLorenzo, did you share your information with him? A. I think it was at the same time. Q. There was meeting between the three of you? A. I think — I know it was in Premier Realty. Q. Do you remember the date of that meeting? A. It would have had to have been shortly before the election. 24 Q. Did you transmit any of your 25 findings, whether it be notes or any other 27 of 96 sheets Page 105 to 108 of 279 06f11/201112:07:36 PM 109 1 documentation to either Joe DiLorenzo, Peter Isen 2 or Nick Russo? 3 A. Q. 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 '19 20 21 22 23 24 I think I just said yes. I mean what did you specifically -- I asked you if you talked about it. Now I am asking whether there were any documents that you showed them, any materials that you prepared during this meeting that you transmitted to them or even e-malled to them. A. I would think the answer is yes. Q. Do You remember what specifically? A. I think the answer is yes. Q. So what is it specifically that you provided? A. John Stroeble I think had his Veterans exemption still in Flemington. John Stroeble's daughter was still in the Flemington school system. - — - • --John Stroeble's-wife was still. registered to vote in Flemington. John Stroeble was registered to vote in Longport. There was a Seven-Eleven up there and we sent -- I can't remember. Not a Seven-Eleven. A Dunkin-Donuts. And we sent, I 110 1 think we sent a guy named Al Whittingtom up there. 2 Q. Was he an investigator of some 3 sort? 4 A. Well sort of. To ask about John 5 Stroeble. And they said yeah, he's usually there 6 in the morning when he — Then I think also he was 7 working If I remember correctly at Adeiphia. 8 Q, Adeiphia Communications? 9 A. Yeah. Which as you know -10 Q. Regas? 11 A. Regas, yes. 12 Q. And they went bankrupt and had a 13 lot of problems. 14 A. John was working directly for 15 Regas, and they went bankrupt. If you remember, 16 there were hundreds of millions of dollars 17 missing, and John was their chief financial 18 officer. 19 Q. Okay. And -,0 A. By the way, I may not have that exactly correct. But, generally stated. 22 Q. John answered to, I think, I 23 forget his first name, but Mr. Ragas, the CEO or 24 president of Adeiphia Communications. 25 A. There was a Regas and three or 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 1 2 3 4 5 S 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 four sons. He answered to one of the sons. And the way I found that out was like he had — he was a teacher at Atlantic County Community College? Is there a school called that? Q. Yes, ACC. A. Yeah. And I got his application, and on the application it showed his previous employment and who his direct superiors were and so on and so forth. O. How did you get his application, was that an OPRA request? A. OPRA request, yes. Q. You sent an OPRA request to Atlantic County Community College for Mr. Stroeble's job application? A. Yeah. Q. And they sent it to? A. Yes. . Q... . Anything-else you-discovered as aresult of that job application? A. You know probably. I just don't remember, David, what it was. But, you know. Q. Do you think you've told us about the materials that you brought with you to that meeting at Premier Properties shortly before the 112 election? A. I know there were even more, because I did a lot of work and I went to the SEC's website, I got ail the SEC complaints and so forth where they talked about the Regases and all that kind of stuff, and I gave it to Joe DiLorenzo's son? Q. Anthony? A. Anthony, yes. Q. Now, again, you've said that up to at least that point you actually used the word cordial, so I will use your word cordial. At some point after that meeting did your relationship with Mr. Isen change? And I am talking about by the way from the date of that meeting to the July 4th conversation that we're going to talk about in a second or continue talking about? A. The answer is yes. Q. Okay. How and when did it change? A. I am going to give you I think general rather than specific answers. Q. That is fine. A. I remember going to Nick Russo shortly after the election, and I am going to tell Page 109 to 112 of 279 28 of 96 sheets 113 1 you that it was two days after the election, 2 although I am not sure. 3 And I remember and I said to Nick, Nick, It has been two years that I have not been able to have my family at my home, and the deal 6 was that you wanted me to do this, and afterwards 7 you guys were going to get this resolved. 8 I got an expert's report, I got 9 Jack Plackter wrote an opinion. I got this, I got 10 that. So you got more than enough meat to do it. 11 And then I remember Mike Cohen had 12 13 Q. The former mayor of Longport? 14 A. The former mayor, yes, had sort of 15 chimed in. And he kept saying something about 16 blame it on the old administration, it is the 17 easiest, way just blame it on the old 18 administration, get rid of it, and then go on and 19. -it is-ail the old-admission.-Anyway---- •-• • -- - • • 20 21 22 23 24 Jen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q. This is what Mike Cohen told you? A. Yes. Q. And he was suggesting that that is what they were doing, was blaming it on the old administration? A. No. That is what he told them to 2 3 4 115 A. Yes. Q. And you went back to Nick Russo? A . Yes. Q. Was Mr. Isen or Mr. Dilorenzo 5 there at that time? 6 A. I don't think so. 7 Q. And you laid them out basically? 8 A. No, no. What I said to him is 9 Nick, look, I got a problem, I got my wife you 10 know, and what she's saying is you know, it is two 11 days to you, and I understand that. On the other 12 hand it is two years to us. And -13 Q. Is that how long the renovations 14 on your house took, two years? 15 A. No. It was two years before we 16 could use it. 17 Q. And when you say use It, the 18 entire house or the portion that was just between -19- •the ground-and .the-first f1000.- • - •••• 20 A, There is a portion between the 21 ground and the first floor. But the portion 22 between the ground and the first floor was a major 23 portion of the house. 24 As an example, before we redid the 25 house, my six children all had bedrooms. 114 do. Q. Okay. A. So then what happened was, my wife, I went home to her. And by the way, my wife is a wonderful woman. And she said to me well, can we move In because the house was horrible. And she said — And I said no, the Mayor said give me a couple more days. I mean after all Marty, we just took office, it is unfair for you to just you know, come in here and say you got to do this and you got to do that, And I said to my wife look, he just needs a little more time and I understand that, that is fine. And my wife said to me did you tell him Marty that we haven't been able to have our family in this home for two years, did you tell him that the house is a disgrace and we spent , 20 all this money in it, did you tell him this. And have to tell you, I backed up because my wife is 2,2 not normally aggressive. 23 Anyway, I said no. She said you 24 go right back up there and you tell him that. 25 0. And did you? 116 1 After we did the house, I only 2 have four bedrooms. So my kids -- I couldn't have 3 my children down anymore. 4 So my wife was kind of bothered by 5 it. So I went and I said to Nick, we got to get 6 this thing resolved. And then Bill Ring from 7 Florida got Involved because his temperament is a 8 little bit different than mine. 9 And what Bill said Is Russo is now 10 adopting Funk. And I told him that Funk is wrong, 11 we have an expert report. And then we found all 12 these letters from Funk where he's writing saying 13 there is no law against it, we have to find a law 14 to stop this guy. A lot of sort of bad stuff and 15 I don't want to get into It right now. 16 But, the long and the short of it 17 is they said tough, you can't use your house. 18 And, at that point the 19 municipality and I became adverse. We decided, we 20 all sat down in our office in Florida, we created 21 a plan of action on how we could better prove our 22 case both primarily in the, from a legal point of 23 view, and perhaps from a public relations point of 24 view. 25 And, that is what happened. And 29 of 96 sheets Page 113 116 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 117 1 Mr. Isen, I remember seeing him one day, I think 2 it was in June. As a matter of fact I am pretty 3 sure it was In June. And he was in there with the Mayor. He came out and I remember he shook, sort - ,, of shook his head like in disgust. And, I am sure 6 I've seen him between May 20th and that July 4th 7 date, but I just don't remember, David. 8 Q. Is It fair to say that you 9 believed at some point between the election and 10 that July 4th date, that Mr. Isen was going to 11 help you resolve this problem that you've referred 12 to with the borough with respect to your house? 13 A. I think it was fair to say that 14 the new administration was going to help me. When 15 I say help me, that is an unfair, that sounds, 16 sounds like they're going to do me a favor. I 17 think what they were going to do is they were 18 going to do the right thing. 19 - - - • - -Q.- - -And Mr; •Isen was then•a-planning.._ -• 20 board member, is that right at the time? 21 A. He was a planning board member, 22 that is correct. 23 Q. And Longport has a planning and 24 zoning board together, Is that right, or do they / -- have a separate zoning board? 118 1 A. They have a planning and zoning 2 board together, that is correct. 3 Q. One board. So he was a planning 4 and zoning board member at that time. 5 Did Mr. Isen ever make any 6 statement to you in which he said you know, 7 support this team and your problem will go away? 8 And I don't mean in those exact words, but that 9 was the gist of what I am asking. 