Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPRR 20-2812-5TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail December 29, 2020 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: records@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2812-5 (Request for Public Records Related to Martin O'Boyle Criminal Case) Request for Public Records Related to Martin O’Boyle Criminal Case 5. All interagency communication which pertain: (1) to a September 22, 2015 Incident at Town Hall regarding Martin O’Boyle; (2) to Martin O’Boyle’s character; and/or (3) to State v. O’Boyle, 2015MM012872A now pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: Thank you for your public records request made on August 30, 2020. On September 17, 2020, the Town responded as follows: Part of this subpart of your request, parts (1) and (3), were previously answered in response to GS 2704 made by Martin O’Boyle on April 16, 2019 (“all records . . . which mention or refer to Mar[t]in O’Boyle, but limited to the incident at the Town Hall on September 22, 2015 regarding Martin O’Boyle”). The Town will supplement those records to include responsive records from April 16, 2019 to the date of this request. The Town understands you may believe records responsive to part (2) of this request are relevant to your criminal case. To fulfill part (2) of this subpart of your request, the Town of Gulf Stream proposes a search of our records, from January 1, 2014 to the date of your request, using the following search terms: O’Boyle and character. If this is not acceptable, please provide different or additional search terms, or dates. On October 16, 2020, you responded through your Attorney as follows: Mr. O’Boyle appreciates your ability to provide responsive records as to subcategories (1) and (3) and does not require the Town to produce documents that have already been produced in response to Request #2704 or the Town’s production of additional records pursuant to Court Order in July 2019 or the Request for Production responses in that litigation. However, Mr. O’Boyle would emphasize that any other public records responsive to Request #2704 which were not produced for whatever reason, must be now be produced. Also please note, the date of this request is more than a year after Request #2704 and a good faith response to this request will require conferring with individuals of the Town to ascertain omitted or new public records which are responsive. This request does not seek a mere running of search terms in emails. With regard to character, Mr. O’Boyle is looking for public records that would fall under Federal Rules of Evidence 404 and 406 regardless of admissibility. Although the Town has legal resources, Mr. O’Boyle asserts that communications which reflect, comment, or describe (in whole or in part) opinions of Mr. O’Boyle, his habits, his reputation, or specific instances of conduct are responsive records. While the search terms proposed by the Town are helpful, mechanical search terms will not obviate the need to confer with individuals in the Town (as defined in the original request) which is required under §119.07(1)(C), Fla. Stat. as they may have knowledge of responsive records. In addition, the records responsive are context and content sensitive so mechanical search terms are of limited value. The original request can be found at the following link: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=173216&repo=r-430100cc Subpart five of your request can be found at the following link: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=173829&repo=r-430100cc The Town now estimates that to fully respond to subpart five of your request will require 44 hours of administrative support at $48.38 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. (44 hours @ 48.38 = 2,128.72) = Deposit Due: $2,128.72 in cash or check. Upon receipt of your acknowledgement that you will pay for these records, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Basel As Requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail January 28, 2021 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: records@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2812-5 (Request for Public Records Related to Martin O'Boyle Criminal Case) Request for Public Records Related to Martin O’Boyle Criminal Case 5. All interagency communication which pertain: (1) to a September 22, 2015 Incident at Town Hall regarding Martin O’Boyle; (2) to Martin O’Boyle’s character; and/or (3) to State v. O’Boyle, 2015MM012872A now pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: Thank you for your public records request made on August 30, 2020. On September 17, 2020, the Town responded as follows: Part of this subpart of your request, parts (1) and (3), were previously answered in response to GS 2704 made by Martin O’Boyle on April 16, 2019 (“all records . . . which mention or refer to Mar[t]in O’Boyle, but limited to the incident at the Town Hall on September 22, 2015 regarding Martin O’Boyle”). The Town will supplement those records to include responsive records from April 16, 2019 to the date of this request. The Town understands you may believe records responsive to part (2) of this request are relevant to your criminal case. To fulfill part (2) of this subpart of your request, the Town of Gulf Stream proposes a search of our records, from January 1, 2014 to the date of your request, using the following search terms: O’Boyle and character. If this is not acceptable, please provide different or additional search terms, or dates. On October 16, 2020, you responded through your Attorney as follows: Mr. O’Boyle appreciates your ability to provide responsive records as to subcategories (1) and (3) and does not require the Town to produce documents that have already been produced in response to Request #2704 or the Town’s production of additional records pursuant to Court Order in July 2019 or the Request for Production responses in that litigation. However, Mr. O’Boyle would emphasize that any other public records responsive to Request #2704 which were not produced for whatever reason, must be now be produced. Also please note, the date of this request is more than a year after Request #2704 and a good faith response to this request will require conferring with individuals of the Town to ascertain omitted or new public records which are responsive. This request does not seek a mere running of search terms in emails. With regard to character, Mr. O’Boyle is looking for public records that would fall under Federal Rules of Evidence 404 and 406 regardless of admissibility. Although the Town has legal resources, Mr. O’Boyle asserts that communications which reflect, comment, or describe (in whole or in part) opinions of Mr. O’Boyle, his habits, his reputation, or specific instances of conduct are responsive records. While the search terms proposed by the Town are helpful, mechanical search terms will not obviate the need to confer with individuals in the Town (as defined in the original request) which is required under §119.07(1)(C), Fla. Stat. as they may have knowledge of responsive records. In addition, the records responsive are context and content sensitive so mechanical search terms are of limited value. The original request can be found at the following link: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=173216&repo=r-430100cc Subpart five of your request can be found at the following link: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=173829&repo=r-430100cc Thank you for your deposit of $2,128.72 by check #53423 for the public record request described above, received by the Town on January 22, 2021. The Town is in the process of searching our records for communications containing the following: O’Boyle or Oboyle or MEO or Marty or Martin; covering the date range of 01/01/2014 to 08/30/2020. A Town employee will then review the communications to determine, in her sole discretion, whether they “reflect, comment, or describe (in whole or in part) opinions of Mr. O’Boyle, his habits, his reputation or specific instances of conduct,” per the instruction from your attorney. As with all requests, the Town has made reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency whether such records exist and, if so, the location at which the records can be accessed. The estimate does not include reviewing previous responses to public records requests and providing you with those records. If you would like us to include records already publicly available and/or provided to you previously, please let us know and we will update our estimate. The Town understands your request for “interagency” communications to be communications between (1) Town employees, appointed Board Members, or Commissioners and (2) other government agencies. This would not include communications between the Town and its contractors, or communications between the Town’s contractors and other government agencies. If this understanding is not correct, please clarify your request and we will revise our methodology for determining responsive records and, if necessary, our estimate. The Town will use its very best efforts to respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. As this search is estimated to take 44 hours of staff time, we ask for your patience as we diligently work to fulfill this request. Sincerely, Reneé Basel As Requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail May 21, 2021 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: records@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2812-5 (Request for Public Records Related to Martin O'Boyle Criminal Case) Request for Public Records Related to Martin O’Boyle Criminal Case 5. All interagency communication which pertain: (1) to a September 22, 2015 Incident at Town Hall regarding Martin O’Boyle; (2) to Martin O’Boyle’s character; and/or (3) to State v. O’Boyle, 2015MM012872A now pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: Thank you for your public records request made on August 30, 2020. On September 17, 2020, the Town responded as follows: Part of this subpart of your request, parts (1) and (3), were previously answered in response to GS 2704 made by Martin O’Boyle on April 16, 2019 (“all records . . . which mention or refer to Mar[t]in O’Boyle, but limited to the incident at the Town Hall on September 22, 2015 regarding Martin O’Boyle”). The Town will supplement those records to include responsive records from April 16, 2019 to the date of this request. The Town understands you may believe records responsive to part (2) of this request are relevant to your criminal case. To fulfill part (2) of this subpart of your request, the Town of Gulf Stream proposes a search of our records, from January 1, 2014 to the date of your request, using the following search terms: O’Boyle and character. If this is not acceptable, please provide different or additional search terms, or dates. On October 16, 2020, you responded through your Attorney as follows: Mr. O’Boyle appreciates your ability to provide responsive records as to subcategories (1) and (3) and does not require the Town to produce documents that have already been produced in response to Request #2704 or the Town’s production of additional records pursuant to Court Order in July 2019 or the Request for Production responses in that litigation. However, Mr. O’Boyle would emphasize that any other public records responsive to Request #2704 which were not produced for whatever reason, must be now be produced. Also please note, the date of this request is more than a year after Request #2704 and a good faith response to this request will require conferring with individuals of the Town to ascertain omitted or new public records which are responsive. This request does not seek a mere running of search terms in emails. With regard to character, Mr. O’Boyle is looking for public records that would fall under Federal Rules of Evidence 404 and 406 regardless of admissibility. Although the Town has legal resources, Mr. O’Boyle asserts that communications which reflect, comment, or describe (in whole or in part) opinions of Mr. O’Boyle, his habits, his reputation, or specific instances of conduct are responsive records. While the search terms proposed by the Town are helpful, mechanical search terms will not obviate the need to confer with individuals in the Town (as defined in the original request) which is required under §119.07(1)(C), Fla. Stat. as they may have knowledge of responsive records. In addition, the records responsive are context and content sensitive so mechanical search terms are of limited value. The original request can be found at the following link: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=173216&repo=r-430100cc An initial production of responsive records of subpart five of your request can be found at the following link: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=173829&repo=r-430100cc The Town has spent 44 hours and has perused 8,610 e-mails thus far with 12,475 that still need to be searched. The Town now estimates that to fully respond to subpart five of your request will require an additional 48 hours of administrative support at $48.38 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. (48 hours @ 48.38 = 2,322.24) = Deposit Due: $2,322.24 in cash or check. Upon receipt of your acknowledgement that you will pay for these records, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Basel As Requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:55 AM To:Gregory Dunham; Rita Taylor Cc:Renee Basel; Michelle Melicia Subject:Accounting - Chapter 119 Records Requests - Martin O'Boyle Dear Custodian of Records (Ms. Taylor) and the Town manager (Greg Dunham): I write this email to request an accounting of the substantial sums of money that I have paid to the Town in connection with the various requests made by me pursuant to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. In that connection, I have asked Renee Basel innumerable times to provide me with an accounting for the $$$ paid to the Town. I would ask you kindly confirm or the veracity of the preceding sentence with Ms. Basel. To be clear, each request for an accounting was greeted with a refusal to respond. I am now at the point where I insist on receiving the accounting, as requested. In that connection, if you feel you need any clarification as to what I am asking for, please contact me. I am making this one last request. If the Town does not provide the requested accounting; or provide me with a response that you will (within a reasonable period of time) provide the accounting by the close of business tomorrow, I will (with great reluctance) proceed to file suit and ask the Court to order the Town to do so. In closing, I urge the Town to not make me pursue such an unnecessary path, when either of the two of you could easily provide me with that which is requested without fuss. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:11 PM To:Hudson Gill; Trey Nazzaro; Joanne O'Connor Subject:another 3-5-15 email Attachments:Public Records Requests 2013-2015 FINAL.xlsx From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:15 AM To: Eric Sodhi Subject: Fw: O'Hare/O'Boyle Public Records Requests Eric, Please see below. Scott W. Morgan HUMIDIFIRST 1315 Neptune Dr. Boynton Beach, FL 33426 (561) 752-1936 From: Ingrid Bascobert Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:04 AM To: joconnor@jonesfoster.com ; Bill Thrasher ; scottmorgan75@gmail.com ; grichman@richmangreer.com Subject: O'Hare/O'Boyle Public Records Requests Hello, Attached is an excel spreadsheet of all the public records requests from O'Hare and O'Boyle from 2013-2015. The excel doc includes a spreadsheet of each year (2013, 2014, 2015), as well as a spreadsheet with the total number of requests, a spread sheet of high volume requests, and a spreadsheet of aliases used by both O'Hare and O'Boyle. I hope this finds you well and that it is useful! Additonally, I do not have an email address for Mr. Eric Sohdi so I would greatly appreciate it if one of you could forward this email to him. Thank you so much. Regards, ____________________________________ INGRID B. BASCOBERT Administrative Assistant Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. rd 20 SE 3 Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 392-1230 (t) x. 306 (561) 394-6102 (f) ibascobert@sweetapplelaw.com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY 1 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. 2 High Volume Requests DateTotal Number of RequestsM. O'BoyleC. O'Hare 9/4/201318 requests18 9/20/20132222 9/23/20135858 9/26/201366 9/29/20134141 10/7/20131111 10/8/20138989 10/11/20131212 10/15/201313102 10/23/20131515 10/29/20131212 11/2/201355 11/9/13.2121 11/10/201399 11/13/201366 11/19/20131515 11/21/201355 11/23/201366 12/4/20131111 12/5/201366 12/20/201377 12/26/20131111 1/14/20141414 1/16/20146060 1/18/20141010 1/21/20141596 1/23/201488 1/24/2014514 2/4/2014541 2/11/20141212 2/12/20141028 2/13/201488 2/14/20141266 2/17/20141717 2/18/201477 2/19/2014853 3/3/20141616 3/5/201455 3/14/2014815 3/27/2014615 3/28/201466 4/14/20141293 4/18/201555 4/21/2014624 4/22/201427261 4/23/201417161 4/24/201477 4/30/201466 5/1/2014523 5/2/201499 5/13/20141515 High Volume Requests DateTotal Number of RequestsM. O'BoyleC. O'Hare 5/14/201411110 5/18/201466 5/27/20141010 5/29/201455 6/4/20141717 6/6/201413512 6/9/201455 6/11/201477 6/12/201466 6/17/2014752 6/19/2014918 6/20/2014918 6/22/20141414 6/24/20141414 6/25/201420119 6/27/201421119 6/28/201488 7/3/201499 7/24/201477 7/29/20141919 7/31/20146565 8/8/20144747 8/27/2014651 8/29/20141082 9/3/2014725 9/4/2014514 9/5/201423221 9/8/2014761 9/9/2014734 9/12/2014826 9/13/201477 9/15/2014716 9/17/20141486 9/25/20145555 9/30/2014615 10/1/201416115 10/2/201425205 10/3/2014514 10/6/2014734 11/6/201455 11/11/2014514 11/12/201455 11/13/2014633 12/16/2014532 1/13/201513103 1/14/201566 1/22/201588 1/26/201599 1/27/201513121 1/28/20151010 High Volume Requests J. O'Boyle 1 2 High Volume Requests J. O'Boyle Renee Basel From:Renee Basel Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:42 PM To:Martin E. O’Boyle Subject:Construction Site Management Handbook Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: Believing construction on your site was imminent, the Town tried to meet with you on three occasions to review the Construction Site Management Handbook prior to the commencement of your work. However, the Town Manager confirmed that your permit has not been issued and today you told the Town Clerk that you have not yet hired anyone to perform the work. Based on these recent discoveries, the Town Manager believes a construction meeting is premature at this time and is postponing your meeting scheduled for December 7 at 8:00 AM. Once your permit is issued by the City of Delray Beach, please contact us and we will promptly reschedule this meeting. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 1 Renee Basel From:Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:58 PM To:Trey Nazzaro; Ms. Joanne Marie O'Connor Esq.; MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com Cc:William Ring; Martin@athertonlg.com; Martin E. O'Boyle Subject:Construction Site Management Meeting - Gulf Stream Joanne and Trey: Renee Basel cancelled Marty O’Boyle’s plan review meeting tomorrow at 8 am, contending that he does not have a building permit or a builder. Please see below. To the contrary, Marty is a licensed general contractor and has a building permit. In fact work is underway at his house. PLEASE intervene and cause the meeting to go forward. The meeting is an important precursor to the Commission’s consideration of the settlement proposal and should occur ASAP. Many thanks, Elaine From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:42 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: Construction Site Management Handbook Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: Believing construction on your site was imminent, the Town tried to meet with you on three occasions to review the Construction Site Management Handbook prior to the commencement of your work. However, the Town Manager confirmed that your permit has not been issued and today you told the Town Clerk that you have not yet hired anyone to perform the work. Based on these recent discoveries, the Town Manager believes a construction meeting is premature at this time and is postponing your meeting scheduled for December 7 at 8:00 AM. Once your permit is issued by the City of Delray Beach, please contact us and we will promptly reschedule this meeting. 1 Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e- mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 12:57 PM To:Bill Thrasher Cc:OConnor, Joanne M.; Brenda Russell Subject:February, 2017 Town Commission Meeting Dear Bill: If I am in town for the February Commission Meeting, I would like to request “equal time” to present a counter side to the Sweetapple speech which was held at the Commission Meeting in January. I would like to have the same time. If the intent of having Mr. Sweetapple at the meeting was to alert the townspeople as to the occurrences in connection with the litigation, then you should allow me to speak with the other side of the story for the sole purpose of alerting the townspeople as to the occurrences in the litigation, just like Mr. Sweetapple did. On the other hand, if the purpose of Mr. Sweetapple’s appearance and speech at the Commission Meeting was to disparage Mr. O’Hare and/or me, then I would understand why you would not let me speak. I believe my speaking at the meeting will be informative to the townspeople; and I urge you to allow me that opportunity. Kindly let me hear from you regarding the content of this E-Mail. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 12:32 PM To:'Robert Sweetapple' Cc:Trey Nazzaro Subject:Florida Bar complaint Attachments:1ON7640-florida bar babers re business litigation certification_PDF This is my response to the Florida Bar Complaint Marty made against me. Yours may be similar. There are a number of footnotes re the cases in which courts sanctioned him including Judge Hurley/Hopkins. I will find that order. Note the attached report by the former Police Chief Ward re his conversation with Mark Hanna about Jonathan and “O’Boyles” trying to get him to target us in unethical ways. The Rivas complaint suggests the same thing. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com Flagler Center Tower 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 1 Renee Basel From:Domain postMaster address <postmaster@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 12:32 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:1ON7640-florida bar babers re business litigation certification_PDF Linked Attachment Download The following attachment was removed from the associated email message. You may download the attachment, if you are sure that it is safe to do so, by clicking the Click Here to Download link below. File Name 1ON7640-florida bar babers re business litigation certification.PDF File Size 18050091 Bytes Click Here to Download This attachment file has passed various security checks, but this does NOT guarantee that the file is safe. You should only download the attachment if you know and trust the sender. Attachment downloads are monitored and audited for security reasons. 1 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:19 PM To:Hudson Gill; Joanne O'Connor; Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: 2-2-15 email: O'Boyle information From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 2:29 PM To: Robert Sweetapple ; Joanne O'Connor ; Eric Sodhi ; Gerry Richman Subject: O'Boyle information Last week, two of our Town employees were deposed by O’Boyle’s lawyer, Giovanni Mesa of the O’Boyle Law Firm. Martin O’Boyle was then deposed by our insurance carrier attorney, Hudson Gill. The case involves federal issues surrounding Gulf Stream’s “sign” ordinance and the removal of O’Boyle’s election signs that he had placed in the public right of way. During the deposition of Bill Thrasher, our town manager, Chris O’Hare, who was sitting in the audience, approached the deposition table, handed a note to O’Boyle, who in turn handed it to Attorney Mesa for purposes of framing a line of questioning. Some of the questioning of Thrasher involved a flurry of emails sent “by a resident” last week complaining of irregularities in the enforcement of Gulf Stream’s new sign law, which was passed on second reading last Monday. (Those 20 or so emails were sent by O’Hare) During a break in testimony, O’Boyle and O’Hare huddled with Mesa, after which Mesa continued to question Thrasher on other details about that “resident’s” emails regarding signs. The point is that O’Boyle and O’Hare are obviously working in concert on this and other cases, even if O’Hare is not an actual party. During Martin O’Boyle’s deposition, he became agitated (according to Thrasher) when questioned about his connection to Mark Dougan, who had been identified in discovery as someone with knowledge about the sign removal case. It seems that Mr. Dougan was discharged from one of the local Sheriff’s Departments for certain improprieties, but has found work with the O’Boyles, although O’Boyle was evasive and nonresponsive regarding what this man’s duties were. Martin offered only that Dougan provides services like flying plane banners. In addition, when asked about Doug Stacey, who is Mr. O’Boyle’s “driver”, O’Boyle said Stacey does not work for him; rather, he is employed by Mrs. Sheila O’Boyle. Stacey is the person who drives Mrs. O’Boyle’s sign laden truck to Town Commission meetings. Regards, Scott W. Morgan 1 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:25 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25-17 I may have already sent you this “dock” email From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 2:28 PM To: Marty O'Boyle Subject: Re: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25-17 Marty— tried calling but couldn’t get you. I agree that this is a bad time of year to be coordinating schedules but I understand two trials are set for November and December so a month delay on mediation is probably not going to be that helpful. Let’s cut to the chase on this. Are you free tomorrow? I’ll bring over the documents and let’s figure it out. Then you and I will both know whether we should reschedule mediation or just let it go. No intermediaries so there will be no misunderstandings. Let’s identify the points of agreement and whether there really are any points of disagreement. If there are then we either work it out or not. But enough of going back and forth, forth and back. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> wrote: th Scott – thank you for your email below. Unfortunately, the 9 doesn’t work, as my “dance card” is pretty much full until after the end of the month. Next week is a “wipe out”, the following week I will be rd traveling, after that is my 33 Anniversary, then Thanksgiving, where we will be in WV until at least 12/3/17, after which I will either: (a) return to Florida for a few days then commence my end of the year rd “road trip”; or (b) commence my road trip on the 3. Although too early to say, (b) makes more sense, st as I will be in the neighborhood of my 1 stop. So, it looks like the soonest we could have a Mediation would be early December. The above aside, I’m struggling to understand the issues. This past weekend, I worked (certainly) 20 hours on the draft that I sent Joanne. The draft was redone, given what I understood “was the deal”. Then when Joanne did a U-turn on me and cancelled the Mediation, I was (somewhat) “shocked”! Scott, I have been preaching Mediation (which I believe would have gotten us done long ago) but the Town’s reluctance to go to Mediation, which still puzzles me, was an obvious impediment to that proposition. In any event, “we are where we are”. Having said that, I should be able to spend some time working on this project between now and month’s end, but I think the proper approach, at this time, is to not revise the Settlement Agreement that I last prepared; but, rather, for someone to articulate to me where it fails. In that connection, my view was that “it worked”. 1 Scott, I believe that mediation is the “key”, but the “Mole Game” has only resulted in frustration and has been a colossal waste of time. I thought our Goals were congruent, but I’m not sure anymore. So, I ask that you accommodate my request. Upon receipt of the articulation, we could then see if we could reach a meeting of the minds in concept; and, if not, we could see where we are missing, which is where Judge Hazouri comes in. I will now wait for the articulation. Please make sure that whoever sends it, it has your blessing, thus ending the “Mole Game”. Thank you; and I want you to know that I am hopeful that we could end this (whatever you want to call it) sooner rather than later. Thank you!  PS: A couple of minor items: 1. The $172 Broward case. It is getting to the point of silliness. For $172 it is taking on the United Sates of America v Microsoft (Anti- Trust). I have agreed to get rid of it. I can’t seem to get an answer. It is going to cost a fortune. What’s your pleasure. 2. Finishing my home at 23 Hidden Harbour, I need to get my Dock built. Our agreements permit it. Your code in 1981 (see #35 of our Agreement allows it). The Town is prohibiting me I can only assume “out of spite”. We have hired Palm Beach counsel. They advise us that their reading puts us on “Terra Firma”. Do you want o litigate it. I am ready to do so, as I am unwilling to wait any longer. I think it is a colossal waste of my money and the taxpayers money, but the decision rests with you. Our contractor is ready to go; and I am thinking seriously of making the installation with or without the Town’s blessing. Your acquiescence here eliminate another carve out in the potential settlement. As I said, I can wait no longer to start or institute suit. What’s your pleasure. From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com \[mailto:scottmorgan75@gmail.com\] Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 3:43 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Subject: Re: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25-17 Marty, Thank you for the draft. I reviewed it and there are certainly some differences that we Thank you for the draft. I reviewed it and there are certainly some differences that we need to iron out. I think it will be easier to work off of the draft that Jeff did, which is more in line with the O’Hare document, but regardless of which document is in front of us, the issues to resolve with the judge look to be pretty much the same. I spoke to Jeff who told me that he and Joanne and Bill were actually pretty close to finalizing a 2 document although with a few issues that needed to be worked on. I relayed to him our conversation this morning and what I believe is your sincere interest in trying to resolve this. He agrees then that a meeting to focus on the remaining few issues could be helpful. So I have asked Joanne to set up a meeting next week with the judge, and I will have Joanne and Jeff attend with me. Hopefully, you’ll be available. If not, have Bill work out another date with Joanne. Thanks. Scott From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:42 AM To: Scottmorgan75 Subject: FW: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25-17 Scott – below was an “OOPS!”. Please delete, as this one is the correct one. All relevant communications are now attached. I await hearing back from you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:14 AM To: Scottmorgan75 <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25-17 Scott – thanks for all calling me this am. I’m glad to hear you are involved. Attached is where I left off (with what I sent Joanne). Attached is her response; and my response to her. That’s where we ended again. Please consider the Mediation. In my “heart of hearts”, I believe that the Mediation will “end the day”. I await hearing from you. Call me, day, night or over the weekend. Thanks again!  3 UNFORTUNATELY, I RECEIVE TOO MANY EMAILS ON A DAILY BASIS. THE RESULT IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM ALL; AND MANY I DO NOT SEE AT ALL. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO SEND ME EMAILS; AND, IF YOU DON’T HEAR FROM ME WITHIN 48 HOURS, I URGE YOU TO CALL ME. I ALSO ASK YOU TO CC MS. BRENDA RUSSELL (BRUSSELL@COMMERCE-GROUP.COM) OR TO CALL HER (954 570 3513). THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 5:55 PM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com>; William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com>; robertrivas@comcast.net Subject: FW: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25-17 Joanne –as to the attached (my markup of your settlement agreement), I resubmit it (and the content of this email) for settlement purposes only. I also point out that the attached is a clean copy. If you want to see the changes, I ask that you do a comparison, as I’m afraid that the mark up which I prepared lost its integrity as such. Moving on, as of today, as I see it, these are the remaining items necessary to complete the deal. 1. We need to discuss the reimbursement of the costs which I have incurred since the end of the last (aborted) settlement, when the Town “backed out” of their Agreement 2. The Insurance Company ROR Issue v Case #4474. The insurance company wants $$$ under the ROR. I believe that today (and I think there is negotiation there) they want $230,000. They believe that they get that more than that much out of #4474. One solution is for the Town: (a) to have their lawyers , advise the Town as to the validity of the ROR; and, if the insurance company “pushed” what rights the Insurer would have (which they are reserving pursuant to the Reservation of Rights); (b) Indemnify me; (c) for me to take on the risk with the Insurance Company in exchange, I would need to reserve any award from 4474; or (d) to handle akin to the process in #3 below. 