10 A. I don't think so. 11 Q. Was that your understanding, did 12 you believe that, did you believe that he was 13 going to help you? 14 A. I believed that that the new 15 administration was going to help me. 16 Q. Let's, you know, we've referred to 17 and we sort of danced around it a little bit. 18 When we talk about problems, I will mark as 19 O'Boyle-4 I think we're up to, a one, two, three, 7n four-page — this should have been stapled together. It may be repetitive, but. 22 THE WITNESS: Can I use the 23 boy's room real quick? 24 MR. JACOBS: As opposed to? 25 MR. SUFRIN: It's unisex here, oefli/2011 12:07:36 PM 119 but okay. 2 MR, JACOBS: Let's talk about 3 tomorrow. We were going to put this on 4 the record. 5 Mr. Sufrin, your client is 6 apparently concerned about when he 7 finishes tomorrow. 8 MR. SUFRIN: Yes. 9 MR. JACOBS: The Judge has set 10 a five-hour limit for these depositions. 11 MR. SUFRIN: Correct. 12 MR. JACOBS: Now, they are 13 currently scheduled to start at ten AM. 14 MR. SUFRIN: Yes, 16 MR. JACOBS: I do not intend to 16 go five consecutive hours. I do intend 17 to take a one-hour lunch. 19 So that means that we will 19 - need six hours. That•means-your. client • 20 will be here until four o'clock. 21 Will you explain that to him? 22 He's expressing some concern before the 23 break about some need to go somewhere at 24 3 or 3:30 to meet with somebody. He's 25 not going to be able to do that, 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 MR. SUFRIN: Okay. I think I'll explain It to him after the depositions are over. MR. JACOBS: Explain it to him whenever you want. He's not expressed any willingness to be cooperative with us and I picked up what he said as he was leaving here, and I don't want to have to deal with this in the midst of my deposition, so, let's please clear this up with him before you leave. MR. SUFRIN: Yeah, absolutely. It takes as long as it takes. We're court ordered to finish this dep, so at the end of the day -MR. JACOBS: Just make it clear to him that whatever this personal appointment that he has tomorrow afternoon, he's not going to be able to make, because the likelihood is he will here answering questions until four o'clock. So, please make sure he understands that. MR. SUFRIN: Just so you know Page 117 to 120 of 279 30 of 96 sheets 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ,9r1 121 1 what's going on -- We can go off the 2 record because I'm going to have a conversation with him. MR. JACOBS: No. I think it should all be on the record. MR. SUFRIN: Okay. Mr. Jacobs has just said on the record that he's taking a one-hour lunch which the court rules actually probably permit him to do, and which Judge Higbee would permit him to do had we called her. She did not order that the depositions be taken Rye consecutive hours, he's correct, she said a five-hour deposition. Obviously I think Lucille actually said with an hour for lunch, and she said of course. As I recall, that was the colloquy when we were In court. •-• What•that means is if we start at ten tomorrow with an hour for lunch, It is still going to be after 3:30 that you get out of here. That is fine. MR. JACOBS: As long as we all understand. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 MR. JACOBS: That is only one part of a three- or four-page exhibit, MR. SUFRIN: Okay, It is the same thing twice and then a third page -Q. Okay. O'Boyle-4. Please take a look at that, sir. Look at all three pages if you would. A. Okay. Q. What is O'Boyle-4? What is specifically contained in O'Boyle-4? A. Three pages. Q. And what is displayed on the three pages? A. Are three summonses. 574. Q . I think it is the same thing twice actually. 574 is continued on the second page. A. Yeah, Three pages, 574. Looks like 574 and 577. -Q., . .And.what are.574„.574 and..577?.. _ _ A. They are summonses against me and my wife Sheila. And the complaining witness is Bruce Funk. Q. Bruce Funk is the zoning official in the Borough of Longport? A. He is -- that is what I would call ' 122 MR. SUFRIN: Very well. MR. JACOBS: All right, Marty, are you ready? BY MR. SUFRIN: Q. Before we took a break, I am going to show you what's been marked for identification purposes as O'Boyle-4. And you know, I think this might be a duplicate. Yeah, it is. Okay. Good. MR. SUFRIN: So here, Ed, here is a copy for a change. How about that. The only thing that doesn't have is the next one, but, I will show you the packet so that you know what I'm showing, I think it is two copies on the first, of the first one, and then one copy of the second, Q. Okay. Mr. O'Boyle would you take a look. MR. SUFRIN: You want this, Ed? This is a copy for you to keep. MR. JACOBS: No. At end of the 22 deposition -23 MR. SUFRIN: Well, this is your 24 copy. It's the exhibit, it is a copy for 25 you. '124 . 1 him., But I don't think that this Is what this 2 says. But, yes, that is what I would call him. 3 Q. Was he at that time the zoning 4 official of the Borough of Longport? 5 A. According to this, no. But that 6 is what I would have said he was. 7 a Who is by the way the construction 8 official in the Borough of Longport? 9 A. Jim Agasino. 10 Q. Jimmy Agasino. Is he an inhouse 11 guy or he Is sort of a contractor? 12 A. He is -- they have like an 13 inter-local agreement I think with Ventnor. And I 14 think that is where Agasino emanates from. But I 15 have no factual knowledge. 16 Q. And, what were those summonses 17 that are listed for? 18 A. Your guess is as good as mine. 19 Q. What were the charges that were 20 issued, do you know, do you recall? 21 A. Well, they were Chapter 167.44, 22 Chapter 99, Chapter 99-5, Chapter 99-8, Chapter 23 99-42 and Chapter 99-19 or 17. They're a little 24 hard to read. 25 Q. Sure. 31 of 96 sheets Page 121 to 124 of 279 00111/201112:07:36 PM 125 1 A. But generally stated thA is what 2 they say. 3 Q. And they were zoning violations? Or building, or were they building code violations if you know? A. They were definitely not building code violations. Q. Do you remember what the allegations were with respect to the violations that were issued? A. I remember what they were as applies to Chapter 99. The others -Q. Chapter 99, is what? A. Chapter 99 is Longport's — Q. Is it a flood plane elevation statute? A. I don't think so, but I think it is something akin to that. • Q. - It talks- about- how high-buildingshave to be above grade? A. I am not sure, but I would say it is in that. Q. In that general category to do 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19-20 21 22 23 24 with Insurance? A. Yes, 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 127 A. No. 2 Q. You don't recall being asked by 3 the mayor to serve on a board with respect to 4 Chapter 99, a citizens' board? 5 A. 6 Q. 7 A. No. In 2009? No. 8 Q. You don't recall having an 9 appearance to the borough commissioner's meeting 10 where you volunteered to assist the borough with 11 Interpreting Chapter 99? 12 A. I certainly could have, would have 13 and was capable of assisting the borough in 14 interpreting Chapter 99. There is no question 15 about it. 16 And I remembered having a 17 discussion in regard to Chapter 99 during a 18 Saturday morning meeting in July or August. I -19 think-that-is when you called me a pedophile, but- -20 I don't remember. 21 Q. I don't recall having called you a 22 pedophile, but thank you. I don't recall having 23 done that at all. 24 However, I am more curious about 25 the conversation about Chapter 99. Is it fair to 126 Q. It has to do with flood insurance that the borough, emergency management insurance that the borough gets rates on, and it has to do with building and compliance with certain elevations; would that be a fair characterization? A. I can't say yes. Q. You do know it's something) about Chapter 99; correct? A. Yes. Q. You volunteered to be on a committee that the Mayor was going to appoint you on, .a citizen committee; is that right? A. Weil, Mr. Leeds was going to put me on the committee. Then Mr. Isen certainly did a great job making sure that didn't happen. Q. Do you remember when that was? A. Yeah. That would have been -- no. I mean I remember like it was last night, but, I don't remember the date. Q. Do you remember whether it was 08,'09,'07? A. I am going to tell you that It was '09. Q. And it was during the course of a 25 public meeting; correct? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 say that you've been quite publicly critical of the borough in its interpretation of Chapter 99? A . I would say that I've been quite critical of the borough in connection with Chapter 99. Q. How so? A. Because I don't think it is enforceable. I think it is terrible legislation. I think there is no rhyme or reason for it. And I think it is very detrimental to the people of the Borough of Longport. Q. What is it specifically about Chapter 99 that you take an issue with? A. First of all, I don't think a municipal ordinance can override a State ordinance. And the 0CC determines the building. Not Chapter 99. So, therefore I don't think it is enforceable. In addition to that, Chapter 99 when they changed it after me, if you recall. Q. I do. A. Chapter 99 provided that the administrator of the ordinance, or I am calling it an ordinance, I don't know, of Chapter 99, was the building inspector. 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 125 to 128 or 279 32 of 96 sheets 129 131 2 3 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -1920 21 22 23 24 Q. Correct, Jim Agasino. A. Tim Agasino. Jim Agasino, or Bruce Funk, stated on the record that he usurped Mr. Agasino's powers. Bruce Funk unilaterally interpreted Chapter 99. Chapter 99 provided that if there were two storms of -- this is the new Chapter 99 -- where there is over 40 percent damage in each one, you could no longer build your home, so you would get 40 percent in insurance or maybe it is 40 percent total, I don't remember, 40 percent insurance. So you'd have to come up with 60 percent out of pocket. It would bankrupt the entire town in the unlikely event of a -Q. Catastrophe? A. -- of a catastrophe or some type of major storm. Q:- --The requirement-would-be-you'd have to elevate your house if you made that kind of cost repair, is that right, you would have to elevate to a new flood plane; correct? A. You would have to elevate to a new food area and that would be — now that raises " ") another issue. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 33 of 96 sheets 130 As an example, if your -- the front of your wall is where Patty is sitting, and you have a three-foot climb, if you have to raise it to six foot you can't make it between here and the wall anymore. Q. Not In a straight shot. You'd have to go — A. Well, you don't know that you have it. Q. Right. A. You don't know -- So, the thinking of the ordinance, either the person who thought it out was on hallucinogenics, or he didn't read it. Q. And it was implemented at some point within the borough; correct? A . Of course, yes. Q. It was before the improvements were made to your home; correct? ` A. After. Q. After, okay. Were you a critic, public critic of the implementation of the statute? A. Absolutely. Q. And you appeared at borough commissioner's meeting and you voiced your Page 129 to 132 of 1 apposition to It? 2 A. I went to the borough commission 3 and I voiced my opposition to it with about 30 4 other people, 40 other people. 5 Q. Do you remember when that was? 6 A. It was like a July or an August 7 Saturday morning meeting, 8 Q. It was 2008? 9 A. I am going to say 2009. 10 Q. At this point were the borough 11 commissioner meetings being recorded? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. By a videographer named Beach I 14 think is his name? 15 MR. MEN: Beach Video. 16 Q. If you recall. 17 A. They were being recorded. They 18 were not all recorded. Whether this one was 19 recorded,. / don't-know. -- - - - — - - . 20 Q. Did you have anything to do with 21 the recording of those videos? Arid I don't mean 22 did you do It yourself, but did you hire Mr. Beach 23 or Beach Video to record those meetings? 24 A. I did not. 25 Q. Did any company In which you are 132 1 affiliated hire Mr. Beach to record those videos? 2 A. Well, I don't what affiliated 3 means, but, I think the person who found Mr. Beach 4 was one of my assistants in the office. And I 5 think that Citizens For Open Government paid for 6 Mr. Beach. And before that, maybe before Citizens 7 was formed, I don't remember the dates, my son 8 handled it. 9 But if you are asking me -10 Q. Which son, is that Mort O'Boyle, 11 Martin O'Boyle Junior? 12 A. Yeah. And if you are asking me 13 did I know anything about it, the answer is 14 certainly did. 15 Q. in fact did you have anything to 16 do with coordinating Mr. Beach, making sure he was 17 there at the borough commissioner's meeting? 18 A. Never once. 19 Q. Did you engage in litigation with 20 the borough at some point in order to get the 21 right to have Mr. Beach there? 22 A. Never. 23 Q. Was there any kind of an order 24 entered by Judge Perskie that allowed Mr. Beach to 25 videotape those meetings? 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 133 1 A. I don't think so because there was 2 a Supreme Court case that was Torres versus Pine 3 Hill. Q. Forrest, yeah. A. That allowed videotaping of the 6 meeting. So I can't imagine that you would need 7 Judge Perskie. But I don't know. 8 Q. Was there some sort of a court 9 hearing which addressed your right to videotape 10 people within the Borough of Longport, the 11 employees within the boi -ough hail? 12 A. The Borough of Longport filed 13 multiple injunctions against me with Judge 14 Perskie. And In those injunctions they were quite 15 broad, I am not allowed to have any more OPRA. 16 The judge threw that out. 17 Q. They attempted to stop you from 18 filing OPRA requests, for example? -19 - -Al Yes,-yeah.- Even-though-it was-a, 20 not a constitutional right, but a civil right. 21 Q. A statutory right? 22 A. Civil right. 23 Q. Well, the OPRA taw is statute, 24 open Public Records Act. A. Right. 135 1 recall the docket of that case? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you remember when this was 4 approximately? 5 A. I didn't even know there was one. 6 Q. You didn't know there was a 7 lawsuit Martin O'Boyle versus Borough of Longport 8 filed around April of 2008? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you remember when Judge Perskie 11 entered those orders? 12 A. Yes., 13 Q. When was it? 14 A. I was sitting next to Lou Barbone 15 and my wife and children were in the courthouse. 16 And I think that is all I can tell you. If I had 17 to guess, I would say 2009, but, maybe 2008. 18 Q. Let's turn back to the summonses. .19 You were cited and-then-your wife . 20 was cited. Why if you know were there two separate 21 citations, one for you and one for your wife? And 22 I am only asking if you know. 23 A. Yeah. I know Mayor Russo said that 24 he -- they were going to take the most aggressive 25 possible position they can financially and 134 Q. So the borough tried to stop you 2 from utilizing the Open Public Records Act to 3 request documents? 4 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. The borough tried to stop you from 6 recording the pubic meetings in Longport borough 7 hall; correct? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did the borough prevent you -10 A. When I say no, not that I recall. 11 Q. Okay, do you remember anything to 12 do with photographing or recording borough 13 employees In the context of what the borough was 14 seeking from Judge Perskie? 15 A. The — my recollection is Judge 16 Perskie said I can video all I want. I have to 17 just be ten foot away. That is my recollection. 18 Q. Okay, that is fair. And any other 19 orders that Judge Perskie entered with respect to " n,, what you could or could not do within borough hall jthat you remember? 22 A. None. 23 Q. Do you remember this was with 24 respect to Martin O'Boyle versus Borough of 25 Longport, Docketed L-1168-08 if you recall; do you 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 136 1 criminally against me and my wife, so maybe that 2 is the reason. 3 Q. Mayor Russo wasn't the Mayor of 4 Longport when those summonses were Issued. It was Mayor Garvin. Isn't that right? It may have been 6 John Stroebie. A. It was not Mayor Russo. But Mayor Russo was the one who was dealing with these as I recall. Q. A. Q. After he took office? t ih-huh. But those summonses were Issued long before Nick Russo took office, they were issued in 2007; correct? A. Well, I don't know, No. One was dated 3/31/08, Sheila. Q. March of '08, okay, that was the one against Sheila. But the one against you was dated 2007. A. 9/20/07. Q. So that would have been, both would have been before Nick Russo took office; is that right? A. Both would have been before Nick Russo took office, yes. 06/1112011 12:07:36 PM Page 133 to 13S of 279 34 of 96 sheets 137 0. And the current borough 2 commissioners as well; that would be Dan Lawler 3 and Jim Leeds? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. Do you remember who the 6 borough commissioners were before the present 7 slate of borough commissioners? 8 A. Yeah. I think I can answer. 9 These, these, the complaining witness here was 10 Bruce Funk 11 Q. Right. 12 A. And it is pretty obvious why Bruce 13 Funk was a complaining witness. I didn't want to 14 pay him off. 15 Q. Did he say to you at any point in 16 time--this is Bruce Funk--pay me and this goes 17 away? 18 A. He said before that pay me and -19- not exactly --he wanted a-lot in-anti-what-do -you -20 call it? Weidner Reserve. He actually said it 21 more than once. 22 Q. When did he say those -- he wanted 23 a lot for free in Weidner Reserve? 24 A. Yeah. Q. We are talking about significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 138 value. A. Yeah. Q. And when did he ask you for a lot for free in Weidner Reserve? You said he did it a number of times. Can you think of what dates he did that? A. 2000 and 2005. Q. How many times did he ask you for a lot in Weidner Reserve? A. I think three. Q. Was he offering to buy the lots in Weidner Reserve or was he asking you or demanding that you give them to him for free? A. I think he was asking and demanding I give them to him for free. Q. What makes you say that, what words came out of his mouth? A. I am waiting for my, for my lot. When are you coming up with my tot. Q. I mean was he joking? Was he -did he have -- What were his facial expressions when he made these statements? A. You know, I didn't know Bruce. And I don't know, I mean you know. It is hard to tell. Like with me I sometimes you know -- It is 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 139 1 hard. At first I thought little of it. But as it' 2 persisted I thought a lot of it. Q. During these conversations did he say specifically to you I want my lot in exchange for this, this and the other? A. No. Q. And you were building in Longport at that time as well? A. No. Q. Just out of curiosity, you said a little while ago that your wife was upset because you came home and you could only use the second and third floors of the house and not the first floor of the house. But you were actually, you were at the time using the second and third floors of your house? A. Llh-huh. Q. - -And-you-didn't have-a CO', is that.... ..... right? A. Yes. Q. Yes, you did not have a CO? Or yes you did? A. Yes, we did. Q . You had a partial CO? 2 3 4 5 floor? 