3. We need to discuss the “O’Boyle Law Firm” issue with the Bar, as I see it, this must be addressed and dealt with. My suggestion is that all cases be tolled (how that works legally – you lawyers handle that) and the Document as it applies to O’Boyle’s Release only be held in escrow pending 4 a clearance from the Bar as to the people at the O’Boyle Law Firm. We do not see this as an issue that cannot be overcome, provided the Town and the others (that will be part of the Settlement Agreement) all parties will work together toward that common (and – indeed – important) goal. Of course there would have to be a reasonable time limit placed on this portion, with a negative result being a voiding of the O’Boyle Release and other obligations under the Agreement. Joanne – I remind you that this document is being sent to you for discussion purposes only. I intend to look at it again and I am going to have my Lawyer’s and the OLF’s lawyers look at it. With that in mind, I want you to know that I submit the attached document subject to further change. Please review and get back to me with your comments and (invited) suggestions. In the meantime, I will provide you with a 2 day date for booking Hazouri, just in case we need some assistance (by way of a rd neutral (Highly experienced) 3 party with “no dog in this fight” and from a man who resolves issues for a living) in gaining finality, which I hope that that is what we all wish to do. I now await hearing from you. PS: Attached may be a little “rough”, but I wanted to get it out to you and to the others on our end quickly to avoid further delay. In that connection, I understand that you spoke to Ian and that your wishes (and mine as well – although I think it will likely take an expert to resolve certain portions) are to resolve “pre – Hazouri”. Although we share that goal, we have never been able to get there before and to have the benefit of a guy like Hazouri’s knowledge with these type Disputes (remember he resolves these things for a living) is nothing but a win. Let’s get done once and for all. Until finished, I like you realize that all is always on the table; that we can not draw a line in the sand if we want to reach success (flexible is the way to get there); that we must use our best to resolve without a Mediator; and, as a final solution, we must let the Mediator do his magic. UNFORTUNATELY, I RECEIVE TOO MANY EMAILS ON A DAILY BASIS. THE RESULT IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THM ALL; AND MANY I DO NOT SEE AT ALL. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO SEND ME EMAILS; AND, IF YOU DON’T HEAR FROM ME WITHIN 48 HOURS, I URGE YOU TO CALL ME. I ALSO ASK YOU TO CC MS. BRENDA RUSSELL (BRUSSELL@COMMERCE- GROUP.COM) OR TO CALL HER (954 570 3513). THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 5 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:34 PM To:Joanne O'Connor; Hudson Gill; Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: Email 1-19-15First Quarterly 2015 Gulf Stream Patriot Attachments:GULFSTREAMPATRIOT1.pdf From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 11:58 AM To: Robert Sweetapple ; Joanne O'Connor ; Gerry Richman Subject: Fw: First Quarterly 2015 Gulf Stream Patriot Gulf Stream residents received this email today. While O’Hare and O’Boyle have not made individual settlement demands in their public records cases against the Town, both of them have requested global settlements to resolve all of the cases at one time. This website/newsletter is another example, and follows the settlement letter from O’Boyle in December and the Public Comment requests for settlement by O’Hare and O’Boyle at several Gulf Stream Commission Meetings. Scott W. Morgan 1315 Neptune Dr. Boynton Beach, FL 33426 (561) 752-1936 From: Gulf Stream Patriot Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 11:02 AM To: Gulfstreampatriot@gmail.com Subject: First Quarterly 2015 Gulf Stream Patriot Dear Gulf Stream Resident: Attached to this email, please find the first quarterly edition of the Gulf Stream Patriot. We hope you enjoy it. Additionally, the Patriot can be viewed on-line at www.gulfstreampatriot.com. We look forward to hearing your comments and hope that you participate in the Survey Question. Your thoughts and comments are welcome! Have a wonderful day. Gulf Stream Patriot Administrator 1 Two excellent questions and the answer to both is “yes”! But we also believe that in order to end the senseless and outlandishly expensive litigations, that has to be what the residents of Gulf Stream want. If that’s what you want, we ask you to please read on. Currently, there are multiple litigations most of which are as a result of Public Records and most (if not all) of which have been instituted by Martin O’Boyle and Chris O’Hare. The Public Records Litigations instituted by Martin O’Boyle have all been instituted in 2014 while Mr. O’Hare’s Public Records Litigations began in 2013. Incidentally, in 2013, Mr. O’Boyle was in litigation with the Town regarding records and regarding the planned retrofit of his home. The litigation was amicably settled in 2013 with the Town paying Mr. O’Boyle $180,000, granting the approvals for the O’Boyle home and issuing Mr. O’Boyle a written apology, apologizing for the Town’s conduct. The apology is inserted immediately below: “The Town recognizes the stress and strife that the O’Boyle family has endured as a result of the Town’s conduct. The Town recognizes that the O’Boyle home has a value well in excess of $1,000,000, but is uninsurable against wind because of the non-existence of proper protection, which would have been part of the Improvements installed by O’Boyle had the Town not initial- ly denied the Application. The Town is in- debted to O’Boyle for the many deficiencies in connection with the Town code that he has identified since his submission of the Application. The Town Commission believes that O’Boyle’s actions will ultimately result in Gulf Stream being a better and friendlier place to live.” “A SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED BEFORE, WHY CAN’T IT HAPPEN AGAIN?” It can happen again, but it will only come to fruition if that’s what the people want and that’s what the Commissioners, Mr. O’Boyle and Mr. O’Hare want. According to the Town’s records, the Town, under the Mayor’s direction, has spent about $1,000,000.00 thus far on litigation related matters. Unfortunately, the real expendi- tures have yet to come. Remember, de- spite the substantial time that has passed not one of the Public Records Litigations has been settled or has made it inside of a Courtroom. As these Litigations begin to be tried the Town will have to pay its legal costs and the costs incurred by Mr. O’Boyle and Mr. O’Hare, since, after all, even Mayor Morgan (a lawyer) stated on the record that Mr. O’Boyle and Mr. O’Hare had meritorious claims. We here at the Patriot think everyone in the Town wants the legal fees to stop. Un- known to most, however, the Town has budgeted an astounding $4,000,000.00 so that they (the Town) may institute and pursue a RICO Litigation against Mr. O’Boyle and Mr. O’Hare, two men with a desire to end the disputes and return peace to the Town. Besides the $4,000,000.00, at the request of Mayor Morgan, Town Manager Thrasher has put together a contingency plan (should the costs of the RICO Litigation exceed the budgeted $4,000,000). Pursuant to Mayor Morgan’s contingency plan, the Town would solicit donations to fund the RICO Litigation costs as they exceed $4,000,000.00 Has it come to that? Will Gulf Stream seek charity? Will Gulf Stream actually seek charitable contributions to fund unnecessary Litigation? Isn’t a negotiated peaceful resolution a better solution for all? Mr. O’Boyle and Mr. O’Hare have both demonstrated a strong desire to re- solve the matters at hand and return Gulf Stream to the quiet Town that it once was. Unfortunately, the Town Commission has rejected the over- tures of Mr. O’Hare and Mr. O’Boyle. Despite Mr. O’Boyle’s three separate offerings for a “sit down”, all have been rejected by the Commissioners. Is the reason for the Town’s actions to pun- ish Mr. O’Boyle and Mr. O’Hare for speaking out against the administra- tion? What about the cost? Because of the stout costs, the residents are the ones being punished! Let’s all hope a resolution is in sight; and the costs disappear. There is no need to fight when peace is at hand. If it is a fight that the Town insists upon, I’m certain that they will be obliged. But, if the Town is looking for peace and resolve, they should have their counsel contact Mr. O’Boyle’s and Mr. O’Hare’s counsel. Needless to say, with the passing of time, sides in litigation usually harden which makes it that much more difficult to reach an amicable settlement ac- ceptable to both sides. This is a cir- cumstance that the parties and the residents should hope to avoid. CAN WE STOP THE LITIGATION AND ELIMINATE THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN ACCOMPANYING COSTS AND USE THOSE COSTS FOR A PROPER PURPOSE? A WELCOMING VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE IT’S ALL ABOUT THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM w w w . g u l f s t r e a m p a t r i o t . c o m IN SI DE THI S I SSUE : Gulf Stream Happenings 2 Town Blog 3 On-Line Survey Questions 4 Meeting Schedules 4 Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as danger- ous to this country as irresponsi- ble talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character. - Margaret Chase Smith Welcome to the first edition of the Gulf Stream Patriot. If you are currently receiv- ing the Patriot by U.S. Mail, we would ask that you sign up for email delivery (see page 3), whereupon the Patriot can be sent to you instantaneously via email. The goal of the Gulf Stream Patriot is to become a quarterly news publication comprised of news and information as it relates to the Town of Gulf Stream. Once a quarter we will at- tempt to share with you topics of interests, including an on-going series on the Gulf Stream litigation and the resident’s desire to bring peace back to Gulf Stream. The depth and spectrum of the Patriot itself is dependent upon the participation of all Gulf Stream residents. Therefore, we encourage you to visit us online at www.gulfstreampatriot.com to sub- mit an article for consideration, insert a review comment (and review the com- ments of others), or join the mailing list. Thank you and read on! www.G U L F S T R E A M P A T R I O T . C O M P a g e 2 Come to Gulf Stream’s Commission Meetings and hear about the issues. Bill Thrasher is still the Town Manager - but why? The Town Code is written such that it virtually tells you what you can do, where you can do it, what color it can be and what style it must be. Although the Patriot believes that the Town means well in its design criteria, when you “cut through it” what we really have is the Town imposing their taste upon the taste of the individual home owner. Safety concerns aside, it should be that the home owner could install the type of roof that he/she wants along with the type of front door, the type of landscaping, the type of shutters, the type of windows and the list goes on. Why is that not the case? We again get back to the Town imposing its taste for the home owners’ taste. Looking at the home owners, the home owners in Gulf Stream are very successful people. These folks usually have architects and/or designers to assist them when they build or remodel their homes. If not, they usually have experience and they are fully capable of introducing their own tastes in that which they plan. As applies to taste, just remember, Justice Antonio Scalia made the following statement in Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 504-05 (1987): “I think we would be better advised to adopt as a legal maxim what has long been the wis- dom of mankind: De gustibus non est disputandum. Just as there is no use arguing about taste, there is no use litigating about it. For the law courts to decide "What is Beauty" is a novelty even by today's standards.” Justice Scalia said it all. Why don’t we at least try installing a moratorium on the design criteria and let’s see how the home owners will do in designing their homes and in retrofitting their homes absent the Town’s design criteria but with Judge Scalia’s thought in mind. We think the town folks will do just fine. GULF STREAM’S HAPPENINGS At the Commission Meeting on December 12, 2014 Commissioners Stanley, White, Orthwein and Ganger publicly abdicated certain of their duties to the new Mayor Morgan. The Commissioners obviously have forgotten that the voters elected them to perform the duties of Commissioners, and to vote for the various matters that affect the Town of Gulf Stream. The abdication is, frankly, unheard of given that the populous elected the now Commissioners to perform the duties as provided for in the Gulf Stream Charter and else- where. What’s worse is that the abdication was done in arrears based upon a so called “implied” authority. The timing for the implied authority was interesting, as counsel for Mr. O’Boyle wrote to the Town’s counsel ask- ing them for the Mayor’s authority to invoke Bar Complaints. As said, that letter resulted in an implied, in arrears, abdication by the Commissioners. It is likely that this highly unusual action which also involved the Town Attorney, Mr. Randolph, will spur another litigation. As Mr. Randolph will likely admit, there is no legal authority for the abdication. It is activities like those set forth above that are frustrating to those residents who are “watching”. Of course, if you are not watching, you don’t know what is happening and therefore you don’t care. Consequently, the Patriot urges its readers to please attend the Town Commission Meetings and to watch the goings on and to write a letter to the Commissioners if they are dissatisfied or to write a blog in the Patriot, for all residents to see. The Patriot endorses the goal of running the Town on a lawful basis in accordance with the standards set forth by the Florida Constitution. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ~Thomas Jefferson THE ABDICATION WHOSE TASTE APPLIES? The Town of Gulf Stream boasts having 178 acres of recreational and open space. How- ever, the 178 acres is only available to the members of the private clubs situate in the Town. The private clubs include the Gulf Stream Golf Club, The Little Club, and the Gulf Stream Bath and Tennis Club. Private Clubs certainly have a right to exist but the public also has a right to Open Recreational Space. These Private Clubs save millions of dollars each year in reduced property taxes because of the Taxing Authority’s recrea- tional designation of the private clubs’ property. The Town owns a substantial, underused, grassy lot adjacent to Town Hall which is well suited for a recreational area for the general public. Public records indi- c a t e t h e r e a r e n o p l a n s to develop this property in anyway for recreational use. The Town’s web site proclaims “Gulf Stream is exclusively a residential and recreational town”. Let’s make a real ef- fort in 2015 to provide recreational areas for those who do not belong to private clubs. Perhaps, a donation of some land from one or more of those private clubs could get the Town well on its way to be- ing a truly residential and recreational town for all. RECREATIONAL SPACE – A RECIPE FOR ENJOYMENT Commonly known as the First Amendment, it is former- ly known as Amendment 1 to the United States Consti- tution; and prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfer- ing with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petition for government redress of grievances. Speech rights were expanded significantly in the 20th Century with court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech and cam- paign financing. The Supreme Court also defined a se- ries of exceptions to First Amendment protections. As an example, the Supreme Court overturned English Common Law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and liable suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech and is therefore subject to greater regu- lation. Another interesting spoke of the First Amendment is the “Free Press Clause” which protects those who publish information and opinions. This protection applies to a wide variety of media (see New York Times v. United States (1971)). Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amend- ment protected against prior restraint – pre-publication censorship – in almost all cases. In addition, the First Amendment protects freedom of association and guaran- tees the right of assembly. The First Amendment also provides an “establishment of religion” clause, which Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) wrote the following: “Neither a state nor the Federal Govern- ment can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion to another in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall between church and state…. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” WHY IS THERE A FIRST AMENDMENT? Well, we want to hear it. We invite you to visit our website www.gulfstreampatriot.com. Please press the button on the left that says “Town Blog”, then type in your Article (and Title), followed by your Password and press Send. Your Article will be placed in the next edition of the Gulf Stream Patriot or on the Gulf Stream Patriot’s Website . The website provides for additional information, the opportunity to insert a “blog”, upcoming events and public meetings, as well as a listing of “important documents”, all of which are only a “click” away. We do hope that you enjoy our newsletter and that you provide your E-Mail address under the Section titled “Electronic Delivery”, so that in the future, we could deliver the latest edition of the Gulf Stream Patriot to you more promptly and more efficiently. This website and the Gulf Stream Patriot is an enormous step forward for those of us who are not satisfied with the limited r eporting about Gulf Stream. It is our hope that the present administration will recognize the fact that we have organized; and provide the resid ents the opportunity to discuss with the administration the many items in the Town which need addressing. We are excited about the opportunity that the Patriot provides. We intend to gain recognition with the present administratio n, as stated above, and obtain the results which are applicable to the various sections of the Town. Do you have something that you want to say or comment on? P a g e 3 V o l u m e 1 Type address here www.g u l f s t r e a m p a t r i o t . c o m CODE OF ETHICS Many communities today maintain some sort of an Ethics Board or Committee. These independent committees act as overseers of their local governing bodies activities. For the sake of simplicity, they provide a mechanism for checks and P a g e 4 V o l u m e 1 Contact Us: Email: info@ gulfstreampatriot.com IT’S ALL ABOUT THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM GULF STREAM PATRIOT DAY DATE TIME Friday January 9, 2015 9:00am Friday February 13, 2015 9:00am Friday March 13, 2015 9:00am Friday April 10, 2015 9:00am DAY DATE TIME Thursday January 22, 2015 8:30am Thursday February 26, 2015 8:30am Thursday March 26, 2015 8:30am Thursday April 23, 2015 8:30am balances to their local government. Residents over the past months have sug- gested to adopt such a committee. The Gulf Stream Patriot with the support of others would like to create and submit a Code of Ethics Draft to our For three years now, Christopher O’Hare, a resident of Gulf Stream for a far longer period of time, has been attempting to in stall a new roof of his liking on his home at 2520 Avenue Au Soleil. Unfortunately, the roof that he wants is a metal roof and it is prohibited by the Town Design Code for reasons that are unknown to the Patriot; and forbidden by the Mayor. But why? If we drive up and down Federal Highway and into some of the more expensive residential areas, we will see metal roofs galore. Even the Town Attorney, Mr. Randolph compliments their aesthetic value. As a result of not having a roof on his house, Mr. O’Hare has gone through great expense by having to change the felt sub-roof every three months; and is going through the great risk of damage to his remodeled and beautiful home. So why not the metal roof? Mr. O’Hare complied with the Town Design Code as required for a metal roof, but was still not permitted the metal roof. Although he did comply, the Town changed the Code to prohibit metal roofs, thus prohibiting him from having a metal roof. Could it be that this treatment is a response to a civil rights complaint mad e by Mr. O’Hare because of a run in with a police officer? Could it be a response to Mr. O’Hare being vocal in connection with a police officer calling a Mexican a “beaner”? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. O’Hare does not have a roof; that Mr. O’Hare is deservant of a roof; and that Mr. O’Hare w ants a metal roof. The Patriot suggests allowing Mr. O’Hare to have his metal roof. The Patriot believes that a metal roof on the O’Hare home will be aesthetically o u t s t a n d i n g a n d w i l l l i k e l y b e a d o p t e d a n d i n s t a l l e d i n o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e T o w n . Why the Town is spending so much time and energy (and money) fighting Mr. O’Hare is baffling to all those with intimate knowl edge of the circumstances. Hiding behind a Code is not a good thing. Doing the right thing is a good thing. Let’s let him have a roof and let’s let him have a metal roof and let’s go on. C o m m i s s i o n e r s f o r t h e i r r e v i e w a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Anyone interested in participating in the development of a draft of an Ethics Code, please let us know by registering at www.gulfstreampatriot.com. THE PATRIOT’S ON-LINE SURVEY QUESTIONS Since this is the 1st Edition of the Gulf Stream Patriot, the Patriot has decided that its first on-line question should deal with the potential resolution of the Town’s “hottest topic” and that is: Are you in favor of the Town reaching a peaceful resolution with Mr. O’Boyle and Mr. O’Hare, which would end all the expense and litigation in a prompt fashion? We invite you to visit our website www.gulfstreampatriot.com and click on “Survey Questions” to respond to the above question. EVERY HOME NEEDS A ROOF Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 12:58 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:FW: February, 2017 Town Commission Meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Marty O'Boyle \[mailto:moboyle@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:57 PM To: Bill Thrasher (bthrasher@gulf-stream.org) <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org> Cc: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; Brenda Russell <brussell@commerce-group.com> Subject: February, 2017 Town Commission Meeting This message originated from outside your organization Dear Bill: If I am in town for the February Commission Meeting, I would like to request “equal time” to present a counter side to the Sweetapple speech which was held at the Commission Meeting in January. I would like to have the same time. If the intent of having Mr. Sweetapple at the meeting was to alert the townspeople as to the occurrences in connection with the litigation, then you should allow me to speak with the other side of the story for the sole purpose of alerting the townspeople as to the occurrences in the litigation, just like Mr. Sweetapple did. 1 On the other hand, if the purpose of Mr. Sweetapple’s appearance and speech at the Commission Meeting was to disparage Mr. O’Hare and/or me, then I would understand why you would not let me speak. I believe my speaking at the meeting will be informative to the townspeople; and I urge you to allow me that opportunity. Kindly let me hear from you regarding the content of this E-Mail. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Saturday, May 26, 2018 7:24 AM To:Renee Basel; Rita Taylor Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2619 (Chapter 119 Records Request) Attachments:GS #2619 (Chapter 119 Records Request)_prod.re-req.docx Dear Reneé: I address this email to you and to Ms. Rita Taylor, who you state, in the attached letter dated May 25, 2018, that Ms. Taylor is the Custodian of the Records; and the party who has requested for you to send the attached transmittal. I read the attached letter with curiosity. Particularly in connection with the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph, wherein you state: "Because the town responded to your public records request with a request for clarification and/or a request for deposit and you failed to respond within 30 days, your request has been administratively closed." Reneé, please tell me the import of that sentence. Does that mean the request has been denied? Or does that mean something else? If it means something else, please explain to me what it does mean, as I know of no provision under F. S. Chapter 119 that provides for a request to be administratively closed after 30 days. Your prompt response in this connection would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! :-) Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 3:32 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2619 (Chapter 119 Records Request) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, 1 Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:13 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia; Brenda Russell Subject:FW: GS #2635 and #2636 - Gulf Stream - Records Request Attachments:GS #2635 (Cacioppo or SERPENTINE)_prod.clarify.pdf; GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records)_prod.clarify.pdf Hi Renee – I just saw this today. Going forward, if you could try to remember to cc Brenda and Michelle (see email addresses above), that would be helpful. As to 2635, all I want is for you to search the Town’s server for the applicable period for the word Cacioppo” and (separately) for the word “SERPENTINE. Also, please provide same from Police Dept records. This should take but moments. As to 2636, all I want is for you to search the Town’s server for the applicable period for the word O’Boyle. Also, please provide same from Police Dept records. This should take but moments. Kindly let me know if you need any further clarifications. Renee, without being critical, the two attached letters were “somewhat lame”!  Note: this email was prepared using Dragon dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content. If that is the case, I urge you to call or write for clarification. Additionally, I offer my sincerest apologies. My intent here is to avoid any miscommunications. Thank you Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 8:55 AM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2635 and #2636 Good morning, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, 1 Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail March 21, 2018 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2635 (Cacioppo or SERPENTINE) Please provide all records which mentions the name "Cacioppo" or “SERPENTINE”, for the period beginning January 1, 2017, through the date of this request. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated March 18, 2018. The original public records request can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/117936/Page1.aspx Your request seeks “all records which mentions the name “Cacioppo” or “SERPENTINE” from January 1, 2017 through the date of this request”. The Town would like to request clarification on the records you seek before determining whether to provide you with an estimate for the extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance as described in Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). We do not understand your request to seek any particular records as you have failed to sufficiently identify the records that you seek with sufficient particularity to enable the Town to provide a good faith response. The Town requests you clarify the records you are seeking and we will endeavor to respond appropriately. If the Town does not receive clarification from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail March 21, 2018 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2636 (O’Boyle Records) Please provide all records which mentions the name "O’Boyle”, for the period beginning January 1, 2017, through the date of this request. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated March 18, 2018. The original public records request can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/117937/Page1.aspx Your request seeks “all records which mentions the name "O’Boyle”, for the period beginning January 1, 2017 through the date of this request”. The Town would like to request clarification on the records you seek before determining whether to provide you with an estimate for the extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance as described in Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). We do not understand your request to seek any particular records as you have failed to sufficiently identify the records that you seek with sufficient particularity to enable the Town to provide a good faith response. The Town requests you clarify the records you are seeking and we will endeavor to respond appropriately. If the Town does not receive clarification from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 1:11 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records) Attachments:GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records)_prod.est2.pdf Hi Renee - I hope this email find you well. I hope you enjoy the weekend. In connection with the below (which I point out was sent to you 3 weeks ago), I do not see where I have yet received a response. Certainly, the town has had ample time to respond. That aside, I await your response. If I did not receive an adequate response by the close of business on Friday, June 22, 2018, I will send the applicable five-day notice. Renee, please do not consider the 5 day notice as a threat, since it is an. It is a statutory requirement that people seeking public records give to governments when they don't do what they are supposed to. I'm sure you understand. I only wish the town would stop playing "hide the ball" and "delay, delay, delay" and be forthright and prompt when it comes to records request. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 2:25 PM To: 'Renee Basel' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Cc: 'Michelle Melicia (mmelicia@commerce-group.com)' <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: FW: GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records) Renee – your extensive knowledge and recitation of the Law, as in your communication to me of June 1, 2018 (a copy of which is attached so that it is handy) is impressive! WOW  The above aside, the below two paragraphs caught my attention. Please see my annotations highlighted. Your prompt response is appreciated., as this has one on much to lo The estimate provided is a lawful estimate under Florida Law. \[Please provide recitation\] First, the Town will utilize the extensive use of information technology resources to identify responsive records. \[I’m not grasping. Please educate me – explain. Thank you! \] “Information technology resources” is defined as 1 data processing hardware and software and services, communications, supplies, personnel, facility resources, maintenance and training. Section 119.011(9), F.S. 2 The fact that the request involves the use of information technology resources is not sufficient to incur the imposition of the special service charge; rather, extensive use of such resources is required. \[How, by whom and why; and on what basis was the estimate derived? I just don’t get it, but I’m sure that you will educate me, for which I express my appreciation in advance\] AGOs 13-03 and 99-41. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 2:01 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 3 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail June 1, 2018 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2636 (O’Boyle Records) March 18, 2018 e-mail: Please provide all records which mentions the name "O’Boyle”, for the period beginning January 1, 2017, through the date of this request. April 10, 2018 e-mail: As to 2636, all I want is for you to search the Town’s server for the applicable period for the word O’Boyle. Also, please provide same from Police Dept records. This should take but moments. May 26, 2018 follow-up clarification e-mail: I will make arrangements to send you the deposit as required by the statute. In that connection, I would ask that you kindly review the statute and the common-law so that you may determine the proper amount of the deposit, which, according to what I know, is improperly set forth in the attached communication. Please provide me with “chapter and verse” as to how the costs were assessed, e.g. backup, including timesheets, etc.” Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: Thank you for your follow up e-mail. The Town sent you a request for a deposit to cover one hour of extensive use of information technology resources and four hours of staff attorney time. A copy of your public records request can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/117937/Page1.aspx The estimate provided is a lawful estimate under Florida Law. First, the Town will utilize the extensive use of information technology resources to identify responsive records. “Information technology resources” is defined as data processing hardware and software and services, communications, supplies, personnel, facility resources, maintenance and training. Section 119.011(9), F.S. The fact that the request involves the use of information technology resources is not sufficient to incur the imposition of the special service charge; rather, extensive use of such resources is required. AGOs 13-03 and 99-41. Florida courts have approved a local government’s formula for calculating its special service charge based on a determination that it would take more than 15 minutes to locate, review for confidential information, copy, and refile the requested material. See Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. v. Florida Department of Corrections, 579 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review denied, 592 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1991) (court upheld hearing officer’s order rejecting inmates’ challenge to Department of Correction’s rule defining “extensive” for purposes of special service charge to mean it would take more than 15 minutes to locate, review, copy, and refile requested material) AGO 2013-03. An agency is not ordinarily authorized to charge for the cost to review records for statutorily exempt material. AGO 84-81. However, the special service charge may be imposed for this work if the volume of records and the number of potential exemptions make review and redaction of the records a time-consuming task. See Florida Institutional Legal Services v. Florida Department of Corrections, 579 So. 2d at 269. And see Herskovitz v. Leon County, No. 98-22 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. June 9, 1998), noting that “it would not be unreasonable in these types of cases [involving many documents and several different exemptions] to charge a reasonable special fee for the supervisory personnel necessary to properly review the materials for possible application of exemptions.” In State v. Gudinas, No. CR 94-7132 (Fla 9th Cir. Ct. June 1, 1999), the circuit judge approved a rate based on an agency attorney’s salary when the attorney was required to review exempt material in a voluminous criminal case file. The court noted that “only an attorney or paralegal” could responsibly perform this type of review because of the “complexity of the records reviewed, the various public record exemptions and possible prohibitions, and the necessary discretionary decisions to be made with respect to potential exemptions . . . .” The records you seek cover a 15 month period, and because they are only identified as searchable electronic records that contain the word “O’Boyle,” they will include records relating to: you, the Plaintiff in many lawsuits against the Town; the O’Boyle Law Firm, a law firm that has filed numerous lawsuits against the Town; and your son Jonathan O’Boyle, a lawyer who has participated in numerous lawsuits against the Town. Although the majority of these cases date back to 2014, many remain pending at this time. As such, records responsive to your request are voluminous, requiring the use of information technology resources; and relate to ongoing litigation, necessitating a review for exemptions. Therefore, providing you with all public records responsive to your request will require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, pursuant to 119.07(4)(d). Additionally, there are no timesheets or worksheets responsive to your request for how the estimate was determined. The cost estimate was only an estimate, provided in accordance with Florida Law as described above. As previously communicated to you, the Town estimates that to fully respond to your request will require approximately one hour of extensive use of information technology resources at $75.00 per hour, and four hours of staff attorney time at $68.74 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). (One hour @ $75.00 = 75.00) + (Four hours @ $68.74 = $274.96) = Deposit Due: $349.96 in cash or check. If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, July 9, 2018 9:44 AM To:Rita Taylor; Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records) - O'Boyle Attachments:GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records)_prod.est.pdf Dear Madam. custodian of records and Ms. Basel: rd In connection with this email, I point you to the email that I sent you below in May 2026. We are now in our 3 calendar month and I have not had the courtesy of a response. I can only think that my below email was misplaced or it is being purposely avoided. I would like to think the former. I assume we will find out after your receipt of this email, which I would kindly ask you to acknowledge. I think we can all agree that 3 calendar months is a bit "over-the-top" for the town to respond. Accordingly, a prompt response would be appreciated. If I do not received a prompt response (and Ms. basil-please do not consider this a threat), but I will use all available legal remedies to enforce my position, as applicable. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the town continuously playing "delayed" and "hide the above". I'm sure that you understand my frustration in this regard. I thank you for your kind cooperation in advance. :-) Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018 7:08 AM To: 'rbasel@gulf-stream.org' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org>; 'rtaylor@gulf-stream.org' <rtaylor@gulf-stream.org> Cc: 'Michelle Melicia (mmelicia@commerce-group.com)' <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: FW: GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records) Dear with a: I have addressed this email to both you and Ms. Taylor as the “Custodian of “Records” as you have clearly identified her as such in your letter of May 25, 2018, a copy of which is attached for convenience. 1 So that it is clear, the recent 5 day notification was sent in an effort to obtain the records requested 3 months ago. You must admit, that 3 months is a rather lengthy period of time to wait for such a simple request. I assume, had I not sent the 5 day notice, that the records would never have been forthcoming. Going forward, in order to avoid my sending an unpleasant five-day notice; Annand to avoid your receiving an unpleasant five-day notice, the solution, seems to me to be easy: "respond to the records request timely". Simple! :-) You make it a point of stating (quite unnecessarily) that my most recent email included a “threat of litigation”. That was not the intent. The intent was merely a desperate effort to obtain records which should have taken a few hours or a few days, not 3 months. The solution for avoiding such unpleasant events is set forth in the above paragraph. I will make arrangements to send you the deposit as required by the statute. In that connection, I would ask that you kindly review the statute and the common-law so that you may determine the proper amount of the deposit, which, according to what I know, is improperly set forth in the attached communication. I await your prompt response requesting a revised deposit. In reviewing your estimated time to fulfill the request, along with the estimated cost to fulfill the request, it seems to me that the amount of time necessary and the requested costs are "over-the-top". Having said that, I will go along with your program, however, I intend to "cut the cards" as applies to the ultimate billing. In other words, let's make sure that the ultimate billing is consistent with the statute and common law; and, to avoid any further "needless communications" please provide me with "chapter and verse" as to how the costs were assessed, e.g.: backup, including timesheets, etc. In connection with the estimate of the time, when revising your request for the deposit, which, I assume you will do so that it is consistent with the law, please provide me with advice as to the estimate and "how you got there". Upon your receipt of the deposit, we reiterate the 5 day notification. In the same light, if we do not receive the advice requested regarding the revised deposit by the close of business on May 31, 2018, please accept this communication as a reiteration of the 5 day notification. To be clear, we intend to institute suit at the expiration of either of the reiterated 5 day notices, if the records are not produced at that time. You had plenty of time to fulfill the request. The delays are unconscionable. Reneé, please do not take this email as a personal affront towards you, as I look at you fondly. However "enough is enough". PS: it would help us both if you could do the following for me: 1. Explain why this request has not been fulfilled to date; and wide has been ignored for so long. 2. Explain the last sentence of your letter wherein you state: “If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed." I see that frequently; and. I don't know what that means. For clarity, please tell me. Does it mean that the request will be denied? If the answer is yes, please provide your legal basis therefor. If the answer is no, please tell me what it does mean. My intention, of course, is to cooperate with the town. Evidence of that can be seen by waiting 3 months for this ever so simple request to be fulfilled. Thank you. I hope you had a wonderful and relaxing Memorial Day weekend! :-) Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, 2 Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 4:14 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2636 (O'Boyle Records) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 3 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail May 25, 2018 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2636 (O’Boyle Records) Please provide all records which mentions the name "O’Boyle”, for the period beginning January 1, 2017, through the date of this request. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated March 18, 2018, to which we responded on March 21, 2018 with a request for clarification. A copy of your public records request and the Town’s response can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/117937/Page1.aspx The Town notes that we requested that you clarify the records you were seeking in a letter dated March 21, 2018, to which you responded on April 10, 2018, without any clear indication of the records you were seeking. Your most recent correspondence dated May 22, 2018, provided the Town with notice of your public records request pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 119.12(1)(b), and further informed the Town of your intent to “institute a formal legal action” if you do not receive a response before five business days have elapsed, which would be May 30, 2018. As a courtes y, the Town directs you to Fla. Stat. § 119.12(3), which may result in the Town being awarded fees against you for such a lawsuit even if you prevail, and requests that we work together to avoid litigation. It is the Town’s intent to provide you with the records you seek in a reasonable amount of time, after payment of any lawful fees, if applicable. Based on your April 10, 2018 letter and your threat of litigati on in your May 22, 2018 letter, the Town in good faith assumes the records you seek are searchable electronic records located on the Town’s servers. This is based on the language of your April 10, 2018 letter, which stated as follows: As to 2636, all I want is for you to search the Town’s sever for the applicable period for the word O’Boyle. Also, please provide same from Police Dept records. Based on this interpretation, the Town estimates that to fully respond to your request will require approximately one hour of extensive use of information technology resources at $75.00 per hour, and four hours of staff attorney time at $68.74 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). (One hour @ $75.00 = 75.00) + (Four hours @ $68.74 = $274.96) = Deposit Due: $349.96 in cash or check. If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, July 20, 2018 11:32 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2653 (Copies of all outstanding and unfulfilled records request) Attachments:GS #2653 (Copies of all outstanding and unfulfilled records request)_prod.pdf Renee – your response above is rejected. To be clear, I ask for these documents, considering the amount of time that it takes the Town to answer requests and I want to understand why. Your supplying the requested records answers my concerns and allows us a greater opportunity to work with one and other. Please confirm that your response in the attached is your “final response”. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 11:36 AM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2653 (Copies of all outstanding and unfulfilled records request) Good morning, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business 1 are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail July 16, 2018 Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2653 (Copies of all outstanding and unfulfilled records request) Please provide copies of all, outstanding and unfulfilled records request (“URR’s”), existing as of the date of this email, which URR’s are intended to be fulfilled by the town of Gulfstream; and, to the extent available, such records providing for the date of the intended response to the URR’s, together with such records for the cost requested from the request or for same to be fulfilled) if applicable), along with any communications related to such request. To the extent possible, this request is seeking an electronic response. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated July 9, 2018. You should be able to view your original request at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/119522/Page1.aspx Please be advised that all records responsive to your request are publicly available on our website by clicking the link http://www.gulf-stream.org or go to www.gulf-stream.org and click on “Find a Town Record”, then click on “Public Records Requests”. You will then have folders for years 2013-2018. Clicking on any of the folders will give you the option of clicking on the “Public Request Number Log” for that particular year. Clicking on that will take you to the log where you can find copies of the actual requests. The statutory obligation of the custodian of public records is to provide access to, or copies of, public records “at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records” provided that the required fees are paid. Section 119.07(1) (a) and (4), F.s. However, a custodian is not required to give out information from the records of his or her office. AGO 80-57. The Public records act does not require a town to produce an employee, such as the financial officer, to answer questions regarding the financial records of the town. AGO 92-38. Cf. In re Report of the Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records, 825 so. 2d 889, 898 (Fla. 2002) (the custodian of judicial records “is required to provide access to or copies of records but is not required either to provide information from records or to create new records in response to a request”). We consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, February 15, 2019 5:12 PM To:Renee Basel Subject:FW: GS #2689 - Martin - Hidden Harbour Attachments:GS #2689 (Martin Application for Approval)_prod.pdf Renee – thank you for your email. Please confirm that all response documents can be found by following the “treasure map” attached. Incidentally, following the map is not responsive to the request. That said, I will not discuss that further at this time; except to remind you that I wanted to come in and look at the documents, which you are apparently refusing me to do so. Further to your letter, please explain your charge, as I’m not grasping it. Also, please explain the rate. Lastly, you say the Agendas are attached. They are not. Renee, why is it that I get the impression that the Town is playing with me? I await your prompt response. In that connection, if you have any questions, it would be much more efficient to call and discuss, after which you could follow up with a letter. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:23 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2689 Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel 1 Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail February 15, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [Mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2689 (Martin Application for Approval - Lot 1 Hidden harbour Estates - William Weitsma) Please provide all plans, permits, applications and related communications regarding improvements installed or requested to be installed by applicant William Weitsma or William Martin or others, for the property of William Martin, known as Lot 1 Hidden Harbour Estates. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [Mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream received your public record request on February 8, 2019 and subsequent clarification on February 7, 2019. Your request can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/122378/Page1.aspx In your clarification, you state that the records you seek are the plans, communications, agendas, expert reports and “anything else” that should be in “the file” relative to applications and plans made for the property located at 12 Hidden Harbour Drive, owned by Marcia Martin and William Martin, Jr. The Town’s records that consist of the Town’s “file” on this property are located in the Land File and the Architectural Review File, both of which are publicly available on the Town’s website. Go to www.gulf-stream.org, then click on “I want to” and then “Find a Town Record”. From there, for the Land File, click on Building Department, then Land File, then Address, then Hidden Harbour Dr., then 12; or for the Architectural Review File, click on Architectural Review, then Properties by Address, then Hidden Harbour Dr., then 12 Hidden Harbour Dr. – Martin. In both the Land File and Architectural Review File are various subfolders that are the Town’s file on this property, which consists of approximately 750 pages of various documents, including plans, communications and (if applicable) expert reports. You have specifically indicated that you also seek agendas relative to the property. The property went through a Level III Architectural/Site Plan Review and the agendas of the ARPB and Town Commission relative to that approval are attached. If you would also like the meeting minutes relating to each of the attached agendas, please let us know. Please be advised that the production of records above was billed at the rate of $30.58 per hour for 15 minutes, for a total of $7.65. If the Town does not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will confirm our final determination of the costs associated with responding to this public records request and refund the remainder of your Facilitation Fee in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. If this response and more than 750 pages of records concludes your request, please let us know and we will promptly refund the remainder of your Facilitation Fee. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor, Town Clerk Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, May 17, 2019 6:31 AM To:Renee Basel Subject:FW: GS #2704 Attachments:GS #2704 (Records Request - Incident - September 22, 2015)_prod.est.pdf Thank you for your email below. Please let me know if the documents which you made available via the link in the attached letter are in th addition ot; or, are a supplementation to the April 29 production. In that connection, I point out, once again, that I am unable to access the documents in the link. Considering the foregoing; and considering your unreasonable demand that a payment “in full” be made prior to your releasing, to me, the records which the Town is holding (hostage); and, considering that the Town has been advised that the records in the links are inaccessible; and in an effort to avoid further delays in retrieving the records, I am having delivered to you this morning a check in the amount requested, namely, $201.04 + $5.50, for a USB drive so that the records will be available to me. This payment is being tendered under protest and with a reservation of rights, including such matters stated in my recent communications. In connection with the captioned, please provide me with a detailed accounting together with the “back up” records so that I could confirm that the time spent and the costs asserted are proper for your billing. Further to the above, I again point out that the Settlement Agreement requires me to pay only the $250 “Facilitation Fee” not all amounts in full, which you admit that you require from no one else. Please be mindful of that. Please also be mindful that such conduct by the Town represents a continuing breach of the Settlement Agreement; and, as I am beginning to deem necessary, based on the Town’s provocation, I may be forced to take legal action to prevent such conduct (which is clearly retaliatory and is meant only to frustrate my ability to obtain records and to impair my Constitutional Rights) from continuing. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 4:52 PM 1 To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2704 Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail May 16, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2704 (Records Request – Incident – September 22, 2015) Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which mention or refer to Marin O’Boyle, but limited to the incident at the Town Hall on September 22, 2015 regarding Martin O’Boyle. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The original request and correspondence can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/123640/Page1.aspx At your request the Town provided you with a partial production of approximately 190 pages of records on April 29, 2019. We now estimate to fully respond to your request requires four hours of administrative support at $42.90 per hour, two hours and 13 minutes of staff attorney support at $74.07 per hour and one hour of IT support at $115.00 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). The Town notes that you have already paid $250 toward this request. (4 @ $42.90 = $171.60) + (2.22 @ $74.07 = $164.44) + (1 @ $115.00 = $115.00) Deposit Due: $451.04 - $250 Facilitation Fee = $201.04 cash or check. At the above link, 840 pages have been provided to you, which covers your $250 deposit. Upon receipt of the additional $201.04, the Town will supplement the above production with the remainder of records. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, May 20, 2019 9:39 AM To:Renee Basel Cc:Suze Courtney Subject:FW: GS #2705 Attachments:GS #2705 (Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour_prod.pdf; ATT00001.htm Renee – please see highlighted below. If I do not received a response from you, you will force me to move into a litigation posture. Renee -- wouldn’t it be easier just to provide me with the requested information? After all, I paid the money in good faith. I’m thinking that you should reciprocate in good faith. If you disagree, you will tell me or continue your posture of deafening silence. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 9:24 AM To: 'Renee Basel' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: FW: GS #2705 Renee - following up on my email below, please advise whether you intend to send me the requested documentation; and, if so, when I may expect it. If I do not hear from you by days end, I will conclude that you have no intentions on providing the information. Thank you!  Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 10:52 PM To: Renee Basel <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: Fwd: GS #2705 Renee-thank you for your email below and the attached. In connection with the captioned, please provide me with a detailed accounting together with the back up records so that I could confirm that the time spent and they cost asserted are proper for your billing. Your prompt response to this inquiry is appreciated. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com Begin forwarded message: From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Date: May 14, 2019 at 4:08:17 PM EDT To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2705 Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 2 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e- mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 3 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail May 14, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2705 (Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour) Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which refer to 23 N Hidden harbor Dr. Gulf Stream, Fl.; and, more particularly, the Dock and \or Promenade for the period beginning January 1, 2017 thru the date of this request. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The original request and correspondence can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/123656/Page1.aspx The more than 900 pages of records provided to you at the above link supplements the approximately 525 pages of responsive records provided to you in an initial production on May 7, 2019, in response to a $250 deposit. In the May 7, 2019 letter, the Town also noted that “records associated with previous and current building applications hand delivered to the Town of Gulf Stream or the City of Delray Beach relative to this matter, including oversized plans, are available for inspection and copying at the Gulf Stream Town Hall or the City of Delray Beach, if your request seeks those records as well.” In your most recent email dated May 13, 2019, you state that you seek copies of the previous and current building application records that may be responsive to your request, and “as to large plans, please provide copies of the title blocks, whereupon I will decide whether I wish you to provide copies of.” The Town is currently coordinating with the City of Delray Beach to provide you with an estimate for the production of these additional records that were not included in the above estimate, and will respond in a reasonable amount of time. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:45 AM To:Renee Basel; Rita Taylor Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2705 (Dock - Promenade - 23 Hidden Harbour) Attachments:GS #2705 (Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour.prod.part.pdf Dear Ms. Basel & Madam Custodian of Records kindly see the below: Renee - Your attached letter was not necessary. Further, I’m not sure whether it violates the law; but, it seems to me that it creates a breach of the Settlement Agreement. I will let counsel decide these items and proceed accordingly. Now, as to your letter, the last 2 paragraphs state (written by me in blue; f rom you in yellow) see below: Please proceed to produce the records. To the extent that I owe any amounts in connection with the request at hand, I will assuredly pay same promptly. That said, please do not construe this email to be an agreement to pay the amounts set forth in the attached. The Town is unsure how to proceed based on this response. Therefore, upon receipt of the additional $40.46, the Town will supplement the above production with the remainder of records. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. RESPONSE: 1. Your request for $40.46 is absurd, for, inter alia, for the reasons stated above. That said, I want the records; and I am prepared to have the $40.46 delivered (reserving my rights) to the Town this morning, if you continue to require it. If you do, it will be sent with the conditions as set forth in this and prior emails (see yellow above). 2. The request as made in the attached stands. 3. Reminding you that as to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. 4. I point out that this simple request was made on April 16, 2018. A five day letter was sent on April 30, 2019 (which was ignored); a subsequent 5 day letter was sent on May 4, 2019, which was, likewise ignored. 5. At this juncture, I will give a further extension of the 5 day notice most recently send until the end of business on Wednesday May 15, 2019, after which I will file a lawsuit to force the Town from its pattern of violating the law and refusing to produce records; presumably, to satisfy the Mayor’s insatiable appetite to feed his ego; to punish people requesting information from his Kingdom; and to fatten the pockets of his personal attorney, Robert Sweetapple, while disregarding the fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and his obligation to follow the law. 1 Renee – I can’t make myself any clearer. Enough with the game playing. Please advise if the Town’s position is that I must deliver the $40.46, let me know immediately so I could handle this morning. Otherwise, I will expect the records by Wednesday as aforesaid. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 3:46 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2705 (Dock - Promenade - 23 Hidden Harbour) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail May 7, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2705 (Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour) Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which refer to 23 N Hidden harbor Dr. Gulf Stream, Fl.; and, more particularly, the Dock and \or Promenade for the period beginning January 1, 2017 thru the date of this request. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The original request and correspondence can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/123656/Page1.aspx The Town notes that your request seeks “all records” but specifically seeks “communications” about the subject matter of your request. The Town has sought to provide you with all communications relative to this matter by performing the searches explained below. We note that records associated with previous and current building applications hand delivered to the Town of Gulf Stream or the City of Delray Beach relative to this matter, including oversized plans, are available for inspection and copying at the Gulf Stream Town Hall or the City of Delray Beach if your request seeks those records as well. In order to provide you with the above referenced records, the Town performed searches including an IT search of emails from January 1, 2017 to the date of your request with the content “hidden harbour” or “hidden harbor” or “O’Boyle” and “dock” or “promenade.” Further, the Town Attorney also performed searches, including an IT search of emails to or from Joanne O’Connor or John Randolph and @gulf-stream.org for the content “hidden harbour” or “hidden harbor” or “dock” during the same time period. Please note that none of the records produced to you should be construed as waiving any privilege between the Town and its attorneys. Not included in the Town’s production is the Town’s confidential mediation statement sent to Judge Hazouri on March 1, 2019 and any drafts and correspondences regarding same as they are protected by Florida’s mediation privilege, Florida Statues section 44.102(3), and Florida Statues section 119.071(1)(d)1 as prepared by or at the direction of an agency attorney and reflecting a mental impression, conclusion, litigation strategy, or legal theory of the attorney in the following cases: O’ Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No: 502014CA011940XXXXMB (Count I only) Asset Enhancement, Inc. v. Gulf Stream, Case No: 502014CA010216XXXXMB O’ Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA008076XXXXMB Stopdirtygovernment v. Gulf Stream, Case No: 502014CA003721XXXXMB O’ Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No: 502014CA004474XXXXMB To the extent your request relates to an item that was part of larger settlement discussions between you or your lawyers and the Town, its lawyers, or it’s Mayor, those records are in your possession and are further deemed to be unresponsive to your request. However, as a courtesy and in an abundance of caution, many of those records were provided, including records that came up in one of the many above IT searches. In response to our request for an additional $40.46 to fully respond to this request, you stated the following: Please proceed to produce the records. To the extent that I owe any amounts in connection with the request at hand, I will assuredly pay same promptly. That said, please do not construe this email to be an agreement to pay the amounts set forth in the attached. The Town is unsure how to proceed based on this response. Therefore, upon receipt of the additional $40.46, the Town will supplement the above production with the remainder of records. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Saturday, June 1, 2019 3:50 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2705 (Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour) - accounting - records deposits Attachments:GS #2705 (Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour.prod.est2.pdf Renee – thank you for your email. You mention that the letter from Delray is within the referenced link. I have let you know in the past and I will let you know again that I have difficulty retrieving, reviewing and downloading docs from your links. With that in mind, please forward me the letter from Delray, after which I will review and respond. Also, what is the basis for the supplemental fee? Why is it necessary? Please also send me an accounting as to where we stand as applies to Facility Fees paid v expended. I believe that you are holding in excess of $250. Please advise.. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Grou 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 3:34 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2705 (Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 1 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail May 31, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2705 (Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden Harbour) Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which refer to 23 N Hidden harbor Dr. Gulf Stream, Fl.; and, more particularly, the Dock and \or Promenade for the period beginning January 1, 2017 thru the date of this request. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The original request and correspondence can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/123656/Page1.aspx The Town initially indicated on May 7, 2019 that building applications and plans submitted by you to the Town of Gulf Stream and City of Delray Beach were not part of the estimate, but would be provided “if your request seeks those records as well.” You later indicated that your request did seek those records, including records from Delray Beach, so the Town requested an estimate for the records from Delray Beach and received that estimate on Wednesday, May 29, 2019, to which you can see at the above link. To supplement our response to your request to include building applications and plans submitted by you requires a half hour of administrative support at $42.90 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d) plus the estimate from the City of Delray Beach. (1/2 hour @ $42.90 = $21.45) + ($26.15) Deposit Due: $47.60 cash or check. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your pubic records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:51 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2723 (Brannon - Undergrounding Project) Attachments:GS #2723 (Brannon - Undergrounding Project)_prod.est.pdf When a-thank you for your email below and the attached letter dated September 4, 2019. Would you be kind enough to explain to me how the 5.83 hours of administrative support was spent. Also, please explain to me why there will be another 4 hours necessary, since you have already received the records. Upon your prompt receipt of the inquiries in the preceding paragraph, I will make a decision as to whether to pay the money or file suit. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:16 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2723 (Brannon - Undergrounding Project) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Kind regards, Reneé Rowan Basel Assistant Town Clerk Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 1 561.737.0188 – fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail September 4, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2723 (Brannon – Undergrounding Project) To the Town of Gulf Stream, please provide: 1. All records (as defined in Chapter 119 F.S.) regarding or relating to or emanating from (“Regarding”) the underground electric project (the “Project”) applicable to the area south of the Gulf Stream Country Club (the “Area”), including, without limitation, all files, maps, surveys, easements, instruments permits, approvals, authorizations, directives, agreements, narratives, plans, invoices, records of payments, contracts, work orders, change orders communications (including, without limitation, text messages, emails, directives, memos, notes and other writings (electronic or otherwise) “Communications”)) with any party regarding or which relates to or which emanates from the Project and its scope, including, without limitation, all communications with FPL, and attorneys, other utility companies (such as phone, gas, water and cable companies) and any contractors, to the extent that such parties were involved with or contacted in connection with the Project. 2. All Communication sent to or received by persons or entities who own (or owned) real property in Hidden Harbor Estates (including the properties East of the Hidden Harbour Estates and West of A1A and including the properties immediately south of Hidden Harbour Drive) (the “HH Owners”), or persons purporting to be the attorneys, agents or representative(s) of the HH Owners, from January 1, 2013 to the date when the responsive documents to this request have been fully produced. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. and Brannon and Gillespie and Danny Brannon (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm or entity.). As to any records which you choose not to produce any record(s), kindly provide a Log including an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The original request and correspondence can be found by going to the Town’s website at www.gulf-stream.org, click on Find a Town Record, click the Public Records Requests folder, click the 2019 folder, click the Public Records Requests 2019 folder and then click the PRR 19- 2723 folder. The Town has reviewed, and redacted if necessary, a portion of Brannon and Gillespie’s electronic files and they can be found in the PRR 19-2723 folder. This initial production of records is covered by your $250 deposit, which was 5.83 hours of administrative support at $42.90 per hour ($250.11). We received Hypower’s electronic records on August 27, 2019. To fully respond to your request will now require approximately an additional four hours of administrative support at $42.90 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). (Four hours @ $42.90 = $179.00) Deposit Due: $179.00 cash or check. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 9, 2019 7:51 AM To:Renee Basel; Gregory Dunham; Rita Taylor Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2730 - Accounting Attachments:GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money)_prod2.pdf Dear Ms. Basel, Madam Custodian (Ms. Taylor) and Policy Maker (Town manager – Greg Dunham) My request for information regarding billings explanations (for what I believe are over billings) from the Town, continues to go unanswered. I dread the thought that such a simple request requires institution of litigation, but that seems to be the Town’s Policy to cause litigation whenever they can. If what I say is not the Policy, I’m sure the Town Manager will explain. rd Tomorrow starts the 3 week since I made this ever so simple request. Please see below and attached communications. What, if anything, does the Town not understand? In lieu of a prompt response, I intend to institute litigation, which seems to be the desire (and Policy) of the Town. Please convince me that I am wrong. I now await your prompt and sensible response. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:41 PM To: 'rbasel@gulf-stream.org' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com>; 'rtaylor@gulf-stream.org' <rtaylor@gulf-stream.org> Subject: FW: GS #2730 - Accounting Renee – thanks for your letter (attached). It was not helpful. So, let’s take baby steps: 1 1. What triggers the costs to begin? 2. Isn’t there a window of 30 minutes before costs begin to accrue? I don’t see that reflected in your billings. 3. How do you estimate the “down to the second costs’? What are the steps used? Once I have those answers, I will know better where to go. Right now, absent clear and convincing evidence (which I hope the Town wishes to provide), I will need to move to the next step. Please do not make me do that. Please cooperate. I’m entitled to know whether the Town is overcharging me, for spite, as a retaliatory scheme to prohibit me from obtaining records in violation of my 1t Amendment rights or whether they are just being over zealous. Once I understand to the satisfaction of a reasonable person; and understand going forward, all will be good. Your prompt response would be appreciated. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 4:23 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2730 Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in 2 response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 3 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail June 28, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money) I write this email to request an accounting of the substantial sums of money that I have paid to the Town in connection with the various requests made by me pursuant to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. In that connection, I have asked Renee Basel innumerable times to provide me with an accounting for the $$$ paid to the Town. I would ask you kindly confirm or the veracity of the preceding sentence with Ms. Basel. To be clear, each request for an accounting was greeted with a refusal to respond. I am now at the point where I insist on receiving the accounting, as requested. In that connection, if you feel you need any clarification as to what I am asking for, please contact me. I am making this one last request. If the Town does not provide the requested accounting; or provide me with a response that you will (within a reasonable period of time) provide the accounting by the close of business tomorrow, I will (with great reluctance) proceed to file suit and ask the Court to order the Town to do so. June 22, 2019 Follow-up: Firstly, the request made in my below email, of Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:55 AM, was not a request for records made pursuant to Chapter 119. Based upon Ms. Basel’s letter (attached) the Town's position is otherwise. Please provide the Town's legal position, citing its basis that a request for an accounting of monies in connection with a specific Chapter 119 request requires a new Chapter 119 request. Upon receipt, we will provide you with a prompt response. In the meantime, my position is that I have not been provided with a detailed accounting, explaining her the Town's basis for the imposition of its unexplained or costs. Consequently, unless I hear from the Town by the close of business on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 with either: (a) a legal position as to why our request would constitute the need to file under Chapter 119 (which our counsel agrees with); or (b) an invitation to promptly meet with the Town to obtain a proper accounting; or (c) unless an alternate agreement is reached, we will immediately institute suit and ask the Court to provide that which we are looking for. As always, I urge you to work with us and avoid litigation. June 25, 2019 Follow-up: When calculating the billings, the town calculated the time down to seconds. I do not understand the basis or such a finite advance time calculation. Plainly stated, I need to understand the basis for the calculation of time; and where and how the time was spent and by whom. Rita, I am convinced that I have been overbilled; and I know that I have been “stone walled” in connection with my multiple requests for an accounting over the last months . Further to the above, it is good to hear from you, as I’m thinking that you appreciate and desire to avoid litigation. Assuming I’m correct, you ne to know that I share that appreciation and desire. On the other hand, unless I get a clear understanding of the charges, I will be left with no choice but to litigate. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated June 20, 2019. You should be able to view your original request and the follow-up requests received on June 22, 2019 and June 25, 2019 at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/158945/Page1.aspx You state that “I need to understand the basis for the calculation of time; and where and how the time was spent and by whom.” You have been provided this information in response to each and every public records request you have made, when applicable. You further state that you are being advised by an attorney relative to this issue, who should be able to explain to you the breakdown of costs articulated by the Town in each letter. If you are still confused, or if there are specific requests that still confuse you, please let us know. The basis for the costs are pursuant to Florida Statue § 119.07 (4)(d), which are the costs incurred for extensive use of information technology resources and/or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance, billed at the labor cost of the personnel providing the service. These costs are incurred in providing you with the produced records. You also state the “finite advance time calculation” confuses you. When making your recent public records requests, you have paid the Town a $250 facilitation fee. Once your request is sufficiently clarified to allow the Town to identify responsive records and respond, the Town performs work to fill your request and draws from this amount in accordance with the language of the 2018 Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the 2018 Settlement Agreement, the Town first receives your facilitation fee, then: [I]n the event that the costs associated with responding to the applicable public records request are less than the corresponding Facilitation Fee, the Facilitation Fee (after reduction of the costs associated with responding to the request) will be refunded to Martin E. O’Boyle within ten (10) days of the Town’s determination of the costs Following this policy agreed upon by you and the Town, after the exact cost is determined, it is communicated to you and a refund is issued, if applicable. For example, in a May 13, 2019 request made by you numbered GS #2720, the Town explained that: The Town charges every requestor whose request is large enough to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance. If a requestor does not pay for their records, they do not get them. This is true for Town residents (GS #2626), non-residents (GS #2634) and news reporters (GS #2638) alike. Located at the above link is documentation for three payments for public records requests, including two copies of checks, and one daily cash report because that request was paid by cash. The costs of production were less than the $250.00 deposit, so the Town will provide you with a refund of $228.55. In request GS #2720, a half hour of clerical or supervisory assistance was charged at the staff rate of $42.90, for a total of $21.45, which was the labor cost of the personnel providing the service pursuant to § 119.07. The Town appreciates the ability to work with you in explaining how your requests are fulfilled. If there are specific records requests that confuse you, please let the Town know and we will attempt to fulfill your need for additional information on those specific requests as well. We consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 10, 2019 8:01 PM To:Renee Basel; Rita Taylor; Gregory Dunham Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money) Attachments:GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money)_prod3.pdf Dear Ms. Basel, Mdm. Custodian of records (Rita Taylor) and Town Manager (Greg Dunham): I make reference to the attached letter from Ms. basil dated July 10, 2090. In that connection, I continue to struggle why this simple request for an understanding of how the Town billed is becoming so difficult Once again, let’s take Baby Steps: With specificity, please answer the following questions, which may go a long way in assisting us to get through this process: 1. Is the clock running" when you receive the request? 2. Is the clock running when you review the request? 3. Is the clock running when you review the request with others? 4. Is the clock running when you discuss the request with others? 5.. Is the clock running for the period of time it takes to prepare these letters 6. and receive and review the emails and other writings from me? 7. Is the clock running for the time needed to formulate, prepare, edit, sign off and release these letters? 8. Is the clock running for the time needed to review, discuss and formulate a response to communications from me? 9. Please see number 3 as set forth on the last page of the attached letter? 10. Are there charges billed for anything other than time spent seeking records? In addition, and to confirm the veracity of the time that Rene has said was spent (and how (with specificity) it was spent, please provide me with copies of all timesheets which would demonstrate the time that the town's billing for. This is a n easy request and I am entitled to know if my the insistence that I pay the requested money was properly billed. Please understand that. Please, no more “finessing, deflection, etc). Just make me feel good knowing that Gulf Stream is not overbilling me. Lastly, please confirm that it is not the Town's position that this inquiry requesting an accounting for the monies paid by me to fulfill Records Request is not a Records Request under Chapter 119.. Please provide a prompt response 1 Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 4:29 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail July 10, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money) I write this email to request an accounting of the substantial sums of money that I have paid to the Town in connection with the various requests made by me pursuant to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. In that connection, I have asked Renee Basel innumerable times to provide me with an accounting for the $$$ paid to the Town. I would ask you kindly confirm or the veracity of the preceding sentence with Ms. Basel. To be clear, each request for an accounting was greeted with a refusal to respond. I am now at the point where I insist on receiving the accounting, as requested. In that connection, if you feel you need any clarification as to what I am asking for, please contact me. I am making this one last request. If the Town does not provide the requested accounting; or provide me with a response that you will (within a reasonable period of time) provide the accounting by the close of business tomorrow, I will (with great reluctance) proceed to file suit and ask the Court to order the Town to do so. June 22, 2019 Follow-up: Firstly, the request made in my below email, of Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:55 AM, was not a request for records made pursuant to Chapter 119. Based upon Ms. Basel’s letter (attached) the Town's position is otherwise. Please provide the Town's legal position, citing its basis that a request for an accounting of monies in connection with a specific Chapter 119 request requires a new Chapter 119 request. Upon receipt, we will provide you with a prompt response. In the meantime, my position is that I have not been provided with a detailed accounting, explaining her the Town's basis for the imposition of its unexplained or costs. Consequently, unless I hear from the Town by the close of business on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 with either: (a) a legal position as to why our request would constitute the need to file under Chapter 119 (which our counsel agrees with); or (b) an invitation to promptly meet with the Town to obtain a proper accounting; or (c) unless an alternate agreement is reached, we will immediately institute suit and ask the Court to provide that which we are looking for. As always, I urge you to work with us and avoid litigation. June 25, 2019 Follow-up: When calculating the billings, the town calculated the time down to seconds. I do not understand the basis or such a finite advance time calculation. Plainly stated, I need to understand the basis for the calculation of time; and where and how the time was spent and by whom. Rita, I am convinced that I have been overbilled; and I know that I have been “stone walled” in connection with my multiple requests for an accounting over the last months . Further to the above, it is good to hear from you, as I’m thinking that you appreciate and desire to avoid litigation. Assuming I’m correct, you ne to know that I share that appreciation and desire. On the other hand, unless I get a clear understanding of the charges, I will be left with no choice but to litigate. June 28, 2019 Follow-up: So, let’s take baby steps: 1. What triggers the costs to begin? 2. Isn’t there a window of 30 minutes before costs begin to accrue? I don’t see that reflected in your billings. 3. How do you estimate the “down to the second costs’? What are the steps used? Once I have those answers, I will know better where to go. Right now, absent clear and convincing evidence (which I hope the Town wishes to provide), I will need to move to the next step. Please do not make me do that. Please cooperate. I’m entitled to know whether the Town is overcharging me, for spite, as a retaliatory scheme to prohibit me from obtaining records in violation of my 1t Amendment rights or whether they are just being over zealous. Once I understand to the satisfaction of a reasonable person; and understand going forward, all will be good. Your prompt response would be appreciated. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated June 20, 2019. You should be able to view your original request and the follow-up requests received on June 22, 2019 and June 25, 2019 and June 28, 2019 at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/158945/Page1.aspx In your June 28, 2019 e-mail, you state: So, let’s take baby steps: 1. What triggers the costs to begin? 2. Isn’t there a window of 30 minutes before costs begin to accrue? I don’t see that reflected in your billings. 3. How do you estimate the “down to the second costs’? What are the steps used? With respect to numbers 1 and 3, the Town, in its June 28, 2019 letter explained to you the basis for costs, and that once your requests were sufficiently clarified, the Town performs work to fulfill your request and draws from the facilitation fee in accordance with the language of the 2018 Settlement Agreement. With respect to number 2 and the ‘window of 30 minutes,’ the Town understands this to refer to the policy of the Town to not charge a requestor for the first 15 minutes of responding to a request. The Town no longer reflects this in its estimate letters, but does provide 15 minutes free to all requestors before costs begin to accrue. The Town appreciates the ability to work with you in explaining how your requests are fulfilled. If there are specific records requests that confuse you, please let the Town know and we will attempt to fulfill your need for additional information on those specific requests as well. We consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, July 15, 2019 4:33 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2730 (substantial sums of money) - accounting Attachments:GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money)_prod4.pdf Renee – you have my July 10, 2019 inquiry, which you have refused to answer. Please respond. With the 10 questions. Please advise whether you intend to address and respond to those 10 inquiries individually. Also, please let me know if you have timesheets as requested in the paragraph succeeding paragraph #10; and whether you intend to supply them. Lastly, you continuously refer to this inquiry to what I commonly refer to as an accounting, as a “Chapter 119 Records nd Request”. I do not see it as such. Please see my Une 22 email follow up. Please advise as requested. Renee, I do not intend to play “cat and mouse” any more. If I do not receive satisfactory answers before week’s end, I will seek Judicial Intervention. You decide whether forcing me to do so is a good use of taxpayer money. It sesm to me that communicating (a call would be good), will likely resolve the matter. Again, you decide. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:03 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2730 (substantial sums of money) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, 1 Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail July 15, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2730 (Substantial sums of money) I write this email to request an accounting of the substantial sums of money that I have paid to the Town in connection with the various requests made by me pursuant to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. In that connection, I have asked Renee Basel innumerable times to provide me with an accounting for the $$$ paid to the Town. I would ask you kindly confirm or the veracity of the preceding sentence with Ms. Basel. To be clear, each request for an accounting was greeted with a refusal to respond. I am now at the point where I insist on receiving the accounting, as requested. In that connection, if you feel you need any clarification as to what I am asking for, please contact me. I am making this one last request. If the Town does not provide the requested accounting; or provide me with a response that you will (within a reasonable period of time) provide the accounting by the close of business tomorrow, I will (with great reluctance) proceed to file suit and ask the Court to order the Town to do so. June 22, 2019 Follow-up: Firstly, the request made in my below email, of Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:55 AM, was not a request for records made pursuant to Chapter 119. Based upon Ms. Basel’s letter (attached) the Town's position is otherwise. Please provide the Town's legal position, citing its basis that a request for an accounting of monies in connection with a specific Chapter 119 request requires a new Chapter 119 request. Upon receipt, we will provide you with a prompt response. In the meantime, my position is that I have not been provided with a detailed accounting, explaining her the Town's basis for the imposition of its unexplained or costs. Consequently, unless I hear from the Town by the close of business on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 with either: (a) a legal position as to why our request would constitute the need to file under Chapter 119 (which our counsel agrees with); or (b) an invitation to promptly meet with the Town to obtain a proper accounting; or (c) unless an alternate agreement is reached, we will immediately institute suit and ask the Court to provide that which we are looking for. As always, I urge you to work with us and avoid litigation. June 25, 2019 Follow-up: When calculating the billings, the town calculated the time down to seconds. I do not understand the basis or such a finite advance time calculation. Plainly stated, I need to understand the basis for the calculation of time; and where and how the time was spent and by whom. Rita, I am convinced that I have been overbilled; and I know that I have been “stone walled” in connection with my multiple requests for an accounting over the last months . Further to the above, it is good to hear from you, as I’m thinking that you appreciate and desire to avoid litigation. Assuming I’m correct, you ne to know that I share that appreciation and desire. On the other hand, unless I get a clear understanding of the charges, I will be left with no choice but to litigate. June 28, 2019 Follow-up: So, let’s take baby steps: 1. What triggers the costs to begin? 2. Isn’t there a window of 30 minutes before costs begin to accrue? I don’t see that reflected in your billings. 3. How do you estimate the “down to the second costs’? What are the steps used? Once I have those answers, I will know better where to go. Right now, absent clear and convincing evidence (which I hope the Town wishes to provide), I will need to move to the next step. Please do not make me do that. Please cooperate. I’m entitled to know whether the Town is overcharging me, for spite, as a retaliatory scheme to prohibit me from obtaining records in violation of my 1t Amendment rights or whether they are just being over zealous. Once I understand to the satisfaction of a reasonable person; and understand going forward, all will be good. Your prompt response would be appreciated. July 2, 2019 Follow-up: Rita – will I be hearing from you. I really want to get this resolved without having to file a lawsuit. A little cooperation will go along way. If you have any further questions as to precisely what I am looking for, let’s sit down. I am not understanding this recalcitrance. If you (as the responsible party) prefer to litigate (which I will never understand why) and have me gain the requested information through discovery, let me know. Again, that is not my preference, but absent cooperation, you will leave me no choice. Rita, the Town’s continuing pattern to punish me for exercising my constitutional right; and to punish the Taxpayers by requiring them to fund unnecessary litigation, is beyond me. I need to understand the Town’s position. Please advise July 10, 2019 Follow-up: I make reference to the attached letter from Ms. basil dated July 10, 2090. In that connection, I continue to struggle why this simple request for an understanding of how the Town billed is becoming so difficult Once again, let’s take Baby Steps: With specificity, please answer the following questions, which may go a long way in assisting us to get through this process: 1. Is the clock running" when you receive the request? 2. Is the clock running when you review the request? 3. Is the clock running when you review the request with others? 4. Is the clock running when you discuss the request with others? 5.. Is the clock running for the period of time it takes to prepare these letters 6. and receive and review the emails and other writings from me? 7. Is the clock running for the time needed to formulate, prepare, edit, sign off and release these letters? 8. Is the clock running for the time needed to review, discuss and formulate a response to communications from me? 9. Please see number 3 as set forth on the last page of the attached letter? 10. Are there charges billed for anything other than time spent seeking records? In addition, and to confirm the veracity of the time that Rene has said was spent (and how (with specificity) it was spent, please provide me with copies of all timesheets which would demonstrate the time that the town's billing for. This is a n easy request and I am entitled to know if my the insistence that I pay the requested money was properly billed. Please understand that. Please, no more “finessing, deflection, etc). Just make me feel good knowing that Gulf Stream is not overbilling me. Lastly, please confirm that it is not the Town's position that this inquiry requesting an accounting for the monies paid by me to fulfill Records Request is not a Records Request under Chapter 119.. Please provide a prompt response Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated June 20, 2019. You should be able to view your original request and the follow-up requests received on June 22, 2019, June 25, 2019, June 28, 2019, July 2, 2019 and July 10, 2019 at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/158945/Page1.aspx The Town’s policy for responding to public records requests is based upon the text of Chapter 119 and judicial interpretations of the statutory language. With respect to service charges, the Town’s policy is predicated upon the language of section 119.07(4)(d) and such cases as Trout v. Bucher, 205 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The Town imposes a reasonable service charge on a case-by-case basis when the Town's response to a particular public records request requires the extensive use of information technology resources, extensive clerical assistance, or extensive supervisory assistance. The Town provides an estimate to the requesting party based upon the anticipated actual cost of duplication and the anticipated amount of its labor cost. Because each specific public records request is unique, the Town is not in a position to provide general statements about the service charges, if any, it would impose. Instead, the Town will provide an estimate after the Town has first had an opportunity to review and evaluate a specific public records request. Please be advised that staff time sheets track hours, but do not show how much time is worked on any particular request. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:30 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2733 (Text messages January 1, 2014 forward) Attachments:GS #2733 (Text messages January 1, 2014 forward)_administrativelyclosed.pdf; GS # 2733 (Text messages January 1, 2014 forward)_prod.est.pdf Rene-I received your email below and the attached (letter) pdf file (with the name "administratively closed" in it). Quite frankly, I find the content of the aforementioned letter baffling. To be clear, as I understand it, we have paid the $250 fee upon making the request. Further, as I understand it, as requested in your July 26, 2090 letter (a copy of which is attached) we have paid the $39.58 requested amount and $42.90 requested amount, which represents 100% of that which you have requested. Further to the above, and I’m assuming that you were unaware, I was away for 2 months. When I returned, I asked my office that the payment be promptly made. In that connection, as I understand it, that payment was made 2 days later than you would have wished; and, as a result, you are now taking the position that I am not entitled to the documents. If I am correct, I find the your position absurd. The above aside, I want the documents. I don't know what I can do other than issue a new check for the $250 (which I assume you will immediately refunded, as you already received the $250 for the request) and to reissue the $39.58 and $42.90 checks, which you already have. Am I missing something? Please let me know what you wish me to do. I insist on obtaining the documents immediately. As you state, they are readily available. You have received all of the funds. To make me go through a whole new application is nonsensical. That said, please let me hear from you promptly and I will proceed appropriately. In that connection, I would like to make arrangements to have the documents picked up in the morning, once I get clear instruction from you as to what additional "hoops" you would like me to jump through. Rene, you cannot crowd at town Hall never cease to amaze me. I look forward to the day when a Court will be able to see Town's conduct (and your conduct) as applies to the handling of my exercising my constitutional rights for records. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 From: Renee Basel <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:18 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2733 (Text messages January 1, 2014 forward) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Kind regards, Reneé Rowan Basel Assistant Town Clerk Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188 – fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail September 4, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2733 (Text messages January 1, 2014 forward) Please provide all text messages sent by, received by, created by or stored by any of the Gulf Stream Parties, whether created by, stored by, received by or sent by any medium whether owned or leased by any of the Gulf Stream Parties" or any other party acting on behalf of or under the direction of any of the Gulf Stream Parties, for the period beginning January 1, 2014 to the date that all responsive documents to this request have been provided. It is also requested that, when the responsive documents have been provided by the Town, that the Town certify that all responsive documents to the request have been provided in accordance with the requirements under Chapter 119 and in accordance with this request. In this connection, I also point out the requirements in connection with his request regarding withheld and or redacted documents, as set forth below. The term “Gulf Stream Parties” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. NOTE: to the extent that any clarification is requested, please provide same in writing with as much detail as possible so that we could help each other clearly understand the request. Please note that any clarifications made (by way of a clarification or amendment) (an “Amendment”) by the requestor, such Amendment shall supersede and replace the original request. This is important, as it will assist us both in avoiding any misunderstan dings. Further in this regard, to the extent that the Town decides to prepare letters and other communications, which improperly recite the request, by not reciting the proper request as in the Amendment, they shall do so at their own peril. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The original request and partial production can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/158994/Page1.aspx The Town’s policy is to administratively close public records requests after 30 days if we do not hear back from a requestor. In our July 26, 2019 letter, the Town informed you that “if we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed.” The Town received your most recent correspondence dated August 28, 2019, approximately 32 days after our July 26, 2019 response. Because the Town responded to your public records request with a request for a deposit and you failed to respond within 30 days, your request has been administratively closed and the check we received on September 4, 2019 will be returned to you. If you would like to re-request these records, please let us know. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail July 26, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2733 (Text messages January 1, 2014 forward) Please provide all text messages sent by, received by, created by or stored by any of the Gulf Stream Parties, whether created by, stored by, received by or sent by any medium whether owned or leased by any of the Gulf Stream Parties" or any other party acting on behalf of or under the direction of any of the Gulf Stream Parties, for the period beginning January 1, 2014 to the date that all responsive documents to this request have been provided. It is also requested that, when the responsive documents have been provided by the Town, that the Town certify that all responsive documents to the request have been provided in accordance with the requirements under Chapter 119 and in accordance with this request. In this connection, I also point out the requirements in connection with his request regarding withheld and or redacted documents, as set forth below. The term “Gulf Stream Parties” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. NOTE: to the extent that any clarification is requested, please provide same in writing with as much detail as possible so that we could help each other clearly understand the request. Please note that any clarifications made (by way of a clarification or amendment) (an “Amendment”) by the requestor, such Amendment shall supersede and replace the original request. This is important, as it will assist us both in avoiding any misunderstandings. Further in this regard, to the extent that the Town decides to prepare letters and other communications, which improperly recite the request, by not reciting the proper request as in the Amendment, they shall do so at their own peril. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [e-mail to: meo@commerce-group.com]: The original request and partial production can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/158994/Page1.aspx To fully respond to your request requires 6 hours and 45 minutes of administrative support at $42.90 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). The Town notes that you have already paid $250 toward this request and has provided you an initial production of records covering your $250 deposit at the above link. Upon receipt of the additional $39.58 to cover the balance of the cost to respond to this request, the Town will provide the remaining records in a reasonable amount of time. (6.75 @ $42.90 = $289.58) Deposit Due: $289.58 - $250 Facilitation Fee = $39.58 cash or check. In addition, if you would like copies of the videos, photos and attachments contained in the text messages, we estimate that production of those photos, videos and other attachments will take approximately another hour of administrative support at $42.90 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). (One hour @ $42.90 = $42.90) Deposit Due: $42.90 cash or check. If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. Please note that many of these records have met their retention, are transitory in nature, or otherwise are not public records as they do not perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge of the Town of Gulf Stream. Therefore, some of these records are only being provided to you as a courtesy, in an abundance of caution, and should not be construed to be public records or responsive to this request. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, July 5, 2019 3:36 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: GS #2735 (emanate from the episode at the Gulf Stream Town hall) Attachments:GS #2735 (emanate from the episode at the Gulf Stream Town hall)_intake.pdf Renee – I am struggling to understand the content of your attached letter. Please let me know PROMPTLY if you are refusing to fulfill the request because of the word “emanate”? Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 3:23 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2735 (emanate from the episode at the Gulf Stream Town hall) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org 1 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail July 5, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2735 (emanate from the episode at the Gulf Stream Town hall) Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which emanate from the episode at the Gulf Stream Town hall on September 22, 2015 involving Martin O’Boyle, which records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, texts, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by, stored by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. Lastly, if the Town needs any clarifications regarding this request, I urge you to alert me promptly, as time is of the essence. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [meo@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated July 2, 2019. Thank you for your Facilitation Fee of $250.00 by check #50014 on July 2, 2019 for the public record request described above. The Town will apply this to the production of records in accordance with the 2018 Settlement Agreement. You should be able to view your original request at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/159047/Page1.aspx Your request is nearly identical to a request you made in April 2019, labeled by the Town as GS #2704 and which is currently the subject of a lawsuit you have filed against the Town. This request is different in one respect, in that it seeks all records that “emanate” from a specific incident. As stated on the record by the Town’s lawyer at the June 21, 2019 hearing before the Honorable Judge Scott Kerner, the word “emanate” is not sufficient for the Town to identify the records responsive to your request. In interpreting this request, the Town believes the records you are seeking are those responsive to GS # 2704 and those additional records that will be provided to you by July 10, 2019 in accordance with the anticipated Order resulting from the June 21, 2019 hearing before the Honorable Judge Scott Kerner, in which the Town will provide records that (1) mention or refer to Martin O’Boyle and (2) either mention or refer to the September 22, 2015, incident at Town Hall or to the subsequent criminal trial (State of Florida v. Martin E. O’Boyle, Case No: 2015MM012872AXX). If you seek additional records that are not within the scope of the records previously provided, or that will be provided in response to the anticipated Order by Honorable Judge Scott Kerner, please let us know and we will be happy to provide you with the records you seek. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 7, 2018 8:20 AM To:Gregory Dunham Cc:Michelle Melicia; Brenda Russell Subject:FW: Gulfstream-request for parade/demonstration/protest permit-letter from town manager-February 20, 2018 Attachments:parade permit letter.pdf Dear Mr. Dunham: rd Today begins the 3 week since I sent you the below email. Your "silence is deafening."; and clearly lacks the "good faith" that one would expect that a governmental official, such as a Town Manager, should and would be providing to a resident and taxpayer. As your conduct continues, I can only assume that the Gulfstream's hierarchy is requiring you to act in the fashion in which you are acting, which, quite frankly, I find to be repulsive. No matter, I would ask you to perform your responsibilities as the Town Manager. If the hierarchy is forcing you to act otherwise, let me suggest that you alert the Inspector General who I'm sure would be willing to hear you out. Alternatively, I would ask you to kindly respond to my inquiry in my email below. In the practice of fashions. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 6:44 PM To: 'gdunham@gulf-stream.org' <gdunham@gulf-stream.org> Cc: 'rbasel@gulf-stream.org' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Gulfstream-request for parade/demonstration/protest permit-letter from town manager-February 20, 2018 Dear Mr. Dunham-thank you for your letter of February 20, 2018. I have attached a copy for convenience. I am puzzled by the content of your letter. I certainly understand the FDOT and A1A issue; but what I don't understand are the 5 numbered paragraphs in your letter. As far as safety, we are on the same page. Under no circumstances would I do anything that would be a safety hazard. However, it seems, when reading your letter, that you are requiring, as a condition precedent to a parade/demonstration/protest, your approval. Am I correct? If not, upon your confirmation, I will just take your letter as "helpful advice". 1 In order to avoid a misunderstanding, I would appreciate if you could confirm, one way or another, the above. I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you! :-) Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel \[mailto:RBasel@gulf-stream.org\] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 3:29 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: Letter from Town Manager in Gulf Stream Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: Please see attached correspondence. Have a GRAND day! Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA COMMISSIONERS SCOTT W. MORGAN, Mayor THOMAS M. STANLEY, Vice -Mayor PAUL A. LYONS, JR. JOAN I— ORTHWEIN DONNA S. WHITE February 20, 20I8 Martin E. O'Boyle Via E-Mail: meo@commerce-group.com Re: February 13, 2018 Email (Parade Permit - Gulfstream Florida) Dear Mr. O'Boyle, Telephone (561)276-5116 Fax (561)737-0188 Town Manager GREGORI'L.DUNHAM Town Clerk RITA L. TAY LOR I am responding to your email dated February 13, 2018 requesting information about permits required for what you refer to as either a parade, demonstration, or protest within the Town of Gulf Stream. As of this date, the Town does not have an ordinance related to such a permit. In the event you intend to do this type of activity, it would be helpful if you could provide the following information in the interest of public safety and the protection of private property. 1. Advance information, 48 hours, as to when the event will occur 2. The estimated length of time of the event 3. The estimated number of participants 4. The location and: -or route of the event 5. The approximate size of any parade elements such as floats, trucks, vehicles, etc. Most of the roads within the Town are narrow and oncoming traffic control may be a safety issue. Additionally, the SR A I A is not under the Town's jurisdiction. If your parade, demonstration, or protest is intended to occur on SR A 1 A, the Town suggests you contact FDOT directly. Sincerely, 6 Gregory L. unham Town Manager 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483 Renee Basel From:Friis, Candace <Candace.Friis@corcoran.com> Sent:Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:55 AM To:scott@humidifirst.com; Gregory Dunham Subject:Fw: HIDDEN HARBOUR LOT # 7 \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] Greg, I received the message below from a Hidden Harbor client. They are quite upset with Mr. O'boyle as you can read in their message below. Please let me know the town's response so that I can also let them know. You could also copy us both as their email is below. Best, Candace Friis Candace Friis Corcoran Group 561.573.9966 candace.friis@corcoran.com www.candacefriis.com WSJ Top 75 USA ________________________________________ From: Elizabeth Sorg <elizabethsorg17@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:45 PM To: Friis, Candace Subject: HIDDEN HARBOUR LOT # 7 Dear Sirs, We have recently been informed that Mr.Oboyle is using our property as a parking lot for his construction vehicles. He has ruined our lawn and is in violation of our privacy. He is trespassing onto our property without permission and I would like to ask that you involve the Gulf Stream Police in supervising that he and his construction crew remain off of our property. Also, we would like him to take financial responsibility for the damage he has created. Sincerely, Karl-Heinz and Elizabeth Sorg 1 *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 2 Renee Basel From:John Haseley Sent:Monday, July 31, 2017 10:07 AM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:FW: Incident - 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - Sunday, July 30, 2017 From: Marty O'Boyle \[mailto:moboyle@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 10:00 AM To: John Haseley <jhaseley@gulf-stream.org> Cc: David Licker <dlicker@commerce-group.com>; Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com>; Massimo Reboa <mreboa@commerce-group.com>; William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com>; Brenda Russell <brussell@commerce- group.com> Subject: Incident - 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - Sunday, July 30, 2017 Dear Lt. Hasley: As I told you, I was (and am) in Atlanta, Georgia when we spoke. I do not intend to return to Florida anytime soon. I am very troubled by the incident that occurred yesterday at 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483. Following our converation of this a.m., I am more surprised that there were not fingerprints or DNA performed. I trust that you will now perform all forensic examinations necessary to identify the culprit. Although I am not in law enforcement, I would, at a minimum, take fingerprints and DNA samples of all areas (inside and out) in the area where the “break in” occurred. Brenda Russell of my office will follow up with the Gulf Stream Police Department daily. My hope is that the purpetrator was a third party not associated with the Town of Gulf Stream. However, Sgt. Passeggiata’s involvelment heightens my concern. If the Town of Gulf Stream refuses to perform all necessary investigations to ascertain the identity of the purpetrator, I will either: (a) ask the State Attorney to become involved; or (b) engage private investigators to perform the work. What happened here cannot be tolerated; and will not be tolerated by me. My hope is that the Gulf Stream Police Department shares the aforementioned statement. It was nice speaking with you. I wish the circumstances were differeint. Congratulations on your promotion. Let’s get to the bottom of this, as we must. 1 cc: David P. Licker, Esquire Jonathan R. O’Boyle, Esquire Massimo Reboa, Esquire William F. Ring, Jr., Esquire Brenda A. Russell Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 3, 2018 11:59 AM To:Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> (ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com) Cc:Trey Nazzaro; 'Robert Sweetapple'; Macfarlane, Mary Subject:FW: Invoice 118714 from Matrix Mediation, LLC Attachments:Inv_118714_from_Matrix_Mediation_LLC_8552.pdf; CREDIT CARD FORM 2018.pdf Elaine – Please let me hear from you today regarding mediation next week as we have received another request for the overdue mediation payment. You indicated just recently that Martin O’Boyle is not able to attend mediation of this fee dispute, which presently seeks several hundred thousand dollars in recovery, and that you would be filing the appropriate papers for a representative to attend on his behalf. However, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize a “representative” to appear at mediation on behalf of an individual party. In fact, the only Florida appellate court that appears to have squarely addressed the issue has held that an individual party is required to personally attend court-ordered mediation. The reference in Rule 1.720(b)(1) to “\[t\]he party or its representative” being physically present at mediation “relates to a party such as a corporation, partnership, incapacitated person, or minor which must appear through a duly authorized representative.” Carbino v. Ward, 801 th So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 5 DCA 2001) (emphasis added) (holding failure of failure of insured motorist to personally attend mediation without good cause required trial court to impose sanctions against him, including both mediator costs and attorney’s fees). The Town is not willing to waive the requirement that Martin O’Boyle personally attend the mediation without an explanation of the good cause that justifies his absence and who will attend in his place. Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Kirielys Mora <km@matrixmediation.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 10:08 AM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: Widboom, Daniel R. <DWidboom@jonesfoster.com> Subject: Invoice 118714 from Matrix Mediation, LLC 1 This message originated from outside your organization Matrix Mediation, LLC Invoice Due:10/10/2018 Amount Due: $849.00 118714 Dear Customer : Your invoice is attached. Payment was due October 1, 2018. Payment is expected prior to mediation taking place. Please find our credit card form attached. I look forward to assisting you. Thank you for doing business with Matrix Mediation! Sincerely, Kirielys Mora Matrix Mediation LLC 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd #700 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Direct: 561.340.3500 e-mail: KM@matrixmediation.com 2 REAL PEOPLE, REAL PROBLEMS, REAL SOLUTIONS PLEASE EMAIL COMPLETED AUTHORIZATION FORM TO: KM@MATRIXMEDIATION.COM OR FAX TO (561) 584-7792 CREDIT CARD AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: ______________ I authorize Matrix Mediation, LLC to use my Credit Card. Mediator/ Invoice: _________________________________________________________________ Attorney’s Name: ___________________________________________________________________ Cardholder’s Name: ________________________________________________________________ Billing Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Credit Card Number: ____________- _____________- _____________- _____________ CV2 # _________ (3 digit number on back) (for Amex 4 digits on front) Expiration Date: ______________ Visa MasterCard American Express Discover I, _______________________________________ authorize MATRIX MEDIATION, LLC To charge as arranged on the credit card listed above. Specified Amount: $_______________ Cardholder Printed Name: __________________________ Cardholder Signature: __________________________ Date: ____________ Carholder’s telephone # : _______________________ All credit card information is stored in a secured database. Only authorized personnel have access to customer sensitive information. My signature below authorizes my credit card to be charged. I understand that all additional mediation hours or fees will be billed to my credit card. ** OFFICE USE ONLY** NOTES: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATRIX Mediation, LLC is the expert dispute resolution firm dedicated to real people with real problems and helping them work towards a successful solution for all legal matters. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Phone: 561.340.3500 Fax: 561.584.7792 Invoice Date 10/10/2018 Invoice # 118714 Joanne M. O'Connor, Esquire 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100, P.O. Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Tax ID TermsTypeClaim #File # Total (561) 659-3000 Fax (561) 650-5300 WE TAKE ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARDS 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 700, The Forum West Palm Beach,FL 33401 Phone: 561.340.3500 Fax: 561.242.2821 Accounts Inquiry: km@matrixmediation.com 13-4351949 Due upon receipt Phone DescriptionHours Rate Amount MARTIN E. O’BOYLE, Plaintiffs, vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendants. _________________________________/ (D) Mediation Services of Fred Hazouri, to be rendered: October 10, 2018. This invoice for mediation services represents YOUR PORTION (1/2) of the total hours being billed at the rate of $400.00 per hour. 4 200.00 800.00 Facility-Room Fee 49.00 49.00 **THIS INVOICE IS SPLIT BETWEEN 2 PARTIES / THIS IS YOUR PORTION** PARTIES MAY CALL WITH CREDIT CARD INFORMATION TO RENDER PAYMENT. PLEASE PAY INVOICE ON OR BEFORE: October 1, 2018. Thank you for using Matrix Mediation. Please reference invoice number with payment.$849.00 Renee Basel From:Renee Basel Sent:Wednesday, October 12, 2016 8:25 AM To:Morgan, Scott Subject:FW: Letter to the Editor Attachments:Gulf Stream V2-vp.doc From: Mary Leming \[mailto:m_k_l@bellsouth.net\] Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2016 5:22 PM To: Scott Morgan <SMorgan@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Letter to the Editor Mayor Morgan - I am attaching an edited version of your letter. We were able to get this down to near 500 words and I believe still retain the message you hope to deliver. If you see any errors, please let me know. It's always possible we inadvertently inserted some in the editing process. I will be out of the country this coming week and back on Sunday the 16th. I do hope to have Internet access, but you can't always count on that in the Bahamas. Our deadline for fine tuning this would not be until later in the month; sometime around the 26th. Hope you survived the storm with little or no damage. Sincerely, Mary Kate Mary Kate Leming Editor, The Coastal Star editor@thecoastalstar.com 561-337-1553 www.thecoastalstar.com Twitter: A1AStar 1 Letter to the Editor Suggested headline: In 2014 and early 2015, the town of Gulf Stream found itself under assault from Martin O'Boyle and Christopher O'Hare, two residents who overwhelmed the town with hundreds of public records requests and dozens of lawsuits. Town Hall became virtually unable to serve Gulf Stream residents. To defend against this ongoing public records abuse, Gulf Stream brought in legal staff to create a policy to respond to records requests. In addition, Gulf Stream learned through its RICO investigation about other Florida abuses committed by the O'Boyle Law Firm and a related O'Boyle company called Citizens Awareness Foundation, which it added to the town's defenses in the public records lawsuits. Since Gulf Stream took these actions, public records requests have dropped from 80-plus per day down to several a week. In addition, there has not been another public records lawsuit against Gulf Stream in over a year and a half. Of the old lawsuits, Gulf Stream won or forced the dismissal of four of them, and won verdicts or forced the dismissal of six additional nonpublic records lawsuits. I cannot overstate how the volume of lawsuits and records requests back in 2013 and 2014 overwhelmed our small staff. The clerks regularly worked nights and weekends; they put off other town responsibilities; they hunted through old file cabinets and closed land use folders trying to respond to requests pouring in almost daily; they called commissioners, board members, past employees and active and retired police to identify documents and their possible locations. But, the quantity of these requests was simply not manageable, and some documents were inadvertently missed. At no time did staff refuse the legitimacy of O'Boyle’s or O'Hare's requests or try to prevent them from receiving documents. For example, one such request required production of "All photos of people riding bicycles on N. Ocean Blvd. in the town's public record." Since town records go back to its founding in 1925, this request necessitated a needle-in-the-haystack search, and for which we were still sued over a "gotcha" photograph. A case currently being litigated involves some inadvertently missed documents. Despite a good faith effort to locate all requested records, missing records constitute a technical violation of the public records law, so the town offered to settle the case. O'Boyle's settlement demand, however, was so outrageously high that the town concluded it was in its best financial interest to go to trial and let a judge determine reasonable fees. That case was tried recently and there will be a hearing on fees in the near future. The town is confident that under Florida law, the court will award fees up to the performance of the records request and not beyond. This is why the town elected to try this case, as it will any other case where it appears that O'Boyle built up large attorneys' fees. Gulf Stream will continue to defend the remaining O'Boyle and O'Hare lawsuits until our two litigious residents drop the meritless cases and accept our settlement offers on the others. Scott W. Morgan Mayor, Gulf Stream Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 2:04 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Brenda Russell; Records Subject:FW: MEO Markup of TOGS Letter of 12-14-16 Regarding RR#1329 MEO Respone Attachments:img20161219135130.pdf Rene – please see attached. Let me know if you intend to respond to my request and\\or the “ink” comments on attached (which you may consider as an amendment to my original request); and when? Forty days for (what you sent me as a response) to this request is “over the top”…don’t you think? A prompt response is requested. Martin E. O’Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mai l: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Dec 19 2016 1:OOPM HP LASERJET FAX P•1 �� :ate'. Gate TowN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail .? t2-lgflCo —' �'L,e.�,, c�, � ��w.�c ty,L�co�ss • �o� � December 14, 2016 ,�ae. Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to:PccordLsa)commerce-arou .corn Re: GS #2381 (PRR I329),►�3Qs;2.— In the first sentence of the 2, 2016: Gulf Stream conj Since Gulf Stream took down to several a wee paragraph of the Coastal Star Letter to the Editor of November it's on the right track; Scott Morgan states the following: " lions Eublic records requests have dropped from 80 plus per do Please provide all records which confirm the above quoted statement. See attached Exhibit A. Dear Martin E. O'Boyle [mail to: records @.commerce -group com,: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated November 4, 2016. Your original public records request and response to your request can be found at the following link: hgp://w"12.Rtilf-stream org4veblink/0/doc/I 03445/Page i aspx In regards to "all records ", responsive records can also be found on our Town website www.aulf stream org, click on "Find a Town Record", click on "Public Records Requests", click on the year you wish to look at (2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016) and click on "Public Request Number Log" for that year. We consid this request closed. Sincerely, As requested t y Rita Taylor `, I Town Clerk, C Lstodian of the Records k --4- Nk, 46T Renee Basel From:Scott Morgan <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:17 AM To:Bob Sweetapple; Joanne M. OConnor; Hudson Gill; Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: O'Boyle From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:08 AM To: Scott Morgan Subject: RE: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Scott – I am not going to sign the docs without reading them, nor would you. If you wish to “fire away”, I think it is silly, but we will oblige you in return. The one thing that I am not going to do is sign them; read them and (perhaps) withdraw them…that’ not my style. After I read them, I will either sign them or I will tell you where I think they are deficient and why. If our goals are the same, I think you are running the risk of “blowing the deal up”, which punishes the taxpayers of Gulfstream. Let me know if you want to stop negotiations and re-engage litigation (which I think it is silly). I think a Mediator puts it in the end zone in hours. Your resistance makes me suspect as to your intentions, since a Mediator is only a win, with no chance of a loss. What’s your pleasure? PS: I have eliminated all the “PS’s”. This is between you and I!  Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Scott Morgan \[mailto:scottmorgan75@gmail.com\] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:57 AM To: Marty O'Boyle Cc: OConnor, Joanne M.; hochman@jambg.com; William Ring; Hudson Gill; Bob Sweetapple; Trey Nazzaro Subject: Re: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Marty, like you, I want to resolve these things with both sides dismissing its claims and signing releases against future lawsuits. 1 I appreciate your difficult schedule but ,frankly, the terms of our agreement have really not changed, and the current set of documents reflects our agreement. At our last meeting, Jeff Hochman and I even agreed to use your proposed format for the releases instead of our forms. Marty—today is the day to end this. There is nothing more to negotiate or terms to change. There is nothing to mediate. The releases say what they should say---and everyone just walks away. I hope you and your lawyers will agree to bring this all to a conclusion. In the meantime, as I have reiterated in every conversation, there is no stay. I again ask you to sign the documents, Marty. Sign them and let me take them to the Town to add my signature. From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:05 AM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Cc: William Ring ; OConnor, Joanne M. ; hochman@jambg.com ; William Ring Subject: FW: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Scott – I was sent the attached on Sunday afternoon by Bill Ring. As you know, I came back from my trip on Saturday night; and Sunday was Father’s day. Although I am not looking for sympathy (but I am looking to instill reality), I started this am at 4am; and I will work until 7:30am, then I will leave at 10 to 8am for an 8am meeting, then on to a 9:15am Mediation in Ft. Lauderdale; then to a flight to North Carolina, where I will than drive 150 miles to Knoxville, then on to WV, Pitt, Greensburg, Pa., Uniontown, Pa., Indiana, Pa. Clarion, Pa., Beaver Falls, Pa., Johnstown, Pa. King of Prussia, Pa., Philadelphia, Pa. and to Atlantic City th for my youngest daughter’s 29 ‘surprise” Birthday Party followed by a short spell in Atlantic City with my family, where I also intend to relax and catch up on my work. I apologize that things have not taken the course of expediency that you have plotted, but I remind you that when Scott went away (whether it be on R&R or on a working trip), we leave you alone. I only ask that you respect me in that regard. I work hard; and I want to get done, but I could only address so much while traveling and with such a rigorous schedule…I know you understand. Scott, you know the deal that we made; that we shook on; and that we looked each other on the eye on. I fully intend to continue on the course to conclude that deal, but, as I see it (no – as it has become clear), there are many misunderstandings; and I am virtually certain that they emanate from your end. The “line in the sand’ that I “sign an unseen and unreviewed” agreement by yesterday was far from reasonable; and was, frankly an absurd request (no demand); and was certainly far from conducive to reaching resolution! th So I now come to “what do you want to do”? Starting in a couple of hours, I am away until July 10. I am more than happy to work on the Settlement (while traveling – but only when I have time – and time to focus). If you really want to get done, my suggestion is that we now schedule a Mediation with Fred Hazouri (you know who he is) on the earliest possible date after my return; and “bring the deal into the end zone”, as we should. (Of course – if that’s what you want to do – it’s a “no lose” proposition, which I think should bring finality – we both need to cooperate – no standing on form – no standing on ceremony – ego’s left wat the door – and a “goal” to get done); but if you want to fight (which I don’t and which I find silly), then that’s what you want to do. Your response here will be a clear signal. 