6 7 9 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A, Q. A. Q. 140 Nape. You had a full CO? Yes. But only for the second and third A. No. Q. Well, explain that. Because you said you weren't able to use the ground floor. A. Well, what happened was Mr. Funk came in, threatened to put us in prison. Q. He did? A. Yes. Q. When? A. Wish I had a timeline. Q. '08, '09, '07, T06? A. X am going to say '07. Q. When did the construction on your house start? A. I am going to say '05. Q. '05. And, what specifically was done to the house? In other words what kind of construction was performed? The house was an existing house In Longport? A. Yeah. Q. An old house? 35 of 96 sheets Page 137 to 140 of 279 06111/2011 12:07:36 PM 141 143 A. Yes. 2 Q. And you did essentially a complete 3 remodel of the house, correct, or a complete 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 renovation, historic renovation? A. I would say we did an alteration to the house. I would call it a historic spruce-up. We also expanded the first floor of the house. And you know, made -Q. Significant improvements? A. I would say we tried to restore it to its grand old days. Q. And, when you filed, pulled the permits in order to do those renovations, In order to perform those renovations, I guess it would have been some time In '06? A. No. I think it was 'OS. Q. '05. You had an architect obviously submit plans? • - A. -We.had an architect submit plans. Q. And, did those plans include the ground floor elevation that is, for lack of a better word, the bottom floor of the house? A. Yes. Q. And were those drawings for space approved? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ranged conspiracy between Mr. Isen -MR. JACOBS: He's alleged slander. MR. SUFRIN: Yeah, I know, we're going to get to that. MR. JACOBS: When are we going to get to that? MR. SUFRIN: Eventually. MR. JACOBS: We're three hours into a five-hour deposition. We haven't gotten to that. MR. SUFRIN: I am proceeding at my own peril, Ed, what can I tell you? Q. So, you get this ticket. And this ticket essentially -- or these summonses, I'm sorry, the ones that are shown on O'Boyle-4. They call out the construction or the improvements that you've made to the home. And, what was your response? . ..... • • -- - - — . A. / don't know how to answer that. Q. How did you respond, how did you respond to receiving these citations, these summonses? A. Funk is up to his old tricks. Q. Did you start sending OPRA 142 A. Yes. 2 Q. For that ground floor space 3 approved? And in the drawings for that ground 4 floor space, did it call out living space? 5 A. The drawings, I don't know that 6 drawings call out living space. But the answer is 7 yes, it did. Q. The drawings specified those would 9 be bedrooms on the ground floor? 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. JACOBS: Mr. Sufrin, isn't 12 this supposed to be a deposition in the 13 lawsuit filed by my client against yours 14 for slander? 15 MR. SUFRIN: It is. 16 MR. JACOBS: You've been going 17 on for I'm going to reckon 40 minutes or 18 so on these zoning problems which were 19 resolved. 20 MR. SUFRIN: I understand that. The questions relate to the on-going issues between the parties. MR. JACOBS: How so? MR. SUFRIN: He's alleged it, I mean he's alleged that there is this long 23 24 25 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 141 to 144 144 requests to the Borough of Longport after that? A. Before that. Q. What was the purpose of doing that? A. To gain information. Q. For what purpose? In other words gain information about what? A. Whatever information I felt was necessary at the time. Q. Did it relate in some respect to the summons that you had been issued by the borough or that your wife had been issued by the borough? A. Either directly or indirectly it should have related. And it may have been seemingly extraneous, but had a -- there was a methodology there. Q. Was the methodology to sort of in your view show that other people had been treated differently than you, at least in your belief? Let me strike that. Is it fair to say that you believed you were being singled out by the Borough of Longport? A. I believe that because I didn't pay off Mr. Funk that I was in for the f ight of my f 279 36 of 96 sheets 145 147 1 life, 2 Q. Is it fair to say that you engaged 3 in the fight of your life? A. No. Q. What happened? 6 A. The city once we finally showed 7 them the ills of their way and the ills of 8 Mr. Funk's way, they signed a settlement agreement 9 and said we had no bases to do what we did, we're 10 very very sorry, won't happen again, and what can 11 we say. 12 Q. Do you remember when that 13 settlement agreement was signed? 14 A. I want to say it was the Friday 15 before -- what is the end of the summer? 16 Q. Labor Day, 17 A. Labor Day in 2008. 18 Q. 2008, okay. .19- --Now; between the time-that you 20 were issued these summonses and your wife was 21 issued these summonses -- let me backup. 22 The construction improvements on 23 your house, they started around 2005. When were 24 they completed? A. They're still going on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Look at O'Boyle-5 for identification purposes, I will take this back, then put it in my pile here. MR. JACOBS: Again, you didn't bring copies? MR. SUFRIN: No. It was the lawsuit your office filed in April of 'OB. MR. JACOBS: It's the one that was settled with Longport, is that what this is about? MR. SUFRIN: May be. Yeah. MR. JACOBS: Tell me again, this has what to do with the slander that we're here to depose upon? THE WITNESS: This is an OPRA case. MR. JACOBS: It's an OPRA case? Weil then it was not-the one that-was • settled. THE WITNESS: David, you haven't been drinking or anything? MR. SUFRIN: Yeah. Coffee, After the dep I might have five. A. Okay. I looked at this OPRA suit. 148 1 Q. Weil, the improvements that these 2 summonses refer to, do you remember when they were 3 completed to the point where you could get a CO? 4 A. You see, I don't know what 5 summonses they refer to. And X mean they're just, 6 they're so vague. 7 I mean as an example, I have never 8 heard of a zoning violation. I mean when I say I 9 am 59 years old, I have been developing real 10 estate for 41 years. I developed a billion 11 dollars worth of real estate, and I've never heard 12 of it. 13 Q. Do you remember what it was more 14 generally the borough said that you had done that 15 was wrong with respect to your construction? 16 A. Chapter 99. 17 Q. That is essentially that the house 18 should have been elevated higher? 19 A. Yeah. Should have been — it was 94, right now only one foot above Mr. Funk, the zoning officer's. I guess he wanted to have it higher. 22 Q. And obviously you disagreed with 23 him. At some point you filed a lawsuit against 24 the Borough of Longport; is that right? 25 A. I don't think so. 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 Q. Aside from this OPRA suit, do you recall any other lawsuits you filed against the Borough of Longport with respect to these charges? A. I don't. Q. Okay. A. I remember that they filed so many lawsuits against me, ran up hundreds of thousands of legal bills. And I remember the Mayor lying to the people about it saying that he was using it defending, cost all that money to defend against the lawsuits against me. When in fact he was the plaintiff. But the Mayor of course, credibility is not his strong point, You know that yourself. He is your client. Q. Well, I don't offer any opinion with respect to that because it is really not my place to do that. However -A. But he is your client. Q. Are you suggesting, sir, that the Borough of Longport and/or Nick Russo filed a lawsuit against you at some point? A lawsuit. A. Well, / don't know what a lawsuit means. But, I remember -37 of 96 sheets Page 145 to 148 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 149 151 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -19 20 21 22 23 Q. You filed -2 THE WITNESS: And, Ed, you might remember. A. There was one hundred something page order to show cause or temporary Injunction, and then another one that was 60 pages, order to show cause. Temporary injunction. There were hundreds of pages that, that was filed. And I remember onetime there was a certification by Monica Capalinski and she said I was in there hassling her. And when we produced the video, oh, it was horrible. Q. You just gave me a lot of information. There was an allegation by Monica Caplinski who was I guess a borough employee in the clerk's office? A. Yeah. - •. - •-- And she had said-that- you were harassing her? A. No. What she said is that I went in to the, to her office with the camera, put it right in her face, intimidated her, did this, did 24 that, did the other thing. And it just so happened that we 150 1 were able to produce a copy of the video. And, 2 poor Monica, she looked bad. 3 Q. Who made the video if you 4 remember? 5 A. I will assume Beach but maybe not. 6 Q. Do you remember who Mr, Beach was 7 with in the video? In other words who Mr. Beach 8 captured on the video? 9 A. Monica Lewinski. 10 Q. Monica Lewinski? Monica Caplinski? 11 A. Monica Caplinski. 12 Q. And do you remember when this was? 13 A. I am going to say it was 2008, but 14 I don't know. 15 Q. Early 2008 probably. 16 A. No. It was after the, after 17 Mr. Isen gave the $5,000 and won the election. 18 Q. I am going to ask you now to once 19 again take a look at O'Boyle-5. Tell me if you 2 . 1 recognize this lawsuit. A. Did I already look at this? Q. Yes, you did. MR. JACOBS: Why are we doing 22 23 24 it again? 25 Q. Okay, well, let me ask you -MR. JACOBS: I mean it is your 2 five hours but why are we doing it again? 3 Q. Do you remember looking at 4 O'Boyle-S? 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. And is that a lawsuit that you 7 filed against the Borough of Longport in April of 8 2008? 9 A. This appears to be April 7th, 10 2008. Yeah. Appears to be. Uh-huh, 11 Q, Attached to the laWsult are the 12 exhibits that you relied on in support of the 13 claims in your lawsuit; correct? 14 A. Well, now you are asking another 15 question. And the answer is I don't know. I will 16 take your word for It. 17 Q. Fair enough. The lawsuit was an 18 OPRA lawsuit, Open Public Records Act claim*, 19 correct?. • ....20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And it had followed a series of 22 Open Public Record Acts requests for documents 23 that you had made to the borough; correct? 24 A. I can't answer that. 25 Q Do you remember why you filed that 152 1 lawsuit? 2 A. Probably because we wanted records 3 and they wouldn't give them to us. 4 Q. And was there some discussion with 5 the borough solicitor that was then Tom Subrani, 6 with respect to the, well, with respect to your 7 use of the Open Public Records Act in order to 8 attain documents? 9 A. I don't recall discussion. 10 Q. Did you ever get a letter from 11 Mr. Subrani that indicated that the borough would 12 not be complying with your request for public 13 records? 14 A. I don't think I ever did. I think 15 that is the one that Judge Perskl told Mr. Barker 16 he wanted Subrani there, because he wanted to know 17 who he was to overturn a 119-man legislative body. 18 He was very very troubled by It. And since then 19 Tom, by the way who I have personal affection for, 20 I don't know what happened. 21 Q. Okay. So, again, the purpose of 22 that lawsuit was to attain what? 23 A. You didn't ask me that before. 24 Q. I am asking you. 25 A Documents. 06/11/2011 2:07:36 PM Page 149 to 152 of 279 38 of 96 sheets 153 1 Q. Documents? And were they in some 2 way related to what Is shown in O'Boyle-4, that Is 3 your defense of the summonses that were Issued against you and your wife with respect to the \-0 ' zoning, alleged zoning violations? 6 A. They were directly or indirectly 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 •19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 related or they were related in some extraneous way that could be tied into it. Q. Do you recall Mr. Subrani having sent a letter or complained to you that the OPRA requests were becoming burdensome For the Borough of Longport? A. I remember Mr. Subrani sending a letter to that effect, and I don't know whether it was to me or Mr. Barbone. But I do remember Judge Perskie responding to it wow. Q. And do you recall that the borough complained that you were using the OPRA system for what they-said•was-not•a•proper purposeido.you- - • remember that, that allegation being made? A. No. Q. Do you remember what the borough said in defense of your OPRA request? A. Do I remember, what? Q. Do you remember how the borough 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 155 A. Advised? I don't know what it is called. Advised. Q. Before the lawsuit you appeared at borough commissioner's meetings and demanded that borough commissioners respond to your OPRA request; correct? A. Before what? Q. Before the lawsuit was filed, this lawsuit we're talking about that we just showed you. Before that lawsuit was filed by you in about April of '08, you appeared regularly at borough commissioner's meetings and demanded the records that you were asking for on the various OPRA requests? A. I can't say that I did. Q. Do have any specific recollection of appearing at borough commissioner's meetings and discussing the OPRA law or the ethics laws at ...ail-around this timeraround-MarchAprii-of 20087- • A. No, Q. How about at any time during 2008? A. During 2008 I do recall on multiple occasions insisting that the Borough of Longport start an ethics committee or ethics law and so forth. Mayor Russo said that he was a 154 responded to your OPRA requests? A. No. Q. They didn't produce the documents, did they? A. We settled it, I thought. Q. Yeah. But before you settled it. They originally didn't produce the documents. That is why you fried the lawsuit I assume. A. No. And I think the reason for it is they said that the — that I wasn't a citizen of the State of New Jersey. I am virtually certa➢n that is the case. And then when they finally figured out they violated the United States Constitution, they came around. Q. They came around after you filed this OPRA lawsuit; correct? They didn't come around before you flied this OPRA lawsuit; right? A. No. I think they needed some, I think they needed -- I think, I think no, I think they needed to be -Q. Taught a lesson? A. No, no, no. I think they needed to be -- what? I don't know what It's called when a lawyer provides -Q. Advised? 155 1 doctor of ethics. And I thought this is going to 2 be an easy proposition. And of course it didn't 3 work out that way. They refused and refused and 4 refused. Q. Did you appear on the Harry Hurley 6 radio show at any point during 2008 to discuss 7 your battle with the Borough of Longport, your 8 lawsuit against the borough? 9 A. I remember one time -- and this is 10 what I remember. I remember one time my wife and 11 I were up having breakfast about 6:30 in the 12 morning, and Harry Hurley's radio show was on. 13 And, we listened to it when we were up at 6:30 in 14 the morning. And Harry said that Nick Russo was 15 going to be on I want to say at eight, but maybe 16 seven, I just don't remember, for a whole hour. 17 Q. Do you remember when this was? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Was it in '08 or '07 or '06? 20 A. I would say '08. 21 Q. Do you remember what month? 22 A. I would say before September. 23 Q. Do you remember -- you obviously 24 appeared on the Harry Hurley radio show. And when 25 I say appeared, I don't mean necessarily in 39 of 96 sheets Page 153 to 156 of 279 06/11/2011 12;07:36 PM 157 1 person, but you've been a guest on the Harry 2 Hurley show; correct? 3 A. Well this one particular time. Q. No, I am talking in general. '-'") You've been a guest on Harry Hurley show? 6 A. Well, I was on Harry Hurley show 7 two weeks ago. Last week. 8 Q. How many times would you say 9 you've been on Harry Hurley show? 10 A. /n the last four years? 11 Q. Yeah. 12 A. Twenty. • 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Okay. When Is the first time you think you were on Harry Hurley show? A. Before September of 2008 I was on the Harry Hurley show. Nick Russo was coming on My wife and I were having breakfast, and we had all of these letters from Bruce Funk where he was going to--- Department-of Homeland Security, to the AFL-CIO, the PTA, the FBI, to everybody under the sun, and he was going to the State building code or building people and he said we have to stop O'Boyle, we're throwing we're hitting him with everything we have, and we got to pass a law to stop him. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 159 MR. JACOBS: Is this the one 2 the deponent just identified? 3 MR. SUFRIN: Sure. The only 4 lawsuit I've shown him, Ed. 5 MR, JACOBS: Can I see It too? 6 See, if you would have brought 7 copies of these things here, we could all look at them. THE WITNESS: What do you want, they're trying to save a buck, Ed, MR. SUFRIN: Yeah, we really are, we got a lot of legal fees here. THE WITNESS: He's trying to help Mr. Isen out. MR. JACOBS: This Is the lawsuit that the deponent has previously identified as the OPRA lawsuit, MR. SUFRIN: Correct, • — MR. JACOBS: So you•are.asking. . him about the settlement of the OPRA lawsuit? MR, SUFRIN: Correct. MR. JACOBS: This has what to do with your client's slander against mine? Can you enlighten us? 158 1 Q. What was he talking about? 2 A. Chapter 99. 3 Q. This is after these citations or 4 summonses in O'Boyle-4 were actually issued by the 5 borough, correct? Nick Russo was the Mayor at the 6 time you heard this radio broadcast? 7 A. I think so. 8 Q. And, in '08, you didn't sponsor 9 Harry Hurley's golf tournament; is that right, in 10 any way? 11 A. No, but I wish I would have. 12 Q. In '09, 2010, this year you will 13 be the sponsors of that golf tournament; is that 14 right? 15 A. Unless you'd like to take it over. 16 Q. No, thank you. I assume that is a 17 yes. 18 19 A. Yes. Q. Okay. Approximately when was this . 9•O lawsuit settled with the Borough of Longport, 116808? 22 MR. JACOBS: What are you 23 referring to? Is this a marked exhibit? 24 MR. SUFRIN: Yes, it is 25 O'Boyle-S. 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 160 MR, SUFRIN: Let me have that, Q. Mr. O'Boyle -A. No. Q. Do you remember when this lawsuit was settled? MR. JACOBS: Yes or no, that's a yes or no. A. I think it was settled before Labor Day of 2008. Q. Okay. And as part of the settlement of this lawsuit, these charges that we're referring to in O'Boyle-4 were also dismissed; is that right? A. Now you are asking me a whole new question. Q. That is what usually happens in a deposition. A. Yeah. And the answer to your question is I can't answer your question. Q. Fair enough. Let me have that back, sir. Thank you, Let's turn back to -A. If we took at, if you have the -Q. Settlement agreement? A. Yeah. Q. I don't, sir. I am asking you the 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 157 to 160 of 279 40 of 96 sheets 1 questions based on your recollection. 2 A. Sorry. No. 3 Q. Very well. Let's turn back to O'Boyle-3 for identification purposes if you could. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 41 of 96 sheets 161 Before we do that, the charges that are listed in O'Boyle-4, the summonses that we showed you a few minutes ago, are those still active against you or were they dismissed? Or was there a trial and you were found not guilty? How were they disposed of if at all? A, I think there was a trial and they were found, we were found not guilty, Q. Do you remember where the trial took place, sir? A. I wasn't there, so. Q. You weren't there? Do you remember why? • - • MR-. JACOBS: , Doesn't that, • exhibit have within it complaints against both Mr. O'Boyle the deponent and his wife? MR. SUFRIN: Yes. And I'm asking about all the summonses, not just the front page. 163 Q. So, let's talk about what happened 2 to, if you know, the summonses that are listed in 3 O'Boyle-4. Whether they were issued against you, 4 improperly or not, or whether they were issued 5 against your wife, Improperly or not. 6 Do you recall how they were 7 ultimately disposed of if they were; are they 8 still pending? 9 A. I don't believe they are still 10 pending. I believe they were improper. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. And I believe that the, they were 13 adjudicated. How and exactly where I don't know. 14 Q. Let's talk back about your 15 drawing. So you were drawing a picture that Is 16 shown in O'Boyle-3, This is July 4th. 17 MR. JACOBS: Object to the form 18 of the question. It is not a picture. 19 • • • - •- -• • - -A drawing.20 MR. JACOBS: It is a map. 21 MR, SUFRIN: A map. Oh, God. 22 MR. JACOBS: What is it a 23 picture of? 24 MR. SUFRIN: It is a picture, 25 it is a map, it is a drawing, it is an 162 _ _ _ Q. _ The_one against you and the ope _ 2 against your wife. 3 A. Says municipal court Borough of 4 Longport. 5 Q. Correct. The question -6 MR. JACOBS: Might be that one 7 was improvidently issued against him. 8 MR. SUFRIN: Yeah, I know, I am 9 asking him what happened. 14 MR. JACOBS: Which would 11 explain his not being there. And the 12 other might have been properly issued 13 against his wife assuming there was any 14 validity to it which would again explain 15 his not being there. 16 MR. SUFRIN: Understood. 17 Q. Mr. O'Boyle -18 MR. JACOBS: All this has what 19 to do with your client's slander on the 20 4th of July weekend? MR. SUFRIN: We'll get to that. MR. JACOBS: Weil, you keep saying that. MR. SUFRIN: You know me, I am not that good at what I do. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 164 illustration. A map has a key and — _ 2 MR, JACOBS: This is your five 3 hours. You can debate this meaty issue 4 as long as you wish. 5 MR. SUFRIN: It is a really 6 meaty issue. Alf right. 7 Q. So, let's talk about O'Boyle-3. 8 Martin, Mr. O'Boyle, sorry. Mr. O'Boyle, if you 9 would just take a quick look at O'Boyle-3. You drew this, correct, and it is not to scale; fair to say? A. Fair to say. Q. And ft is a picture of 13th Avenue, the Isen house is listed, and if you would just be Beach Terrace on that map so we know where It runs, I would appreciate It. A. All right. Q. And you've already indicated where the ocean Is. A. Would you like me to put Mr. Silver's house here? That would probably be a good idea. Q. That would be delightful. A. Let me do that so Mr. Isen knows 25 where it is. Page 161 to 164 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM 165 1 Q. Well, you've actually drawn 2 Silver's house as abutting the stairway, which it 3 doesn't. A. No, no. Drawn the sidewalk. See. Q, Okay. That Is actually to scale. 6 So, you have shown the steps to the beach; Is that 7 correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Then there are three, looks like 10 A's, without the A cross bar in the middle. 11 They're like rainbows I guess. What are they 12 indicative of? 13 A. They're half circles. People. 14 Q. Okay. There are three people 15 listed here. And there Is another person who 16 appears to be on the sidewalk of 13th Avenue. Who 17 is that? 18 A. That is Mr. Isen. 19 - • - - • Q. - If you would,he show-me who the20 three people are that are indicated on that 21 drawing. Sorry. 22 A. Kremer, Silk, O'Boyle. 23 Q. Okay. And, you were all standing 24 at the top of the stairs? You've just drawn something 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -19. 20 21 22 23 24 25 167 Fred's house, went over to Lenny's house. Q. Right. A. How we got to the beach, was, whether it was 12th, I don't know. Q. Okay. And you went for a walk. Approximately how long was your walk? A. Over an hour. Q. Do you remember what you talked about? A. Lenny and Fred play pool Tuesday nights in some town. We ran into the guy who used to own David's Bridal and spent a little time with him. I can't remember his name, Earl Baum. Earl Baum? Q. Earl Baum? A. And, X think beyond that it was just I mean nothing. Q. You didn't talk about any Longport -politics-or-about Peter Isen oranything.like . _ that? A. No. Q. So, you go for your walk, you come back, you walk up the steps. The three of you are at different locations on these steps, and what happens next? 166 1 5/25/11. Today's date. 2 A, That is today's date, that is 3 good. 4 Q. Okay. Three individuals, you were 5 all three of you standing at the top of the 6 stairwell? 7 A. Weil, we were various parts of the 8 stairs. This doesn't show necessarily. Q. This was, is it fair to say just 10 before noon? 11 A. I think. 12 0. And, Mr. Isen is located, was he 13 on the sidewalk or was he actually In his rear 14 yard area? 15 A. He was on the sidewalk. 16 Q. And what were you and Lenny Silk 17 and Frank Kremer talking about? 18 A. Nothing. 19 Q. You were just, were you coming 20 back from your walk? I A. Uh-huh. 22 Q. Or were you -- Okay. And on your 23 way to the walk by the way, had you walked by 24 Mr. Isen on your way out, if you recall? 26 A. Don't recall. X remember we left 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 165 to 168 A. We walk down the steps, 2 Q. On to 13th Avenue? 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 0. And, Mr. Isen is on his sidewalk. 5 Is he looking away from you or towards you or in 6 some other direction? 7 A. He is standing here and he sees us 8 coming off the steps and he says something akin to 9 what are you guys doing with him, he's the enemy 10 of Longport. 11 Q. Okay. What was your reaction? 12 A. Stunned. I've never been called a 13 criminal, a toxic agent before. Never, never 14 been, nobody ever called me that, I was stunned. 15 Q. How did you respond? 16 A. I said absolutely nothing. 17 Q. What were your facial gestures 18 like if at all? 19 A. I couldn't see him. 20 Q. _Well, fair enough. Do you 21 remember whether you laughed, smiled, frowned, 22 scowled, looked away, do you remember if you had 23 any reaction at all? 24 A. X probably just knowing me, you 25 know, kept a stiff upper lip. 168 of 279 42 of 96 sheets 169 1 Q. What wer -- Well, what was Lenny 2 Slik's reaction? 3 A. You know I didn't, I didn't say Lenny what do you think, did you hear that? I just played it down and acted at if it didn't 6 happen. 7 Q. Did Lenny say anything to you or 8 did Fred say anything to you about Mr. Isen having 9 made that statement? 10 A. I have not seen Lenny since. 11 Q. I mean at the scene that day. 12 A. Oh, oh, no. We went our separate 13 ways. As a matter of fact Lenny and Fred went 14 towards Peter Isen. Bill Simon had pulled up. 15 And, I went to the opposite side of Bill Simon's 16 car. 17 Q. Driver side or passenger side? 18 A. (Indicating) -19 - - Q. That would- be•the•driver• side? - • - -20 A. Yeah. 21 Q. So you went to the driver side 22 where Mr. Simon was actually seated driving the 23 car? 24 A. Yes. Q. And, how soon after or before the 171 1 is — my mother -2 MR. JACOBS: Punctual is the 3 word you are searching for. 4 THE WITNESS: Pardon? 5 MR. JACOBS; Punctual. 6 MR. ISEN: Nothing better to do. 8 A. Simon is a -- my mother would use 9 the term fuddy-duddy. Bill, he goes to breakfast 10 at seven o'clock. He goes to breakfast at the 11 breakfast--whatever it is called—house. 12 Q. Breakfast Club? 13 A. Breakfast Club. On Fridays he 14 goes to breakfast at seven o'clock at Hanna O's. 15 On Saturdays he has lunch at Bayshores. 16 Q. He's regimented, fair to say? 17 A. Really regimented fair to say. 18 And this Is part of his routine. 19.. .0... -Coming.down.13th.Avenue? 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q. Why 13th Avenue? 22 A. Maybe because I live there. Maybe 23 it has just been habit. Maybe he doesn't like 24 going down 11th Avenue. 26 13th is one -- is actually the 170 1 statement was made did Mr. Simon pull up? 2 A. Wow, it was tight about the same 3 time. 4 Q. So as Mr. Isen was uttering the 5 statement, Mr. Simon Is coming down the street? 6 A. Well, no, I mean I can't say for 7 sure. Mr. Simon may have pulled up and stopped 8 and then we walked off the beach. 9 Q. Then the statement was uttered 10 after that? 11 A. Then the statement was uttered. 12 That may have been. It may have been that we were 13 walking down as Mr. Simon was pulling up. But it 14 was, it was so at the same time. 15 Q. Close in time, all close in time 16 fair to say? 17 A. Yes. Very fair to say. 18 Q. What was Mr. Simon by the way 19 doing down on 13th Avenue if you know? 7n A. Bill Simon is, he is a guy who is ) -- if you tell him you are picking him up for 22 dinner at 5:30, and at 5:31, he will give you a 23 hard time. 24 Q. If you are late? 25 A. Yeah, and you show up. B il Simon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 statement about you being the enemy of the people 22 of Longport, and I say made the statement, 23 allegedly made the statement obviously, When 24 Mr. Isen allegedly made the statement that you 25 were the enemy of the people of Longport, how do 172 last street I think that you can turn to get out without making a U-turn. cant answer what is making him do what he does. But, him coming down 13th Street, 13th Avenue — Q. That day. A. That day, and, a thousand days before. Q. A thousand days before. So every day Bill Simon drives down 13th Avenue? A. Yes. Q. And, what was his purpose if you know on that specific day? A. Same as the other thousand. Q. Do you know what it is? A. Yeah, just as part of his routine. Q. Drives down 13th Avenue as part of his regimented routine? A. Yes. Q. Now, when Mr. Isen made this 43 of 96 sheets Page 169 to 172 of 279 06111/2011 12:07:36 PM 173 1 you know he wasn't talking to you about either of 2 Fred Kremer or Leonard Silk? 3 In order words, hey Marty, why are you hanging out with the enemy of the people of Longport, Fred Kremer or Lenny Silk, he didn't say 6 any names, right? He didn't say you are hanging 7 out with Marty O'Boyle, the enemy of the people of 8 Longport. He yelled towards the three of you. 9 A. Who am I talking to now David? 10 Q. Me. 11 A. Okay. There is your answer. 12 Q. But we're face to face with each 13 other, about two, three feet apart. 14 A. Well, this isn't a whole lot more 15 apart. Mr. Isen has let his feelings be known, 16 and it was pretty clear. 17 Q. So, it was dear to you Mr. Isen 18 had let his feelings be know on that occasion, 19- July 4th; is that right? 20 A. Yeah. Now feelings I don't think 21 was, is the proper term. 22 Mr. Isen made it clear in a very 23 firm matter of fact way that Marty O'Boyle is the 24 enemy of Longport. Q. But he didn't that day say the 174 1 words Marty O'Boyle. He said why are you 2 consorting or something like why are you 3 fraternizing with the enemy of the people of 4 Longport, correct? Those were his words? 5 A. Something akin to that, I would 6 have to look at the complaint. 7 But, yeah, akin to that. And if 8 you are asking me is there Is any chance at all 9 that he was -- that it is the inverse, that he was 10 saying to me stay away from Fred and Lenny? Zero. 11 Q. And that is just based on the tone 12 of his voice and the way he looked towards the 13 three of you? . 14 A. And his, yeah, it is based on 15 Mr. Isen. 16 Q. What was, what were his facial 17 gestures? How did he look, his demeanor at the 18 time that he made the statement? Was he 19 screaming? Was he talking? Was he yelling? What was he doing? A. Firm, matter of fact. 22 Q. Okay, So, almost like you just 23 said that sentence, firm and matter of fact? 24 A. Firm and matter of fact. 25 Q. Did he raise his voice? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19_. 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 175 A. Well, you know, you are at the beach. It is windy, it is you know. Was he, did somebody -- if other people were there would they turn around and say who is that guy screaming? No. Q. And after he made that statement, what did he do? A. He went over to Simon's car. Q. And by the way, allegedly made that statement just to make sure that -MR. JACOBS: You can admit it. There are four witnesses. What are you going to do, deny it? Q. After that statement was allegedly made, what specifically did Mr, Isen do? A. You mean after he made the statement about Q. Allegedly, yeah. After you allege he-made the statement you.are the enemy of the. people of Longport, what happened? A. He then went over to Simon's car. Q. On the passenger side? A. Yes. Q. And so you are at driver side. A. No. Q. A. Q. A. Q. 176 Where were you? Coming. Coming towards Simon's car? Yeah. Do you know what Mr. Isen and Mr. Simon were discussing? A. No. Q. Was Mr. Simon's passenger side window open? A. I am assuming. Isen was inside. Q. Inside? A. Well, when I say inside, you know. Q. Leaning into the car? A. Yeah. Q. And you were on your way to Simon's car? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Because it was my friend. I have known him for 40 years. He was there. What am going to do, walk past him and ignore him? Q. As you walked towards the car could you hear any part of the conversation if there was a conversation between Mr. Isen and Mr. Simon? 06%11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 173 to 176 Of 279 44 of 96 sheets 177 A. Yeah, I could hear Mr. Isen say 2 it, say it again. Q . He said what? A. Same thing. And that is what are you, what are you doing hanging around with him, 6 or whatever the words were, he is the enemy of the 7 people of Longport. Stay away from him. Or 8 whatever the case is. 9 Q. Those were the words that came out 10 of Mr. Isen's mouth? 11 A. Mr. Isen's mouth, yes. Something, 12 you know, I am not giving you exact. 13 Q. Well, I need the exact words. 14 A. Well then give me the complaint. 15 Q. All right. If you would take a 16 look at paragraph 3 because that is the reference 17 in the paragraph that specifically deals with 18 these specific words. -19 - • - -- • - specific-four times-In that- 20 21 22 23 sentence. A. He said that I was the enemy of the citizens of the Borough of Longport. Now, what happened was -24 apparently he said it again. Now I didn't hear it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 16 17 18 19 " IN 22 23 24 25 178 Q. To 6111 Simon? A. Yeah. No. That would be number 3. And, I walked up to Simon, I just said hey, Bill, how is it going? And, Bill ended up heading down the road. Q. He made a U-turn or do you remember how he left? A. I think he had to make a U-turn. Q. How did Bill -A. Or K-turn. Q. K-turn. How did Bill Simon react, if he did at all, to Mr. Isen leaning into his car and saying you were the enemy of the people of Longport? A. Well, I have known Bill for about 40 years, and the best that I could explain it is his mother died. Q. He acted as if his mother died? A. Well, he didn't act at all. His facial expression was drained, like fear, for half fear, half disbelief, half drained, half you know, it was it was not good. Q. Did Mr. Isen make the statement with the same sort of demeanor that he made It towards of three of you up on the steps? In other words -179 A. I did not hear Mr. Isen -Q. The second time? A. The second -- no. The third time. MR. JACOBS: Object to the form 6 of the question. He said the third time. 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 8 MR. JACOBS: You are changing 9 it to second. 10 A. Yeah, I did not hear. 11 Now, when you, please bear in 12 mind, when you are in open air and open air, one 13 thing. When you are in open air and a guy is 14 yelling inside of a car, not yelling, stating, 15 making a statement inside of a car, it is a 16 different thing. 17 Q. And that is the second time? 18 A. That Is the second time. 19 - - -When-you are-in, heading closer- • • _. . 20 and a guy is inside the car, and this window isn't 21 down, so you are really cut off from It. You 22 don't know what it was. And as hard as this is to 23 believe, I have never seen Mr. Isen flip out. 24 Q. Did Mr. Isen flip out when he was 25 saying that to Mr. Simon or to the three of you? 180 1 A. He did not, to the three of us, 2 strictly -3 Q. Matter of fact? 4 A. -- matter of fact, firm. To 5 Simon, when I heard it, it was more of maybe 6 matter of fact with a little bit of an edge to it. 7 And the third time -8 Q. You didn't hear it? 9 A. -- I didn't hear it. 10 Q. So, the first two times took place 11 on July 4th, Mr. Isen, that you know Mr. Isen said 12 you are the enemy of the people of Longport. 13 MR. JACOBS: Object to the form 14 of the question. That suggests that the 15 third time was another day. 15 He is explaining it all 17 happened the same episode, your client 18 said the same thing three times in a row. 19 Q. Then I am not understanding. So 20 let me just see if I can clarify. 21 The third time Mr. O'Boyle, that 22 also occurred on July 4th? 23 A. Yes, 24 Q. So, how is it that you don't know, 25 how is that you didn't hear it the third time? 1 2 3 4 5 45 of 96 sheets Page 177 to 180 of 279 06/11/2011 12:07:15 PM 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 181 A. Because the window was up. 2 Q. Okay. So, the window was down for 3 the second time, is that fair to say? A. The window was down for the second time, and I was in a different position. I was closer. Q. Then Mr. Simon dosed his window? A. No. The window was up as I recall. 0. Well, during the second time I think you said the window was down because you were able to hear it. A. Well, that is the passenger window. Q. Okay. So, which window are we talking about? Mr. Simon's driver's was never down? A. Yes, when I whacked up there it Q. It was down. And when you walked up there, had Mr. Isen already said to Mr. Simon the statement that you say he made inside the car? A. When I walked up there, Mr. Simon and Mr. Isen's dialogue was completed. Q. Mr. Simon's window was up or down 183 Q. Fine. Okay. Next? 2 A. That is it. 3 Q. And Mr. Isen was on the other side 4 of his car on the passenger side at this point? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. And the passenger window was also 7 open at this point; correct? 8 A. I believe that the passenger 9 window at that point, when their dialogue was 10 finished, that he closed it,. And if he didn't 11 close it, I didn't pay any attention to it because 12 there was no dialogue. 13 Q. Then the third time, how do you 14 know he said anything If you didn't hear it? 15 A. The third time how did I know he 16 said anything if I didn't hear it? You got me 17 confused. Let me just go back for a second. The 18 first time was — 19 a -On the bulkhead:— • •• •• - • • • • 20 A. On the beach to here. The second 21 time Mr. Simon told me -22 Q. So the second time you heard, and 23 the third time Mr. Simon told you. When did he 24 tell you that? 25 A. Probably later that day. 182 at this point? A. Which window? Q. His driver side window. A. Down. Q. At any time did Mr. Simon put his passenger window up? A. I am sure. Q. Do you remember when? A. I guess after they finished their dialogue. I mean I don't know. Q. And at some point during that exchange you said he put his driver's window up as well? A. No. I don't think his driver's window was ever down. Q. So at no point did Bill Simon put his driver's window down to say hello to is 40 year friend Martin O'Boyle? A. No. This was like who is on first. 0. Well — 22 A. His -- when I came off the beach, 23 I walked over to his driver side window. 24 Q. Which was, open or closed? 25 A. He opened it as I got there. 184 1 Q. When did you talk to him later 2 that day? 3 A. Maybe I didn't. 4 Q. Do you remember when you heard 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from Bill Simon that Mr. Isen had said that day the same thing again to him with the.window closed? A. All I remember was Bill Simon telling me he was shocked, and I remember Bill Simon saying to me that there was a party that night that Peter was going to. Q. That Peter was going to? A. Or that Peter was having. And, Bill, his whole purpose was to assist Peter with that party, but after that, after what he saw, he had no desire of participating or going to the party. Q. Mr. Simon said he was an Invitee to the party? A. Pardon? Q. Mr. Simon said that he was an Invitee to this party? A, Yes, uh-uh. Q. Were Mr. Simon and Mr. Isen friends at that point if you know? 06/11/2011 12:07:36 PM Page 181 to 184 of 279 46 of 96 sheets 185 1 A. I think as far as Bill Simon's 2 concerned, they're still friends. 3 Q. And on what do you base that statement? A. Bill always speaks to me which Is 6 I don't see Bill that often. But, he always 7 speaks to me and he says you know, I like Peter. 8 Me says he likes him. 9 Q. Okay. You don't specifically 10 recall when it was you had that conversation with 11 Bill Simon where he recounted that there was this 12 third incident But Is It fair to say that at 13 least as you sit here today, the first and second 14 incidents happened within five minutes of the 15 first, of the third incident? 16 A. I think all three of them probably 17 happened within five minutes. You asked me when 18 Bin told me. It may have been a half hour later 19 he-came-over-my house-and-said-I-don't believe -20 I mean I know Bill Simon how he talks -- I don't 21 believe it, It may be that I went fishing and I 22 don't fish by the way, and he didn't see me until 23 the next morning and told me about it then. But, 24 bottom line is he told me about it. Q. Okay. And, up to that point, up 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ' 0 22 23 24 25 2 3 answer? 4 5 actually. 6 7 8 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 187 answer as proffered. MR. JACOBS: The truthful MR. SUFRIN: The untruthful one MR. JACOBS: He doesn't want the truth. MR. SUFRIN: He characterized it. I am just asking him whether he has any firsthand knowledge. Q. Has anybody told you, any third party that you can name, that Peter Isen said those words, Marty O'Boyle is the enemy of the people of Longport or words like It, to them, before this July 4th incident? A. I give you the same answer. Q. You would have to see a timeline 18 in order to answer that? You don't have any 19 - personal knowledge as you-sit-here.today? 20 A. I am -- unfortunately they're 21 questions you're asking me four years ago for a 22 window of opportunity, or for a window that is a 23 couple of weeks long. And I am afraid that I'm 24 going to mislead you, and I don't want to mislead 25 you, Mr. Sufrin. 186 to that July 4th date, did you know of any other such statement that Mr. Isen had made about you? A, I'd have to think about it and see a timeline. Q, Well, I am asking you based on your knowledge as you sit here today, are you aware of any, any time before July 4, that Mr. Isen said to any third party that you were the enemy of the people of Longport or words like that? A. I'd have to see a timeline. Q. I am not asking you to look at a timeline. I am asking to your knowledge, as you sit here today, and I will accept your answer as a no, do you have any personal knowledge as you sit here today of Mr. Isen having made those, having uttered those words about you to a third party before this day? A. If you want an untruthful answer the answer is no. If you want a truthful answer, I would have to see a timeline. Q. You have to see a timeline? MR. JACOBS: Which are you picking? MR. SUFRIN: I will accept the 188 Q. I appreciate that, Mr. O'Boyle. I 2 am simply asking you to use your best recollection 3 as we sit here. 4 A. I understand that, and I am 6 incapable -- if I use my best recollection, it is 6 going to be a poor and likely recollection that 7 can't be relied upon. 8 Q. Very well. But you can't point 9 to a person? In order to answer my question you 10 don't know of any person that Mr. Isen made those 11 statements to as you sit here today? 12 A. I've already answered the 13 question. 14 Q. And, with respect to other 15 statements that you may allege were insulting, 16 defamatory, against you, aside from Marty O'Boyle 17 is the enemy of the people of Longport, or he's 18 the enemy of the people of Longport, are there any 19 other statements that you have alleged or do 20 allege that Mr. Isen made to third parties before 21 July 4th of 2008 about you? 22 A. My answer is the same. 23 Q. Which, if you would just put ft on 24 the record for me, please. 25 A. Yes. And that is it is a short 47 of 96 sheets Page 185 to 188 of 279 05/11/2011 12:07:36 PM .pdf Notice~1.pdf Notice Of Filing - Pages 1 to 160.pdf application/octet-stream 8D7F035034EDE0468767B9A0D0095E73@gulf-stream.org EnUsNotice of Service of Court Documents Filing Information Filing #: 76746464 Filing Time: 08/21/2018 11:53:40 AM ET Filer: Hudson C Gill 954-463-0100 Court: Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case #: 502016CA004546XXXXMB Court Case #: 50-2016-CA-004546-XXXX-MB Case Style: O'BOYLE, MARTIN E. - TOWN OF GULF STREAM Documents Title File Notice Of Filing Not. of Filing - Affidavit & Exhs to Aff of Renee Basel-COMPLETE.pdf Notice Of Filing NOF & Attachment-2-COMPLETE.pdf E-service recipients selected for service: Name Email Address Edward C Nazzaro HYPERLINK "mailto:tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org"tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org Hudson C Gill HYPERLINK "mailto:hgill@jambg.com"hgill@jambg.com HYPERLINK "mailto:hgill@jambg.com"hgill@jambg.com HYPERLINK "mailto:blanca@jambg.com"blanca@jambg.com Jeffrey L Hochman HYPERLINK "mailto:hochman@jambg.com"hochman@jambg.com HYPERLINK "mailto:fox@jambg.com"fox@jambg.com HYPERLINK "mailto:finley@jambg.com"finley@jambg.com Joanne M. O'Connor HYPERLINK "mailto:joconnor@jones-foster.com"joconnor@jones-foster.com Hudson C. Gill HYPERLINK "mailto:hgill@jambg.com"hgill@jambg.com HYPERLINK "mailto:blanca@jambg.com"blanca@jambg.com Joanne M. O'connor HYPERLINK "mailto:joconnor@jonesfoster.com"joconnor@jonesfoster.com HYPERLINK "mailto:mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com"mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com Jonathan Reilly O'Boyle HYPERLINK "mailto:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com"oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com HYPERLINK "mailto:joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com"joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com HYPERLINK "mailto:jonathanroboyle@gmail.com"jonathanroboyle@gmail.com Martin E. O'boyle HYPERLINK "mailto:moboyle@commerce-group.com"moboyle@commerce-group.com HYPERLINK "mailto:brussell@commerce-group.com"brussell@commerce-group.com Nickalaus Taylor HYPERLINK "mailto:oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com"oboylecourtdocs@oboylelawfirm.com HYPERLINK "mailto:ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com"ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com Robert A Sweetapple HYPERLINK "mailto:pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com"pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com HYPERLINK "mailto:lwills@sweetapplelaw.com"lwills@sweetapplelaw.com HYPERLINK "mailto:rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com"rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com E-service recipients not selected for service: Name Email Address No Matching Entries This is an automatic email message generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This email address does not receive email. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal The following identifier(s) are associated with this transaction: request_id#:76746464;Audit#:259983890;UCN#:502016CA004546XXXXMB;