2 If you want to move forward with your threats, which start (according to your lawyers) this am, we are ready for you. Please “back off”, as such a course is not conducive to a Settlement; and will likely inflame an “almost done” settlement, which doesn’t happen will punish the taxpayers of the Town.. Scott – if you have had a change of heart and wish to renege on our agreement, I understand; and I know what to do. I hope you haven’t. I await hearing from you and only you. I will be checking my email, today. Please let me hear from you by noon if at all possible. If you call (which would be better), I will make every effort to take your call (or call you back promptly). You just need to tell me your intentions; and you just need to tell me that “Marty and Scott” are going to work together to get done. Right now, based on the threats, your side has put the Settlement on hold and have us gearing up to accommodate the threats that your lawyers say will commence this am. I will hold up taking any action until noon. I hope you could see your way clear to relaxing and I hope you could convince your lawyers to stop trying to push me around, as “that just ain’t gonna happen”! As I told you before: “I’m not Chris O’Hare”. So let’s get done! It’s up to you. I await your prompt response. Thank you; and “I can’t say it enough, embrace my desire and “let’s get done”! Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: William Ring \[mailto:wring@oboylelawfirm.com\] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 5:38 PM To: Marty O'Boyle; Jonathan O'Boyle; Giovani Mesa Subject: FW: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases William F. Ring O'Boyle Law Firm 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 954-570-3510 (ph) 954-328-4383 (cell) From: OConnor, Joanne M. \[mailto:JOConnor@jonesfoster.com\] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:00 PM 3 To: William Ring Cc: Hudson Gill; Randolph, John C.; Robert Sweetapple Subject: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Bill – My understanding is that all parties, including the attorneys for those parties, seek a full and final resolution of the disputes between them. There are pending suits by Marty against me, Bob and our firms. And I would think the attorneys on your side would seek comfort that you will not be subject to any future claims based on past conduct. To that end, the Town has agreed to write to the Florida Bar regarding those lawyers. To confirm an end to any litigation, I have revised the settlement agreement to include a release by Marty of the Town’s contractors (there is a pending suit against Brannon & Gillespie by Mr. O’Boyle) and the its attorneys. I have changed the Town’s release of the attorneys on your side to exclude the carve-out for future litigation. I have drafted two separate releases: (1) O’Boyle Attorneys releasing Town, its agents, and attorneys and (2) Town Attorneys releasing O’Boyle, O’Boyle Entities and O’Boyle Attorneys. In Jeff’s absence, please contact me with comments, questions or concerns. I am in this afternoon and tomorrow 2pm or later (on a CLE panel in the morning) Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 4 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:15 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: O'Boyle - Follow Up Another old email that mentions “criminal case” From: Scott Morgan Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:46 AM To: Joanne M. OConnor ; Trey Nazzaro ; Bob Sweetapple ; Hudson Gill Subject: Fw: O'Boyle - Follow Up From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:34 AM To: Scott Morgan Subject: RE: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Scott – further to the below, I have a few moments and – before the settlement blows o pieces, I want to lay out where I’m coming from. Incidentally, there are many permutation that could work (which is why I suggested a Mediator), but below is as simple as can be. Here goes: 1 The Town and I execute Mutual Releases (including O’Boyle Law Firm and lawyers there). This includes the criminal case; or no release re criminal case. 2 We dismiss all claims, potential claims, etc. against each other. 3 Public Records requests withdrawn. Limit\\restrict future requests, as I have no intention on filing any. You told me to call you if I want information, which is just what I will do. 4 You handle the situation with Jon 5 You provide the letters to the guys (integrity, ethically, professionally – all as you said). 6 Releases to any others who want – provided they give. Remember, this ends the Public Records Litigation and the Town’s hemorrhaging of the Taxpayer’s $$$. Tell me why this doesn’t work. I welcome you to call me on my cell if you wish to discuss. Re-igniting the litigation is a “Bad Move”, but you could make that call. The above serves the Town’s people well, which should be your focus. Scott, peace should be the ultimate goal. I remind out that I have several suits coming up, at least one where the Town was willing to admit liability; and I also remind you of case 4474, where we have a Judgement for liability, with fees of $500k+… a big risk for the taxpayers, that can be easily be avoided. Please also remember that the only reason for me to capitulate is based on: Jon and his team. Otherwise, there is no incentive to give up what is at least one material claim – 4474 – which the Town already lost; and maybe others “around the corner”. Why would you resist this proposal? I just don’t get it, especially since I believe that it is precisely what we agreed to. PS: The final agreement should also have innocuous and customary boiler plate provisions which “cut both ways”. Are we cool? If so, I will work with Bill to get done tonight if I can. I have an early evening flight and 2 important meetings both tomorrow and Friday, but, I, like you, want (and have wanted) to get done asap. 1 I await hearing from you!  Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:08 AM To: 'Scott Morgan' Subject: RE: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Scott – I am not going to sign the docs without reading them, nor would you. If you wish to “fire away”, I think it is silly, but we will oblige you in return. The one thing that I am not going to do is sign them; read them and (perhaps) withdraw them…that’ not my style. After I read them, I will either sign them or I will tell you where I think they are deficient and why. If our goals are the same, I think you are running the risk of “blowing the deal up”, which punishes the taxpayers of Gulfstream. Let me know if you want to stop negotiations and re-engage litigation (which I think it is silly). I think a Mediator puts it in the end zone in hours. Your resistance makes me suspect as to your intentions, since a Mediator is only a win, with no chance of a loss. What’s your pleasure? PS: I have eliminated all the “PS’s”. This is between you and I!  Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Scott Morgan \[mailto:scottmorgan75@gmail.com\] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:57 AM To: Marty O'Boyle Cc: OConnor, Joanne M.; hochman@jambg.com; William Ring; Hudson Gill; Bob Sweetapple; Trey Nazzaro Subject: Re: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases 2 Marty, like you, I want to resolve these things with both sides dismissing its claims and signing releases against future lawsuits. I appreciate your difficult schedule but ,frankly, the terms of our agreement have really not changed, and the current set of documents reflects our agreement. At our last meeting, Jeff Hochman and I even agreed to use your proposed format for the releases instead of our forms. Marty—today is the day to end this. There is nothing more to negotiate or terms to change. There is nothing to mediate. The releases say what they should say---and everyone just walks away. I hope you and your lawyers will agree to bring this all to a conclusion. In the meantime, as I have reiterated in every conversation, there is no stay. I again ask you to sign the documents, Marty. Sign them and let me take them to the Town to add my signature. From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:05 AM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Cc: William Ring ; OConnor, Joanne M. ; hochman@jambg.com ; William Ring Subject: FW: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Scott – I was sent the attached on Sunday afternoon by Bill Ring. As you know, I came back from my trip on Saturday night; and Sunday was Father’s day. Although I am not looking for sympathy (but I am looking to instill reality), I started this am at 4am; and I will work until 7:30am, then I will leave at 10 to 8am for an 8am meeting, then on to a 9:15am Mediation in Ft. Lauderdale; then to a flight to North Carolina, where I will than drive 150 miles to Knoxville, then on to WV, Pitt, Greensburg, Pa., Uniontown, Pa., Indiana, Pa. Clarion, Pa., Beaver Falls, Pa., Johnstown, Pa. King of Prussia, Pa., Philadelphia, Pa. and to Atlantic City th for my youngest daughter’s 29 ‘surprise” Birthday Party followed by a short spell in Atlantic City with my family, where I also intend to relax and catch up on my work. I apologize that things have not taken the course of expediency that you have plotted, but I remind you that when Scott went away (whether it be on R&R or on a working trip), we leave you alone. I only ask that you respect me in that regard. I work hard; and I want to get done, but I could only address so much while traveling and with such a rigorous schedule…I know you understand. Scott, you know the deal that we made; that we shook on; and that we looked each other on the eye on. I fully intend to continue on the course to conclude that deal, but, as I see it (no – as it has become clear), there are many misunderstandings; and I am virtually certain that they emanate from your end. The “line in the sand’ that I “sign an unseen and unreviewed” agreement by yesterday was far from reasonable; and was, frankly an absurd request (no demand); and was certainly far from conducive to reaching resolution! th So I now come to “what do you want to do”? Starting in a couple of hours, I am away until July 10. I am more than happy to work on the Settlement (while traveling – but only when I have time – and time to focus). 3 If you really want to get done, my suggestion is that we now schedule a Mediation with Fred Hazouri (you know who he is) on the earliest possible date after my return; and “bring the deal into the end zone”, as we should. (Of course – if that’s what you want to do – it’s a “no lose” proposition, which I think should bring finality – we both need to cooperate – no standing on form – no standing on ceremony – ego’s left wat the door – and a “goal” to get done); but if you want to fight (which I don’t and which I find silly), then that’s what you want to do. Your response here will be a clear signal. If you want to move forward with your threats, which start (according to your lawyers) this am, we are ready for you. Please “back off”, as such a course is not conducive to a Settlement; and will likely inflame an “almost done” settlement, which doesn’t happen will punish the taxpayers of the Town.. Scott – if you have had a change of heart and wish to renege on our agreement, I understand; and I know what to do. I hope you haven’t. I await hearing from you and only you. I will be checking my email, today. Please let me hear from you by noon if at all possible. If you call (which would be better), I will make every effort to take your call (or call you back promptly). You just need to tell me your intentions; and you just need to tell me that “Marty and Scott” are going to work together to get done. Right now, based on the threats, your side has put the Settlement on hold and have us gearing up to accommodate the threats that your lawyers say will commence this am. I will hold up taking any action until noon. I hope you could see your way clear to relaxing and I hope you could convince your lawyers to stop trying to push me around, as “that just ain’t gonna happen”! As I told you before: “I’m not Chris O’Hare”. So let’s get done! It’s up to you. I await your prompt response. Thank you; and “I can’t say it enough, embrace my desire and “let’s get done”! Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: William Ring \[mailto:wring@oboylelawfirm.com\] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 5:38 PM To: Marty O'Boyle; Jonathan O'Boyle; Giovani Mesa Subject: FW: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases William F. Ring O'Boyle Law Firm 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 4 954-570-3510 (ph) 954-328-4383 (cell) From: OConnor, Joanne M. \[mailto:JOConnor@jonesfoster.com\] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:00 PM To: William Ring Cc: Hudson Gill; Randolph, John C.; Robert Sweetapple Subject: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Bill – My understanding is that all parties, including the attorneys for those parties, seek a full and final resolution of the disputes between them. There are pending suits by Marty against me, Bob and our firms. And I would think the attorneys on your side would seek comfort that you will not be subject to any future claims based on past conduct. To that end, the Town has agreed to write to the Florida Bar regarding those lawyers. To confirm an end to any litigation, I have revised the settlement agreement to include a release by Marty of the Town’s contractors (there is a pending suit against Brannon & Gillespie by Mr. O’Boyle) and the its attorneys. I have changed the Town’s release of the attorneys on your side to exclude the carve-out for future litigation. I have drafted two separate releases: (1) O’Boyle Attorneys releasing Town, its agents, and attorneys and (2) Town Attorneys releasing O’Boyle, O’Boyle Entities and O’Boyle Attorneys. In Jeff’s absence, please contact me with comments, questions or concerns. I am in this afternoon and tomorrow 2pm or later (on a CLE panel in the morning) Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 5 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:29 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: O'Boyle - Settlement - Gulf Stream Reference to House Plan From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 11:52 AM To: Martin E. O’Boyle Subject: Re: O'Boyle - Settlement - Gulf Stream Hi Marty, Yes, I saw you at the service, as well. We came in right behind you and Sheila but were directed down the opposite aisle or I would have said hello. Re: your email, I sent it to the attorneys and they’ll follow up. Scott From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 2:59 PM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Subject: O'Boyle - Settlement - Gulf Stream Scott – below is the email that I just sent you. When dictating, sometimes (and for reasons I don’t understand, portions get “run over”. No matter, I have added the missing words in highlighting. There is nothing material. I await your response. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________ Scott – I saw you at the services yesterday. I wanted to spend a moment to speak with you. That didn’t work out, so I now send you this note. I am prepared to finalize the Settlement Agreement and given you the 7 cases as you wanted when we mediated with Fred Hazouri,. As part of the settlement agreement, I will include a paragraph which will, in essence, tell the Town to “cut it out” and let me finish my house as I plan, all of which I’m permitted to do under the existing deal. If necessary, I will send you a full analysis demonstrating the veracity of what I say, if necessary. My hope is that “what is necessary” is to get done. Let me know if you agree and I will handle things promptly, as I will be leaving Town in the next couple of days and not returning (except on an emergency basis) until near or after the end of May. My current thinking is to tender the document in a way to give you time to get the proper signatories, consistent with the list that Joanne provided us previously. 1 Let me know if you want the deal. This email is sent in the context of settlement and may not be used for any other purpose. I also point out that until such time as a formal document is executed by the parties, that no binding agreement shall be deemed to exist as a result of this email. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 Renee Basel From:Brenda Russell <brussell@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, November 17, 2016 8:23 AM To:Renee Basel Subject:FW: O'Boyle Letter Regarding Public Record Requext #1297 Attachments:Rita Taylor and Renee Basel 11.16.16.pdf Brenda A. Russell Executive Assistant Office of Martin E. O’Boyle Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Direct Dial #954-570-3513 Fax #954-360-0807 Main #954-360-7713 brussell@commerce-group.com From: Brenda Russell Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:12 PM To: 'rtaylor@gulf-stream.org'; RBasel@gulf-stream.org Cc: Marty O'Boyle Subject: O'Boyle Letter Regarding Public Record Requext #1297 Please disregard my previous E-Mail to you of 8:58 p.m.. The attached letter is the correct O’Boyle Letter (with the attachment). Sorry for any inconvenience this oversight may have caused. Brenda A. Russell Executive Assistant Office of Martin E. O’Boyle Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Direct Dial #954-570-3513 1 Fax #954-360-0807 Main #954-360-7713 brussell@commerce-group.com 2 COMMERCE GROUP       www.commerce-group.com TEL. 954.360.7713  FAX. 954.360.0807 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA 33442 moboyle@commerce-group.com Direct Dial Telephone #954-570-3505 [MEOBILL0676.DS2] November 16, 2016 VIA E-MAIL: rtaylor@gulf-stream.org TELEPHONE #561-276-5116 TELECOPY #561-737-0188 Rita Taylor, Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 VIA E-MAIL: rbasel@gulf-stream.org TELEPHONE #561-276-5116 TELECOPY #561-737-0188 Renee Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Re: Our Public Records Request #1297 (“PRR 1297”) – GS#2349 Dear Madame Custodian of Records and Ms. Basel: This will acknowledge receipt of your l etter to records@commerce-group.com of November 15, 2016 which was delivered via E-Mail regarding the captioned Public Records Request (the “GS 1297 Letter”). So that it is handy, I have attached a copy of the GS 1297 Letter. In PRR 1297 and in the GS 1297 Letter, we have requested the following: “Please provide copies of all emails where Beau Delafield was the sender or a recipient from January 1, 2014 to present.” I find the content of the GS 1297 Letter somewhat puzzling. In that connection, I point out that PRR 1297 is solely for “E-Mails”, which as we both know are solely Ms. Rita Taylor and Ms. Renee Rowan Basel November 16, 2016 Page 2 __________________________________________________ electronic documents, which may be searched on the Town of Gulf Steam’s computers or servers, utilizing simple search criteria, which in this case seems to be limited to two words, “Beau” and “Delafield”. With the above as a backdrop, can you tell me what the Town has done to fulfill PRR 1297 during the “at least 15 minutes1” that they say they have spent on PRR 1297. Further, can you tell me who in the town spent the “at least 15 minutes ”; and, further, who in the town made the estimate2 (and what the estimate was based on) and why the Town is charging $95.00 per hour to fulfill such a simple Request (PRR 1297)? It is my understanding that the law (as you have recited it in the GS 1297 Letter) referring to Section 119.07(4)(d) states the following: “(d) If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected or copied pursuant to this subsection is such a s to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, the agency may3 charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the personnel providing the service that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance required, or both.” In looking at the above quoted language, I point out that the referenced section only allows the Town to charge a special service charge if the criteria under subsection 119.07(4)(d) are met. Based upon the foregoing, I do not believe that the Town of Gulf Steam is entitled to any special service fees. Continuing on, we do not object to paying the $47.50 deposit as you have requested, however, we do not believe it is lawful; and, if we must pay it in order to get our constitutionally deserved records, we will make the payment and likely file suit to recapture the ill-gotten gains of the Town of Gulf Steam. Referring back to the estimate of $95.00 charge, can you tell me who made that estimate; who will be the recipient of the monies; and why that estimate could not be “fixed” or why there cannot be parameters (amount in dollars – highest and lowest) ascribed, assuming that the Town of Gulf Stream has the right to charge the fee? 1 As stated in the November 15th letter. 2 See the GS 1297 Letter 3 But is not obligated to do so. Ms. Rita Taylor and Ms. Renee Rowan Basel November 16, 2016 Page 3 __________________________________________________ In further looking at the GS 1297 Letter, I am puzzled given that this Request (PRR 1297) would and should only be an electronic search with extremely limited search features, thus obtaining them (in moments) from the Town’s computers that send and receive E-Mail and/or the Town’s servers which also send and receive E-Mails. Lastly, where I am also puzzled is in connection with the GS 1297 Letter; and, more particularly, the E-Mails between Ms. O’Connor and Mr. Delafield dated March 23, 2015 @ 10:26 a.m. and March 23, 2015 @ 11:15 a.m. respectively. Is the Town saying that that is the only document that exists? If not, how did the Town retrieve that document, without being able to retrieve all of the documentation in PRR 1297? In closing, I point out that the PRR 1297 was originally made on October 19, 2016. Yesterday was November 15, 2016, which (as I calculate it) is 28 days, which, as I understand it, goes beyond a “reasonable” period for response. I demand the long overdue response to PRR 1297 Records Request #1297 (unless the document which accompanied the GS 1297 Letter constitutes the entirety of the responsive documents). Please respond to the inquiries in this letter, so that we could finalize our PRR 1297 and close the file, in a prompt fashion. Be assured of my cooperation with the Town of Gulf Stream. The foregoing aside, I sincerely query whether the Town of Gulf Stream’s actions constitute that of being obstructive to my constitutional rights, which will not be tolerated if true. Sincerely yours, COMMERCE GROUP, INC. Martin E. O'Boyle President Enclosure P/NPR/FLRR TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail November 15, 2016 Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: records@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2349 (PRR 1297) Please provide copies of all emails where Beau Delafield was the sender or a recipient from January 1, 2014 to present. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: records@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream received your public records requests on October 19, 2016. You should be able to view your request and partial response at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/103155/Page1.aspx In light of the breadth of your request, which covers “all emails” sent or received by the referenced individual during a nearly three-year period, producing all records responsive to your request will require extensive clerical or supervisory assistance. The Town has spent at least 15 minutes on your request and now estimates that to respond fully to your request will require approximately an additional half hour of IT support at $95.00 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. (1/2 hour @ $95.00 = $47.50) = Deposit Due: $47.50 in cash or check. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Garrett Ward <GWard@gulf-stream.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:50 PM To:John Passeggiata Subject:FW: O'Boyle letter regarding Town Facilities/Services Disability Accessibility/Discrimination Attachments:William Thrasher 11.24.15.pdf From: Marty O'Boyle \[mailto:moboyle@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:57 PM To: Bill Thrasher <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org>; Garrett Ward <GWard@gulf-stream.org>; Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Subject: O'Boyle letter regarding Town Facilities/Services Disability Accessibility/Discrimination 1 COMMERCE GROUP       www.commerce-group.com TEL. 954.360.7713  FAX. 954.360.0807 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA 33442 moboyle@commerce-group.com Direct Dial Telephone #954-570-3505 November 24, 2015 VIA E-MAIL: bthrasher@gulf-stream.org And CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 70120470000152206137 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED TELEPHONE #561-276-5116 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Attn: William Thrasher, Town Manager Re: Town Facilities/Services Disability Accessibility/Discrimination. Dear Mr. Thrasher: Although visibly obvious, I suffer from a condition that has affected, inter alia, my ability to walk and maintain balance thus depriving me from major life activities including, without limitation, those contemplated by the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). As such I am a qualified individual under the ADA. I have visited your Town Hall on numerous occasions to attend governmental meetings and for other purposes, including, without limitation, to accommodate the Town by attending Depositions and for other purposes; and I intend, in the future to continue such activities, but I have serious concerns regarding my health and safety, certain of which fall under and are protected by the ADA and other Laws (as hereinafter defined). I recognize that the Town has made limited improvements to: (a) one of its public bathrooms (the men’s room) by converting it into a unisex bathroom); (b) by installing concrete walks at the rear entrance to the Town Hall, neither of which, in my opinion, are satisfactory to accommodate my condition and the condition of certain other impaired people, as required by the ADA and other Federal or State laws and regulations (the “Laws”), collectively the (“Handicapped Laws”). William Thrasher, Town Manager November 24, 2015 Page 2 _______________________________________ Further to the above, during one public meeting (which I personally attended and where I witnessed the occurrence) a Gulf Stream resident was kind enough to have his wheelchair bound mother (a “Senior Woman”) accompany him and his brother to one of the government meetings which was held at the Town Hall on the February 14, 2014. It was at that meeting (accompanied by two of her offspring) when both the Senior Woman and her offspring were publically humiliated solely because of her visible disabilities. Because of the lack of Sanitary Facilities for the Handicapped and her desire not to be sent to the hospital to utilize the hospital’s sanitary facilities, she was forced to relieve herself while in her wheelchair in the Commission Chamber. A sight which I hope to never re-live. The Town, to this day, has not made the proper installations to comply with the ADA and other Laws. Plainly stated, the Town has not gone far enough in remedying its culture of discrimination to the Handicapped. For instance, the Town’s entrance ramps (at the rear entrance) that (seemingly) provide access to the Town Hall (at its sole entrance for the certain Handicapped people) is woefully deficient and not in compliance with the ADA regulations and\or the applicable Laws. Further to the above and in addition to the deficient ramps installed at the rear entrance of the Town Hall, it seems clear that the Town has a seemingly pervasive culture of disability discrimination. At the November 13, 2015 Town Meeting when I rose to speak, Mayor Scott Morgan insinuated that I was not in fact disabled, overriding my Doctor’s at a top Teaching Hospital in the Northeast. I found his uninformed comments repulsive and outrageous, but consistent with the culture of this small tony Town. A culture (as applies to the Handicapped) which “shocks the conscience.” Additionally, Chief Ward scoffed when I stated that it was too difficult to use my walker to navigate the forest of easels to get to the podium when Mayor Morgan pointed out (in a condescending fashion) that I was not using my walker and when I replied, “It is too difficult here.” Both the Mayor’s and the Chief’s actions can only be described as intentional and a slight toward handicapped people; or simply stated people with disabilities. In other words, a clear demonstration of the existence of discrimination within the Town. Indeed, I suspect that this is a continuation of the culture that openly questioned whether the Senior Woman was disabled, when her disabilities were visibly clear. Although the Town prides itself on being “exclusive,” it is reprehensible and immoral for the Town to exclude those who are physically challenged from participating in government activities. The Town’s comfort in overtly “calling into question” the bona fides of the disabled creates a hostile environment where the disabled must overcome the Town’s William Thrasher, Town Manager November 24, 2015 Page 3 _______________________________________ manufactured recalcitrance in order for the disabled to participate in public activities. Such “built-in headwinds” to participation are unlawful. The Town knows that they are not in compliance as applies to their public facilities, and despite a multitude of warnings from myself and others, no action has been taken except for smug and sarcastic remarks. In order to remedy the issues at hand, I am directing this letter to the party (or parties); urging such parties to address the issues which are not in compliance with the ADA and\or other Laws. Further to the above, if that party[s] is Town Manager Thrasher, the Mayor, the Commission or some other party in Gulf Stream’s governmental structure (the “Gulf Stream Hierarchy”) I implore you to immediately address these ever so important issues which affected the disabled including myself. In light of the intentional discrimination by the Gulf Stream Hierarchy, I believe that the Town has been deliberately indifferent to the needs and rights of the disabled. Considering the foregoing, I demand that the Town take a prompt and affirmative action to remedy the problems at hand as they affect the disabled, the handicapped, the ADA and other relevant Laws. The Town has a number of services or activities that I would enjoy utilizing, however the barriers that exist prevent from doing so. As I see it, the situation in the preceding sentence is nothing more than a sign of the arrogance and reluctance to expend the necessary funds for compliance. This is particularly disturbing when one realizes that the residents of Gulf Stream have made this tony Town in Palm Beach County the eleventh wealthiest Town in America. Although I could point out other deficiencies of interest, the Town is mandated by its comprehensive land use plan to provide beach parking and access from Town Hall. As a result, access to the Beach from the Town Hall seems appropriate but is non-existent preventing myself and other disabled folks from participating in such recreational splendor; or saying it differently, it is nearly impossible for the ambulatory challenged to access the beach from the designated parking which is supposed to exist at the Town Hall1. There are no sidewalks, no ramps, no stop signs or stop lights that afford safe transit both in crossing A1A, not to mention the extreme difficulty (if not impossible task) to enter the Beach. In this connection, I ask the Town to do that which is necessary to allow myself and other disabled people to provide accessibility to the beach as required by the Comprehensive Land Plan, the ADA and other relevant Laws. 1 Through the passing of a recent Ordinance even the parking required by the Comprehensive Land Plan has been unreasonably restricted. William Thrasher, Town Manager November 24, 2015 Page 4 _______________________________________ Continuing, the Town has a library open to the public which I utilize from time to time. The library is small and difficult to navigate with a walker. Moreover, the Town has barriers which frustrate library access for the disabled. Additionally, the double doors leading into the library do not appear to be in compliance for, inter alia, the reasons stated above. Moving on to other Town structures, the Town Property housing the Town Police Station is chock filled with barriers. Additionally, I query whether the Town’s police are adequately trained handle ambulatory-challenged individuals safely, this includes (but is not limited), perfecting an arrest and calling for help or 911 when a handicapped individual is temporarily or permanently incapacitated. Because the Town is subject to Title II of the ADA, I write to alert the Gulf Stream Hierarchy and/or the person capable of making changes, to the many defects which exist. I believe that Town would be acting with deliberative indifference to the rights of the disabled if it does not promptly and properly address these defects. In that regard, let me suggest that the Town promptly and properly perform an audit for accessibility. I trust that the Town, a government entity, will take its obligations to follow the Laws applicable to the disabled seriously. As all of us know, numerous Americans have been afflicted with disabilities and their full integration and participation in society should not be impaired or stymied. Deliberate jeering, insults, or passive aggressive gestures designed at questioning or making fun of individuals with disabilities cannot be tolerated. I trust that this letter will serve as the catalyst to rid the Gulf Stream of its pervasive custom of intentional and (hopefully) unintentional discriminatory practices; and the visible disrespect for the disabled. Sincerely yours, Martin E. O'Boyle cc: Rita L. Taylor – E-Mail Chief Garrett Ward – E-Mail P/NPR/L/AD/GSADA Renee Basel From:Gelin, Lynn <GelinL@mydelraybeach.com> Sent:Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:17 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:FW: O'Boyle residents-23 N. Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulfstream, FL-1101 Retro Per your request Lynn Gelin, Esq. | Assistant City Attorney 561-243-7090| gelinL@mydelraybeach.com | 200 N.W. 1st Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444 CITY OF DELRAY BEACH PUBLIC RECORDS NOTE: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from local officials, employees, or the general public regarding city business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. From: Tobias, Steve Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:14 PM To: 'Martin E. O’Boyle' <meo@commerce-group.com> Cc: Del - Arch Bob Currie (bob@csa-architects.com) <bob@csa-architects.com>; William Ring <wring@commerce- group.com>; Sheila O'Boyle <soboyle@commerce-group.com>; Stillings, Tim <stillings@mydelraybeach.com>; Gelin, Lynn <GelinL@mydelraybeach.com>; Lohman, Max <LohmanM@mydelraybeach.com>; Lauzier, Mark <Lauzier@mydelraybeach.com> Subject: RE: O'Boyle residents-23 N. Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulfstream, FL-1101 Retro Good afternoon Mr. O’Boyle, Permit number 17-168971 for 23 N. Hidden Harbour Drive has been re-opened. Consistent with similar expired permit applications, a letter from the Architect of Record is required to be submitted to the City of Delray Beach Building Division stating the scope of work proposed is “interior only”. All references to exterior work currently on the plan set will need to be performed under a separate permit application. Mr. Currie will need to acknowledge the plan set complies with the Florida Building Code sixth edition. Also, all NOA’s and associated paperwork must be reviewed/acknowledged for current acceptance. Please be reminded the future scope of work outlined below is require to be reviewed by the Town of Gulf Stream for zoning compliance. Respectfully, From: Martin E. O’Boyle \[mailto:meo@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 3:18 PM To: Tobias, Steve 1 Cc: Del - Arch Bob Currie (bob@csa-architects.com); William Ring; Sheila O'Boyle Subject: RE: O'Boyle residents-23 N. Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulfstream, FL-1101 Retro Steve-thank you. Kindly keep us all posted. Needless to say, we are anxious to roll! :-) Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Tobias, Steve <tobias@mydelraybeach.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 3:12 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Cc: Del - Arch Bob Currie (bob@csa-architects.com) <bob@csa-architects.com>; William Ring <wring@commerce- group.com>; Sheila O'Boyle <soboyle@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: O'Boyle residents-23 N. Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulfstream, FL-1101 Retro Good afternoon All, I am in receipt of your email and agree to discuss the three items listed below with the Town of Gulf Stream. I’ve contacted their CM and am awaiting further direction regarding their requirement to “stamp” all associated paperwork. Steve From: Martin E. O’Boyle \[mailto:meo@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 1:46 PM To: Tobias, Steve Cc: Del - Arch Bob Currie (bob@csa-architects.com); William Ring; Sheila O'Boyle Subject: O'Boyle residents-23 N. Hidden Harbour Dr., Gulfstream, FL-1101 Retro Dear Steve: Thank you for spending the time this morning with both Bill Ring and Bob Currie; and, thank you for speaking to both Bill and I afterwards. To be clear, all I want to do is to finish my house and make it a beautiful home and an asset to the community. In that connection, we are "in process" in accomplishing that goal; and now moving forward in the most rapid of fashions, in tending, of course, to comply with all laws and regulations as we go! In connection with this unusual "interior permit issue", as both Bill and I explained to you, we are just plain "baffled". In that connection, we have had the retro plans stamped by Gulfstream; and submitted to Delray. Although, as you have 2 represented to us, the permit has (timewise) expired, there have been no changes as applies to what Gulf Stream has already approved. I can't imagine why Gulfstream would be interested in the interior of my home. I'm thinking that Gulfstream is concerned that I am asking for approval for work outside the main structure. That is not the case and I am agreeable to stating that in writing. Steve, following our discussion of assured bit ago, my notes reflect that we will proceed as follows: 1. You will call the folks at Gulfstream and explained to them that you have the plans with their stamp on. 2. You will also explain to them that, as you see it, the permit has (timewise) matured, but that you are agreeable to extending of the permit. 3. You will explain to them that we have represented that the only work which we will be performing is not outside the structure (meaning on the deck, related to the dock, or any exterior improvements); and that we will be confirming that with you in writing; and that when you renew the permit you will note that it is for the affirmation areas. I'm assuming, based on the foregoing, unless there is a "political issue" that all will be fine with Gulf Stream; and we will be “good to go”. Assuming I am correct, I will instruct Bob Currie to communicate with you so as to update the interior plans (which, as I told you, are still being "tweaked"). Nonetheless, you and Bob Currie have a relationship and I'm certain that the two of you could resolve things easily and nicely. Steve, I do want you to know that we are working on a plan relative to the exterior. In that connection, there will (essentially) be three areas which will be addressed on the exterior plan, as follows: (a) we will show an expanded platform via an "envelope", with the ultimate platform being installed within that envelope. Also, within the envelope we will show the existing pool being demolished and a new pool being installed therein; (b) we will be showing a storage/equipment area on the plan. This will be shown in the form of an envelope as well. Once the actual storage/equipment room is designed, it will fit within the envelope; and (c) we will show an expansion of the structure to the west which will be a covered "open area" for outdoor living. Again, we will show an envelope, with the actual structure to be developed in the envelope. We will also show the structure as being one-story. Relative to the items in (a) through (c) above, we will, of course, ask Gulfstream to approve these items. In connection with the above, after receipt of this email, if you have any questions, please contact me or myself (number below) or feel free to contact Bill Ring (954-328-4383). After you speak to the folks at Gulfstream, please give me a call, as I need to know how to proceed from here as soon as possible. Again, reiterating, my goal is to finish my house beautifully, as I do not believe that the current "Sanford & Son" look is “appropriate for my neighborhood” or appreciated by my neighbors! :-) Many thanks for your kind cooperation. We look for the happiest of endings and a home which everyone will be proud of once finally finished. Thank you again! Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 3 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 4 Renee Basel From:Bill Thrasher Sent:Saturday, August 20, 2016 7:30 AM To:Rita Taylor Subject:Fw: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, et al. Attachments:Scan File_3.pdf; Motion For Protective Order (1).pdf From: Karen Ericksen <ericksen@jambg.com> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:03 PM To: Bill Thrasher; joconnor@jones-foster.com Subject: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, et al. Attached is correspondence from Jeffrey Hochman, Esq. Karen Ericksen Legal Assistant to Jeffrey L. Hochman, Esq. Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 E. Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 (954) 463-0100 ext. 2938 Fax: (954) 463-2444 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1 5TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2016 CA 004546XXXXMB (AA) M ARTIN E. O'BOYLE, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF GULF STREAM; JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSON & STUBBS, P.A.; S WEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, P.L. Defendants. DEFENDANT, TOWN OF GULF STREAM'S, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM ("Town"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c), 1.310(b)(4), and 1.410(e), moves for the entry of a protective order cancelling the August 17, 2016, deposition of Rita Taylor and the August 22, deposition of William Thrasher, and states: 1. On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff -- acting without an attorney in this matter -- served a purported Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Rita Taylor. The defective Notice sets Taylor's deposition on August 19, 2016. See Exhibit "A." The Plaintiff also served a separate Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of William Thrasher. That defective Notice sets Thrasher's deposition on August 22, 2016. See Exhibit "B." 2. The Town requests the entry of a protective order cancelling both depositions because the Notices are facially deficient under Rule 1.310(b)(4), fail to identify the videographer under Rule 1 .310(b)(4)(A), and suggest that the Plaintiff will not provide copies of the videos as required by Rule 1.310(b)(4)(D). Filing # 45407222 E-Filed 08/18/2016 03:47:56 PM O'Boyle v. Johnson, Anselmo, et al. Case No. 2016 CA 004546 3. Based upon email correspondence with the Plaintiff, and based upon the Plaintiffs past conduct during a prior litigated matter between the parties, the Plaintiff will be conducting the videotaping himself and without the use of a third-party videographer. Given this unorthodox approach, the Town seeks to avoid disputes occurring during the depositions relating to the Plaintiffs videotaping practices, including (1) the number of cameras to be used, (2) whether the cameras may capture footage and audio before the deposition begins, during breaks, and after the deposition concludes, (3) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to capture footage of individuals other than the deponent, (4) whether multiple non-parties may attend, provide assistance to the Plaintiff, and engage in independent videotaping, and (5) whether the parties will be provided with true, authentic, and unedited copies of the videos. 4. During independent litigation between the Town and the Plaintiff in O'Boyle v. Town of G ulf Stream and Robert Sweetapple, United States District Court Case No. 9:14-cv-81250-1CAM ("Federal Litigation"), the Plaintiff used multiple cameras during depositions and relied upon various non-parties to assist during the depositions and to operate the cameras. The Plaintiff also captured video and audio while no testimony was being given, captured video of the participating attorneys, and refused to provide copies of the videos to counsel. According to the Plaintiff's e-mail dated August 13, 2016, the Plaintiff seeks to engage in the same improper conduct in this proceeding. A copy of the Plaintiffs e-mail is attached as Exhibit "C" (the e-mail states: "The video is not for use of the Court but solely for Work Product."). According to the Plaintiff, the Town is not entitled to copies of the videos because they represent the Plaintiff's work product. -2- O'Boyle v. Johnson, Anselmo, et al. Case No. 2016 CA 004546 5. Although that argument was rejected twice in the Federal Litigation, and although the federal court ordered the production of the videos, see Exhibits "D" and "E," the Plaintiff's e-mail suggests an effort to replicate his improper conduct here and to violate Rule 1.310(b)(4)(D). 6. The Town requests that the Court address the issues noted above before the depositions are commenced. The Town also requests the entry of an order (1) limiting the Plaintiff to a single video camera, (2) prohibiting the Plaintiff from capturing footage and audio when the deponent is not providing testimony, (3) prohibiting the Plaintiff from capturing footage of individuals other than the deponent, (4) limiting the attendance and participation of non-parties, and (5) requiring the Plaintiff to provide each requesting party with a true, authentic, and unedited copy of each video. As part of that relief, the Town also requests that the Court determine, as indicated by the Order issued by United States Magistrate Judge William Matthewman and the Order issued by United States District Judge Kenneth Marra, that deposition videos are not protected under the work-product privilege. See Exhibit "D" and Exhibit "E." 7. Finally, as of Wednesday, August 17, 2016 (two days before the Taylor deposition and 5 days before the Thrasher deposition), neither Taylor nor Thrasher had been served with a subpoena to secure their testimony as required by under Rule 1.410(e). Assuming that the Plaintiff intends to serve untimely subpoenas, such documents are likely to suffer from the same defects as the Notices: "The subpoena shall state the method for recording the testimony." See Fla. R. Civ. P 1.410(e) (emphasis added). As a result, since each subpoena would be both untimely and facially insufficient, both subpoenas, if ever issued and served, should be quashed. -3- O'Boyle v. Johnson, Anselmo, et al. Case No. 2016 CA 004546 WHEREFORE, the Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM, requests the entry of an Order (1) cancelling the August 19, 2016, deposition of Rita Taylor, (2) cancelling the August 22, 2016, deposition of William Thrasher, (3) setting procedures for the Plaintiff's proposed effort to conduct videotaping in this matter, and (4) providing such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 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 18th day of August 2016. JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant, Johnson, Anselmo, et al. 2455 E. Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Tel: (954) 463-0100 By: JEFF L. HOCHMAN Florida Bar Number 902098 HUDSON C. GILL Florida Bar Number 15274 -4- SERVICE LIST PLAINTIFF PRO SE Martin O'Boyle Commerce Group, Inc. 1 280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Mobovle@com merce-groun.com SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, P.L. Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq. S weetapple, 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 W est Palm Beach, FL 33402 joconnor@iones-foster.com -5- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA M ARTIN E. O'BOYLE Pro Se Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 502016CA004546 v. THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM; JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSON & STUBBS, P.A.; SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, P.L,; Defendant. N OTICE OF TA KIN G VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Pro Se Plaintiff, MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, will, take the deposition upon oral examination of Rita Taylor on August 19, 2016, before a person authorized b y law to administer oaths at Daughters Reporting, 1515 N. Federal Highway, Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 which will begin at 10:00 a.m. This deposition will continue from d ay to day until complete. CERTIFICATE O F S E R V I C E I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above foregoing was served and filed via Florida's e-Portal on this 12th day of August, 2016 and provided via email to Attorneys for Defendants, Joanne O'Connor, Esq. at i oconnor(4ionesfoster.com; Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq, at p lead ings cD,sweetapple.com; and Jeffrey Hochman, Esq. at hochman@jambg.com . Dated: A u gust 1 2, 20 1 6 fit EXHIBIT Respectfully submitted, PREPARED WITH ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, as Pro Se Plaintiff Is/ Martin E. O'Boyle Martin E. O'Boyle 1280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone: (954) 570-3505 moboyle(iPcornmerce-group.com IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MARTIN E. O'BOYLE Pro Se Plaintiff CASE NO.: 502016CA004546 V. THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM; JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSON & STUBBS, P.A.; SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER, VARKAS, Defendant. NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Pro Se Plaintiff, MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, will take the deposition upon oral examination of William Thrasher on August 22, 2016, before a person authorized by law to administer oaths at Daughters Reporting, 1515 N. Federal Highway, Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 which will begin at 10:00 a.m. This deposition will continue from day to day until complete. CERTIFICATE O F S E R V I C E I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above foregoing was served and filed via Florida's e-Portal on this 12th day of August, 2016 and provided via email to Attorneys for Defendants, Joanne O'Connor, Esq, at joconnor@i onesfoster.com; Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq, at pleadings@sweetapple.com; and Jeffrey Hochman, Esq. at hochman@jambg.com Dated: August 1 2, 2016 Respectfully submitted, PREPARED WITH ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL M ARTIN E. O'BOYLE, as Pro Se Plaintiff EXHIBIT Is! M artin E. O'Boyle Martin E. O'Boyle 1 280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone: (954) 570-3505 moboyle@commerce-group.corn 6/17/2016 Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke Mail - RE: O'BOYLE V GULF STREAM 502016CA004546 G m if RE: O'BOYLE- V GULF STREAM 502016CA004546 1 message Jeff Hochman <hochmanejambg.com> M arty O'Boyle <moboyle©commerce-group.com> Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 4:38 PM To: "hochman@jambg.com" <hochman@jambg.com> Please see attached with time and date agreed upon. I will be taking the Video in this and Rita's deposition. The video is not for use of the Court but solely for Work Product. Thank you M artin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1 280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle©commerce-group.com Web Page: wvvw.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 4:30 PM To: 'hochman@jambg.com' Subject: FW: O'BOYLE V GULF STREAM 502016CA004546 J eff — what about the 18t h or 19th for Rita and the 17t h for Thrasher (although the 22n d — as originally contemplated— works well)? As stated below, if I do not hear from you by 5pm, I will proceed to set Rita's depo as per below. Kindly advise. EXHIBIT ne M artin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1 280 W. Newport Center Drive Mtps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?oi=2&ik=8c3163b5f6&view=Pt&search=inbox&th=15685a0acf685106&siml=15685a0acf685106 1/3 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 1 of 9 M ARTIN O'BOYLE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Civil No. 14-cv-81250-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE and TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendants, FILED by J UN 3 0 2016 STEVEN M LARIMORE C LERK U.S. DIST, CT, S.D. OF FLA... W.P.B. DC ORDER GRA NTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF AUDIO-VIDEO RECORDINGS OF DEPOSITIONS fDE 1111 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant, Town of Gulf Stream's ("Defendant") Motion to Compel Production of Audio-Video Recordings of Depositions ("Motion") [DE III], This matter was referred to the undersigned by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra. See DE 17. Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle ("Plaintiff') has filed a Response to the Motion [DE 1 34], and Defendant has filed a Reply [DE 158]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, Response, and Reply, as well the entire docket in this case. I. BACKGROUND In the Motion, Defendant explains that Plaintiff has noticed every deposition he has taken in this case as a "video deposition" and that he has audio-video recorded the depositions himself using personal recording cameras. [DE II I, p. 1]. According to Defendant, Plaintiff has also audio-video recorded the depositions noticed by other parties even if the depositions were not EXHIBIT Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 2 of 9 actually noticed as video depositions. Id. Defendant now wants copies of the audio-video recordings of all of the depositions which Plaintiff personally videotaped. Id. at p. 2. To that end, on May 31, 2016, Defendant served upon Plaintiff a request for copies of the various audio-video recordings of the depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(0(3) and also served a request for production of the recordings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Id When Plaintiff refused to provide copies of the audio-video recordings, Defendant filed this Motion on June 3, 2016. Id. According to Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff has refused to produce the recordings on the basis that they are protected by the work-product privilege and the protection afforded by Rule 26(b). Id. Defendant argues that the work-product privilege does not apply here and that Plaintiff should be compelled to produce the recordings pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at pp. 3-4. In Response, Plaintiff contends that he is not an "officer" as the term is used in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 or a professional videographer, so he should not be required to produce the recordings pursuant to a rule that does not apply to him. [DE 134, pp. 1-3]. Plaintiff next asserts that, if the Court finds that he must provide the recordings to Defendant, then Defendant should be directed to pay for the copies of the recordings. Id. at p. 3. Plaintiff points out that the d epositions were recorded by a stenographer and that Defendant can obtain a transcript from that individual. Id. He contends that the recordings are protected by the work-product privilege as they were created to aid him in preparing for trial. Id. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has violated Local Rule 26.1(d) because Defendant did not serve its request for copies and request for production until May 31, 2016, so the responses were due after the June 8th discovery cut-off. Id at pp. 3-4. A ll depositions were also stenographically recorded by a court reporter. 2 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/3012016 Page 3 of 9 In Defendant's Reply, it argues that the "plain language of Rule 30(0(3) contemplates that the Recordings be available to all parties in the litigation including the Town" and that Plaintiff's "decision to forego the use of an independent videographer places upon him the obligation to make those recordings available to the other side." [DE 158, pp. 1-2]. Defendant also asserts that the work-product doctrine is inapplicable and that Defendant moved diligently to obtain the recordings. Id. at p. 2. Defendant points out that all but one of the recorded depositions occurred after May 24, 2016 less than 30 days before the discovery cut-off date—so it could not have served a request for production for which responses would be due prior to the discovery cut-off date. Id. at pp. 2-3. Defendant represents that it does not oppose paying reasonable copying costs. Id. at p. 2. II. A NALYSIS Had the parties acted professionally and courteously with one another, they would have—at the outset of the depositions—discussed the recording issue and made a good faith attempt to agree on the audio-video recording procedure, who would perform the recordings, the availability of the recordings to all parties upon request, and payment of the costs of duplication. Instead, it appears that Plaintiff simply decided to record the depositions himself, no party lodged an objection at the time of the depositions, and no party sought to present the issue to the Court at or before the taking of the depositions. Now, of course, there is a dispute which the Court is called upon to resolve. Fed:R.Civ.P. 30(6)(3) states in relevant part as follows: (3) Method of Recording. (A) Method Stated in the Notice. The party who notices the deposition m ust state in the notice the method for recording the testimony. Unless the court orders otherwise, testimony may be recorded by audio, 3 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 4 of 9 audiovisual, or stenographic means. The noticing party bears the recording costs, Any party may arrange to transcribe a deposition. (B) Additional Method, With prior notice to the deponent and other parties, any party may designate another method for recording the testimony in addition to that specified in the original notice. That party bears the expense of the additional record or transcript unless the court orders otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3). Under this Rule, the party who notices the deposition must state the method of recording. The last sentence of Rule 30(b)(3)(A), which states that "[a]ny party may arrange to transcribe a deposition", indicates that any party may obtain a transcript of the d eposition in the manner utilized by the party taking the deposition. That is, if the party who notices the deposition states that it will be taken by stenographic means, then any party should be able to obtain a copy of the court reporter's transcript of the deposition. Likewise, if the party w ho notices the deposition states that it will be taken by stenographic means and video, then any party should be able to obtain obtain both a copy of the court reporter's transcript and a copy of the video recording. The Court has found no cases which address the precise issue raised in this m atter, probably because it is so clear that all parties are entitled to a court reporter's transcript and a udio-video recording of a video deposition taken in a case. The fact that Plaintiff decided to personally audio-video record the depositions he noticed as video depositions in this case, instead of hiring a professional stenographer, does not change this result. Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(0(3) requires that "[ujnless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, the officer must retain.. .a copy of the recording of a deposition taken by another method. When paid reasonable charges, the officer must furnish a copy of the transcript or recording to any party or the deponent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(0(3). In this case, the audio-video recordings were made by Plaintiff, and he argues that he is a party, not an officer, and 4 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 5 of 9 therefore he does not have to provide the audio-video recordings. Plaintiff is correct that the Rule uses the term "officer" and not "party." This is because, in most situations, parties do not record their own video depositions. And when they do attempt to do so, the opposing party typically o bjects, and the matter is resolved by the Court before the deposition proceeds. See, e.g., C.G. v. Winslow Twp. Bd. of Educ., Civil No. 13-6278 (RBK/KMW), 2015 WL 3794578 (D. N.J. June. 1 7, 2015) (after plaintiff sent notice of a video deposition to defendant but did not state that plaintiff's counsel would personally record the deposition, defendant's counsel objected, and the court ruled that plaintiff's attorney was barred from personally videotaping the deposition); Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 296 F.R.D. 231, 240 (S.D. N.Y. 2013) (court barred an attorney from videotaping a deposition even though an official court reporter was present where party failed to file a 30(b)(6) notice and the methodology of his recording was suspect); Cf. Maranville v. Utah Valley Univ., No. 2: I I CV958, 2012 WL 1493888, at * 1-2 (D. Utah Nov. 21, 2013) (rejecting argument that plaintiff's counsel could not videotape depositions himself where another officer would be recording the depositions stenographically); Pioneer Drive, LLC v. Nissan Diesel A m., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 552, 555 (D. Mont. 2009) (finding that the Rules "allow, at the very least, counsel to videotape a deposition in concert with a stenographer recording it"). In fact, had Defendant brought the issue to the Court's attention before the depositions began, the Court would have either ordered Plaintiff to use a professional videographer or would have put strict requirements in place, including the availability of all audio-video recordings to all parties, in order to govern the use of a non-professional videographer. This would have prevented the instant dispute from arising as discovery closed in this case. The Court notes that this is a very unique situation where Plaintiff opted to audio-video record all depositions, whether noticed by him or by another party, with his own camera. Plaintiff 5 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 6 of 9 also audio-video recorded the attorneys for the defendants who were present at the depositions. This was a highly unusual procedure. Plaintiff claims that his audio-video recordings of the d epositions and the defense attorneys at the depositions constitute work product. As to depositions that Plaintiff noticed as videotape depositions, the work-product doctrine clearly would not protect such recordings. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), which governs the work-product doctrine, states that lokdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial or for another party or its representative...." However, the very fact that defense counsel was present for the depositions at issue would vitiate the work-product privilege. These were depositions attended by Plaintiff and defense counsel, and the recordings of the deposition would not fall within the ambit of the work-product privilege as they are non-stop videos of proceedings noticed as video depositions. N ot surprisingly, Plaintiff has not cited one case which allows for work-product protection of audio-video recordings from depositions in which one of the parties to the litigation audio-video recorded the deposition. As to depositions noticed by any of the Defendants, where Plaintiff chose to audio-video record those depositions and the attorneys present at the depositions, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing that his audio-video recordings are protected by the work product doctrine. "The burden is on the party withholding discovery to show that the documents are protected by the work-product privilege." Sun Capital Partners, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No, 12-81397-CIV, 2015 WL 1860826, at *4 (S.D. Ha. Apr. 22, 2015) (citing Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 698 (S.D. Fla. 2007)). Plaintiffs mere audio-video recording of the entirety of properly noticed depositions and the attorneys present at those depositions does not support his claim of work-product privilege. Again, Plaintiff has not cited a single case which applies 6 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 7 of 9 work-product protection to such audio-video recordings of the depositions and counsel in attendance at the depositions. In summary, since Plaintiff chose to audio-video record the depositions himself rather than hire an expert videographer to do it, he is required to make the audio-video recordings available to Defendant pursuant to the Rules.2 Such a decision comports with fairness and common sense. It would be unjust to Defendant to deny Defendant copies of the audio-video recordings of the d epositions that would have been available for purchase if Plaintiff had hired a professional videographer rather than recording the depositions himself as a cost-saving measure. The Court does agree with Plaintiff's position, however, that Defendant should have to pay the copying or duplication costs of the audio-video recordings pursuant to the Rule, which issue is addressed later i n this Order. The Court notes Plaintiff's argument that Local Rule 26.1(d) precludes the relief sought by Defendant. Southern District of Florida Local Rule 26.I(d) states in relevant part that "written d iscovery requests and subpoenas seeking the production of documents must be served in sufficient time that the response is due on or before the discovery cutoff date. Failure by the party seeking discovery to comply with this paragraph obviates the need to respond or object to the d iscovery ...." While the Local Rule would apply to the requests for production propounded by Defendant,3 it would not apply to Defendant's request for copies. First, the actual wording of the Local Rule does not mention a request for copies of transcripts or recordings. Second, there is no 2 The Court notes that, even though the Motion was filed only by Defendant, all defendants in this case are entitled to copies of the audio-video recordings made by Plaintiff. 3 The Court finds that it is more appropriate for the recordings to be turned over in response to Defendant's request for copies, which is why it has focused its analysis on the request for copies rather than on Defendant's request for production. However, the Court notes that Defendant's request for production did not violate Local Rule 26.1(d) as to the vast majority of the deposition recordings because it would have been impossible for Defendant to propound the request for production more than 30 days prior to the June 8, 2016 discovery cut-off for any deposition that was taken within 30 days of the discovery cut-off. 7 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 8 of 9 time period set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3) or (30)(f)(3) for providing the transcripts or recordings, so the Local Rule could not apply. Third, the Local Rule implicitly a nticipates that it takes some time for a party to compile information and/or documents in order to respond to discovery requests and, therefore, the party should be entitled to the full 30 days allowed for by the Federal Rules to respond to discovery without being forced to respond to discovery beyond the discovery cut-off. With regard to a request for copies of audio-video recorded depositions, on the other hand, such items can be quickly copied or duplicated; there is no need for Plaintiff to search for the audio-video recordings. Fourth, if Plaintiff had taken a deposition the day before the discovery cut-off, for example, and the Local Rule applied to the request for a copy of the audio-video recording, it would be impossible for Defendant to obtain the recording. This result would be illogical. The Court will not place form over substance, and instead will require production as sought by Defendant. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1 . Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Audio-Video Recordings of Depositions [DE 111] is GRANTED. 2. On or before July 8, 2016, Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's request for copies [DE 111-2] and this Order and shall provide the requested audio-video recordings to Defendant's counsel or to an agreed-upon reputable commercial copy service located in Palm Beach County. The audio-video recordings produced to Defendant shall be complete and shall not be redacted, modified, or altered in any manner whatsoever. 3. Prior to providing the recordings to Defendant, Plaintiff shall notify Defendant's counsel of the actual copy costs incurred in copying the audio-video recordings. These copy or duplication costs must be reasonable and not excessive. No other fees 8 Case 9 1.4-cv-E31250-KAM Document 162 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2016 Page 9 of 9 or costs other than the actual and reasonable copy or duplication costs, and any courier e xpenses, shall be allowed, Defendant shall then promptly reimburse Plaintiff, within seven (7) days of receipt of the audio-video recordings for the costs of copying or d uplicating the audio-video recordings and any reasonable courier fees. If Plaintiff requests what Defendant believes to be unreasonable costs or expensesfor copying or d uplicating the recordings, however, Defendant may promptly file a motion with the Court, and the Court will determine the costs issue, if necessary.4 4. Plaintiff's request for fees [DE 134, p. 4] is DENIED. Defendant's Motion is granted, and so an award of fees to Plaintiff would be inappropriate. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 30 a-ay of June, 2016. WILLIAM MA TI-IEWMAN United States agistrate Judge This matter should not require any further court intervention if the parties act reasonably, courteously, and professionally. An alternative procedure that the parties may utilize is as follows: The video recordings can be delivered by Plaintiff to a reputable commercial copy service, the copy service can provide copies or duplicates to Defendant, and Defendant can pay for the actual copy costs directly to the copy service. The Court expects the parties to not bicker over the procedure for production. 9 Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2016 Page 1 of 2 U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:14-CV-81250-KAM M ARTIN E. O'BOYLE, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE, et al., D efendants. ORDER This matter s before the Court on Plaintiffs Appeal of Magistrate's Order (DE 191). Though labeled an "appeal," Plaintiff's filing is actually an objection to the Magistrate's order on a nondispos ve matter. As such, it is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Plaintiff fails to meet his burden under Rule 72(a) of showing that the Magistrate's rejection of Plaintiff's w ork-product argument is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff's reliance upon a case holding that tape recorded interviews of witnesses by an investigator constitutes work product is misplaced. Witness interviews are conducted in private by a party, they are not conducted jointly w ith other parties to the litigation.Here, we are dealing with depositions which were conducted openly with all parties able to participate. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 225 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2016 Page 2 of 2 that Plaintiffs Appeal of Magistrate's Order (DE 191) is DENIED. D ONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, t his 12'' day of August, 2016. KENNETH A. MARRA U nited States District Judge 2 LAW OFFICES J OHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A. DAMIAN H. ALBERT, P.A. SCOTT D. ALEXANDER, P.A. MICHAEL T. BURKE * BLAKE H. FIERY HUDSON C. GILL, P.A. J EFFREY L. HOCHMAN, P.A. E. BRUCE JOHNSON • MELISSA L. JOHNSON • BOARD (7,7?771,71:7) ell 7L TRIAL L4117ERS William Thrasher Town Manager Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION W. HAMPTON JOHNSON IV 2455 EAST SUNRISE BOULEVARD J. MARCOS MARTINEZSUITE 1000 ROBERT E. MURDOCHFORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33304 MICHAEL R. PIPER* DAVID M. SCHWEIGER, P.A. CHRISTOPHER L. SMITH (954) 463-0100 Broward CHRISTOPHER J. STEARNS, P.A. (305) 945-2000 Dade (561) 640-7448 WPB R,77712Elk TELECOPIER (954) 463-2444 RONALD P. ANSELMO BURL F. GEORGE August 19, 2016 VIA EM AIL Re: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, et al. Our File: 02015/36206 Case No. 50 2016-CA-004546 Dear Mr, Thrasher: Enclosed please find a copy of the Motion for Protective Order that we filed on behalf of the Town of Gulf Stream in the above-referenced matter. The enclosure asks the Court to establish appropriate procedures associated with Mr. O'Boyle's effort to conduct videotaping of depositions in this matter. We have advised the Court about Mr. O'Boyle's prior misconduct, including his refusal to provide copies of deposition videos, and requested that the Court address this issue before any depositions may proceed. Based upon the enclosure, Rita Taylor's deposition on August 19 and your deposition on August 22 have been canceled and will be rescheduled. Very truly yours, Jeffre Hochman For the Firm JLH/kme Enclosure cc: Joanne O'Connor, Esq., Via Email, w/encl. Renee Basel From:Scott Morgan <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 17, 2017 8:41 AM To:Trey Nazzaro; Bob Sweetapple; hochman@jambg.com; Hudson Gill Subject:Fw: O'Boyle\\Gulfstream Disputes From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:59 AM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Cc: William Ring Subject: O'Boyle\\Gulfstream Disputes Scott – if you still have an interest in reaching a final settlement, why don’t we set up a Mediation with Fred Hazouri. I know your lawyer’s have continually resisted this concept, which I think is unreasonable (unless the Town intends to be unreasonable). It seems like a way to (maybe) save the Town $$$millions, unless you and the others embrace that concept. If you are interested, you will let me hear from you. Otherwise, be assured that we will greet the Town’s non- factual & non-law based, but disparaging attacks at every corner. Not good for the Taxpayers of Gulfstream. Certainly good for the Ego’s on the Town’s side and better for the Lawyers who are getting rich having developed this “Cottage Industry” that they have, attacking the speech of parties making Records Requests.. Incidentally, you had asked me to ask you about information going forward. Can you tell me what the Town has paid Sweetapple “So Far”? If not, I will make a Records Request. The people should know. IN any event, I hope you are enjoying the sumer. Stay well and be safe!  Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com To help protect your privacy, Virus-free. www.avast.com Microsoft Office prevented 1 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:56 AM To:Trey Nazzaro; Joanne O'Connor; Robert Sweetapple Subject:Fw: PUblic Records request - updated bar complaint Attachments:Bar Records Request; Public Record Request bar complaint since 9-4-16 Trey, Have you seen these requests, and, if so, has an acknowledgement been sent out? Let’s discuss. Also, I would like to discuss your contacting OHare, OBoyle and anyone else who sends PRRs directly to law firms representing the Town that this is an inappropriate method of making PRRs and that all PRRs must be submitted to Renee Basel, the Town clerk for PRRs. We would also notify our attorneys that they are to disregard such PRRs and not respond to them. PRRs will be handled by the Town Clerk, who will contact the attorneys for information, if necessary. From: OConnor, Joanne M. Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 4:34 PM To: mailto:scottmorgan75@gmail.com ; Robert Sweetapple Cc: Renee Basel Subject: PUblic Records request - updated bar complaint Please see attached and advise Renee how to respond. Thanks, Joanne 1 Renee Basel From:Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 5, 2016 4:15 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M.; Renee Basel Cc:Richard Conforti; Jonathan O'Boyle Subject:Bar Records Request This message originated from outside your organization I would like to request communications that are public records which regard Morgan’s bar complaint update and Sweetapple’s bar complaint update that occurred in 2016. I am thinking Emails (with attachments), letters, text messages, and of course, the word doc file of both Morgan’s update and Sweetappl’s. I would like any attorney-client communications with that regard. Please let me know if a deposit is required in advance. I would like documents in their original and native format to be emailed to me at this address. As always, I would appreciate a production schedule in advance so I know when to check back with the Town. Jonathan O’Boyle, Esq., LLM. Licensed In Pennsylvania* Licensed In New Jersey* Licensed in Florida* The O’Boyle Law Firm, P.C. www.oboylelawfirm.com Pennsylvania Office 1001 Broad St. Johnstown, PA 15906 Tel: 814-535-5175 Fax: 215-893-3641 joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com New Jersey Office 10 Grove St. Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Tel: 814-535-5175 Fax: 215-893-3641 joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com Florida Office 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Office: 954-570-3533 Fax: 754-212-2444 joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com 1 IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. =========================================================== NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E- MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 2 Renee Basel From:Chris O'Hare <chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, October 7, 2016 1:07 PM To:bthrasher@gulf-stream.org; Rita Taylor; Renee Basel; rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com; OConnor, Joanne M.; GRichman@richmangreer.com Subject:Public Record Request bar complaint since 9-4-16 This message originated from outside your organization Dear Custodian of Records, I request to inspect certain public records* in the custody of the Town of Gulf Stream Florida** or in the custody of its agents or associated entities. While I am not statutorily obligated to explain why I want to inspect these records, I tell you it is for the purpose of informing myself of the historic and current workings of the Town of Gulf Stream and its associated entities, vendors, consultants, advisers, contractors and agents. The records I wish to inspect may also be material to current, anticipated or presently unforeseen legal action. In addition, inspection of these records may be essential to my ability to make informed comments in an upcoming public hearing. The production of any and all responsive records is therefore urgent and must be acted upon in compliance with Florida Statutes and established case law as soon as possible. Before making this public record request, I first searched online and in the public records portion of your agency's website hoping I could locate the public records I seek without having to write you directly. Unfortunately I cannot find the records I wish to inspect. Therefore I am writing you now and requesting you make every effort as required by law to produce these public records without delay. The public records I seek to inspect may be in the custody of an entity currently or previously associated with, or under contract with, your agency. As a courtesy to you and that entity, and to assist in expediting my access to inspect records responsive to this request I am notifying the Town attorneys of this request by copy of this email. I am NOT requesting these entity produce responsive records directly to me. Rather I am alerting them to my request to you so that they may prepare to assist you, if they choose to, in producing responsive records. Do not assume my act of copying the Town attorneys with this request relieves you of any of your duties under Florida Statute. I ask that you contact them directly in order to obtain all Public records responsive to this request. I make this request pursuant to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. I hereby reserve all rights granted to me under the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes. 1 I ask that you take the following action:  Read this entire request carefully and respond accordingly.  If you are not the custodian of the public records described herein please determine who that person is and notify me immediately in order that I may make this request to the appropriate person without delay.  Reference Florida Statutes and appropriate case law when responding to this record request.  Do NOT produce any records other than records responsive to this request.  Identify by name the person or persons responding to this request if that person is not the Custodian of Records for your agency as required by 119.07(1)(b).  Respond to this public record request in a singular manner and do not combine this request with any other public record requests when responding to this request.  Once you have determined that you do or don’t have any records in your custody responsive to this request, immediately act to obtain any responsive records that may be in the custody of your contractor(s) or other parties.  Provide only those records for inspection that do not require extensive use of information technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes.  If records responsive to this request are not presently available but you expect that they will soon be available I request that you produce the records as soon as they are available. I ask you to take note of §119.07(1)(c) Florida Statues and your affirmative obligation to (1) promptly acknowledge receipt of this public records request and (2) make a good faith effort which “includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or employees within the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at which the record can be accessed.” I am, therefore, requesting that you notify every individual and entity in possession of records that may be responsive to this public records request, including individuals and entities under contract with your agency, to preserve and produce all responsive records on an immediate basis. If you contend that any of the records I am seeking, or any portion thereof, are exempt from inspection or disclosure please cite the specific exemption as required by §119.07(1)(e) of the Florida Statutes and state in writing and with particularity the basis for your conclusions as required by §119.07(1)(f) of the Florida Statutes. Produce for my inspection all responsive records and ONLY redact that portion of the record that you consider exempt. To be clear, if you consider an entire record to be exempt, produce that record in its entirety with all portions redacted that you consider exempt. I specifically ask you to do this in order that I may inspect fully redacted records for the purpose of challenging a particular redaction or establishing a reference for a future request of a record that is only temporarily exempt, as in the case of a public record that was prepared by an agency attorney exclusively for litigation and is only exempt from disclosure until the conclusion of the litigation. If the public records being sought are maintained by your agency or contactors for your agency, in an electronic format please produce the records in the original electronic format in which they were created or received. See §119.01(2)(f), Florida Statutes. Again I ask that you provide only those records for inspection that do not require extensive use of information technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes. Take note of §119.07(4)(a)3.(d) Florida Statues and if you anticipate that any records exist, the production for inspection of which will require extensive use of information technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15 minutes, then please provide those records that can be produced within the first 15 minutes and advise me of the cost you anticipate to be incurred by your agency for the remaining records prior to incurring this cost. Please do not incur any costs on my behalf without first obtaining my written authorization to proceed. If you produce only a portion of all existing 2 responsive records, please tell me that your response includes only a portion of all existing records responsive to this request. If you anticipate the need to incur any costs that I would be statutorily required to pay in order to inspect these public records which would exceed $1.00 please notify me in advance of your incurring that cost with a written estimate of the total cost. Please be sure to itemize any estimates so as to indicate the total number of pages and/or records, as well as to distinguish the cost of labor and materials. Again, please do not incur any costs on my behalf without first obtaining my written authorization to proceed. A record that does not exist because of its disposition requires the creation of a disposition record. In all instances where you determine a record does not exist please determine if the record once existed and in its replacement provide the disposition record for my inspection. All public records* created during the time period from September 4, 2016 to the time you receive this request which are related to the Town of Gulf Stream**preparing, approving or filing a complaint with the Florida Bar against any attorney. *The term public records, as used herein, has the same meaning and scope as the definition of Public records adopted by the Florida Legislature as Statutes Chapter 119. **The phrase Town of Gulf Stream when used herein refers to the Town in its entirety and all entities of the Town including all employees, appointees, officials, assignees, counsel and consultants including Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Police Chief, Town Commissioners, Town Mayor, Town Departments, Town Police Officers, Town Employees, Town Engineer, the law firm (Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs P.A.) that claims to be the Town Attorney including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm; the Town Counsel of Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkus including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm, the Town Counsel of Richman Greer, P.A. including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm and any other entity associated with the Town and subject to public records law. If you do not understand any part of this request or if you need clarification about this request, notify me as soon as possible so I may further describe or clarify this request. All responses to this public records request should be made in writing to the following email address: chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com 3 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, June 14, 2019 2:36 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Rita Taylor; Jon O'Boyle Subject:FW: Record request pursuing to chapter 119 of the Florida statue - notes from Commissioners-commission meeting-zoning matter-Martin O'Boyle-June 14, 2019 Renee-OOPS! I forgot to copy you on the attached. Incidentally, would you please have Ms. Taylor write to me and advise who I should be sending future records requests to? I was shocked when you told me today that they should not be sent to you. I’m assuming that this is just a new ploy by the Town to attempt to violate my Constitutional Rights. Please convince me that I am wrong!  Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 2:32 PM To: Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org> Cc: 'Michelle Melicia (mmelicia@commerce-group.com)' <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: Record request pursuing to chapter 119 of the Florida statue - notes from Commissioners-commission meeting-zoning matter-Martin O'Boyle-June 14, 2019 Rita – may I come over now and pick up the records? I will bring the $250 and you could hand it right back to me, since the records were readily available when inquiry was made. I recognize the Town’s punitive nature (which will no longer be tolerated). Please advise. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. 1 Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 12:18 PM To: Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Fwd: Record request pursuing to chapter 119 of the Florida statue Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com Begin forwarded message: From: meo@commerce-group.com Date: June 14, 2019 at 12:16:25 PM EDT To: Renee Basel <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Record request pursuing to chapter 119 of the Florida statue Please provide a copy of all writings of the Commissioners and the Town Manager made are created during the Commission meeting on June 14, 2019 regarding the application of Martin O’Boyle Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 2 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 3 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:27 AM To:Renee Basel Subject:FW: Records (2654) - Request for Clarification regarding records requests (#15-1955 \\1956\\1957 (Our request #'s - 1115-1117) - meaning NSR Attachments:FW: GS #2654 (Passeggiata communications); Public records Request #15-1955\\1956 \\1957 (Our request #'s - 1115-117; Records Requests - Town of Gulf Stream Renee – my most recent (same subject – same attachments) was a “Misfire” for which I apologize. Usually, you respond in the promptest of fashions. Recently, that has not been in the case; and I don’t know why. Perhaps you could explain. The above aside, please let me know if and when I will be hearing from you. I would regret having to take action, when communication could likely resolve my inquiries. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you today. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:23 AM To: 'Renee Basel' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Records (2654) - Request for Clarification regarding records requests (#15-1955\\1956\\1957 (Our request #'s - 1115-1117) - meaning NSR 1 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 8:34 AM To:Renee Basel Subject:FW: GS #2654 (Passeggiata communications) Renee – good morning! Please proceed to promptly fill this request. Thank you. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 4:09 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2654 (Passeggiata communications) Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business 1 are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Saturday, April 13, 2019 10:33 AM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:Public records Request #15-1955\\1956\\1957 (Our request #'s - 1115-117 Renee – as to the caption and the attached, as I review certain of the records re quests of the past, I came across these 3, which for reasons unknown to me, you improperly “bulked” them together. That said, I would like you to “unbulk” them; and provide me estimates for each, along with an understanding of any additional costs, e.g.: rates (and how they were determined); and the amount of time estimated (and how that was determine. Thank you and I await your prompt response. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Saturday, April 13, 2019 6:19 AM To:Renee Basel Subject:Records Requests - Town of Gulf Stream Renee – I was recently reviewing the Town Website; and, more particularly, the Records Section. I see the letters “NSR” applicable to many. Please advise what that means. Thank you!  Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 9:35 AM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: Records Request - #2720 (per Renee) Attachments:Records Request 2720 - Gulf Stream.jpg Renee – as to the below, when I was with you at the end of the day on Tuesday, I provided you with the attached. I went over it with you, so as to make sure that you understood my handwriting. You confirmed that you did. I write to you, since, as a rule, when making a records request, you normally parrot back (in a letter) the request. I have yet to receive any such letter. If you do not intend to send a letter, I am cool with that. I just found not receiving one to be odd. Good day@!  Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:00 AM To: 'rbasel@gulf-stream.org' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org>; 'rtaylor@gulf-stream.org' <rtaylor@gulf-stream.org> Cc: 'Michelle Melicia (mmelicia@commerce-group.com)' <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: Records Request - #2720 (per Renee) Reference is made to the attached. Please accept this letter as formal notice (pursuant to Ch. 119.12(1)(b) Notice) that if we do not receive a full and complete response to the referenced Records Request within five (5) business days from the date of this email, we will institute a formal legal action against you, unless an agreed upon reasonable extension is requested and granted. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, 1 Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 \© � 7zt i§: � s ` f;l�° ^ � / � »��� d \ w]> \{}\/} ° ,,\<�! � �� � \ � }i {� ) a i/}2 ${):zz v, ~ � Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:58 PM To:Renee Basel Subject:FW: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. Attachments:O'BOYLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.pdf; RE: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. In furtherance to the below request; and based on your attached email, I am having a check in the amount of $250 delivered to you in the am, as you have requested. This check is being submitted under protest. We are reserving our rights in connection with your demand that you are refusing to process the request absent your advance receipt of these funds. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:56 AM To: 'Renee Basel' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org>; 'rtaylor@gulf-stream.org' <rtaylor@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. Dear Madam Custodian of Records & Ms. Renee Basel – please see the below records request. Please promptly advise if you need any clarifications; otherwise, I would appreciate it if the records could be produced promptly. In connection with this request, it is my understanding that the Town is holding a $250 deposit in connection with a prior request. In connection with this request, pursuant to the attached Settlement Agreement; and, more particularly Paragraph #5 thereof, the $250 which the Town is holding fulfills the obligation of the Requestor. Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which refer to 23 N Hidden harbor Dr. Gulf Stream, Fl.; and, more particularly, the Dock and \\or Promenade for the period beginning January 1, 2017 thru the date of this request. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. 1 The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT For and in consideration of $15,000 and other good and valuable consideration to be paid by the TOWN OF GULF STREAM ("Town") to MARTIN O'BOYLE ("O'Boyle"), individually and on behalf of Asset Enhancement, Inc., Airline Highway, LLC, Commerce Group, Inc., Commerce Realty Group, Inc., CRO Aviation, Inc., Our Public Records, LLC, CG Acquisition Company, Inc, and Stopdirtygovernment, Inc. (collectively with O'Boyle, the "Public Records Plaintiffs") (the Town, O'Boyle and the Public Records Plaintiffs referred to collectively as the "Parties") agree as follows: 2. Dismissed Claims/Cases. On or before December 12, 2018, counsel for the Public Records Plaintiffs shall deliver to the Town's counsel stipulations for the dismissal with prejudice of the following claims and/or cases (the "Dismissed Claims/Cases") in the appropriate court to secure a final order of dismissal of each case with each party to bear its own attorney's fees and costs, even if a party is otherwise entitled to seek attorney's fees and costs from another party under a fee or cost shifting provision. The Stipulations shall be held in escrow by counsel for the Town until the fully executed Agreement has been delivered to O'Boyle. Town of Gulf Stream v. O'Boyle, Case No. 502016CA005437 O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA005628 O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 502016CA004546 (appeal no. 4D18-3156) O'Boyle & Asset Enhancement, Inc. v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CCO15050 (appeal no. 502018AP00007CAXXMB) O'Boyle & Asset Enhancement, Inc. v. Gulf Stream, Scott Morgan, John Randolph, Robert Sweetapple, Joanne O'Connor, Case No. 502015CA001737 Counts II through VIII in O'Boyle et al. v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 2014CA0011940 3. Stipulated Claims/Cases. The Town stipulates to and confesses to judgment in the following cases and/or as to the following claims (the "Stipulated Claims/Cases"). The Parties agree that all public records requests made in the Stipulated Claims/Cases are now moot. Stopdirtygovernment v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA003721 O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA008076 Count I in O'Boyle et al. v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 2014CA0011940 Asset Enhancement v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 2014 CA0216 The Parties shall submit agreed orders to the court in each of the Stipulated Claims/Cases in which the Town confesses to judgment, which agreed orders provide for the retention of jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to which the respective Public Records Plaintiff is entitled. The Public Records Plaintiffs agree to submit their fee applications within 30 days of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement. In addition, the parties will continue to litigate the amount of fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiff in O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA004474 (the "4474 Case"). The Parties stipulate and agree to mediate the subject of attorneys' fees and costs in the Stipulated Claims/Cases and the 4474 Case before engaging in any further discovery. If mediation is not successful, the parties agree that any further discovery concerning the amounts of attorneys' fees and costs in the Stipulated Claims/Cases (excepting the 4474 Case) shall be limited to the depositions of the parties' attorneys and expert witnesses on the subject of the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and costs. As to the 4474 Case, the Town reserves all rights to argue that additional discovery beyond the scope of the parties' attorneys and expert witnesses is appropriate. 4. Sanctions Claims in Settled Cases. All sanctions claims made by, ordered, or granted to any Defendant in the Dismissed Claims/Cases, the Stipulated Claims/Cases and the 4474 Case (collectively, the "Settling Cases"), including, without limitation, those made, ordered, or granted pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, the inherent authority of any court, or any other law (whether statutory or common law) ("Sanctions") shall be withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice; and to the extent that there is any Order or Judgment of any Court after the date of this Settlement Agreement issued or favoring any Defendant in the Settling Cases, that Defendant hereby waives payment of same. 5. In the event that O'Boyle, a relative, employee, associate, agent, or an entity which is controlled by O'Boyle or attorney of O'Boyle, but only to the extent that any such party was acting expressly on behalf of O'Boyle (collectively "O'Boyle Requestors") submits a public records request to the Town (pursuant to F.S. Chapter 119 ("119"), at any time after the day of the execution of this Settlement Agreement, Martin E. O'Boyle hereby agrees to pay, at the time that the public records request is made, a facilitation fee of $250 to the Town Clerk of the Town ("Facilitation Fee"). Failure to pay the Facilitation Fee will conclusively render such public records request withdrawn. In the event that there are no costs associated with responding to the applicable public records request or in the event that the costs associated with responding to the applicable public records request are less than the corresponding Facilitation Fee, the Facilitation Fee (after reduction of the costs associated with responding to the request) will be refunded to Martin E. O'Boyle within ten (10) days of the Town's determination of the costs (or absence thereof) associated with responding to the public records request. Otherwise, the conduct of the O'Boyle Requestors and the Town will be governed by 119.' 6. The Town and the Public Records Plaintiffs have read this Settlement Agreement with the assistance of counsel and understand its terms, obligations, operation, and effect. The Town and the Public Records Plaintiffs acknowledge that their entry into this 2 Settlement Agreement shall not be deemed or considered to be any admission or acceptance of liability (except as otherwise provided herein and as to the Stipulated Claims/Cases). The Town and the Public Records Plaintiffs have entered into this Settlement Agreement voluntarily and without having been threatened, coerced, or intimidated. No provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be construed presumptively against any party hereto. 7. The Town and the Public Records Plaintiffs warrant to each other (a) that no sale, assignment, transfer, or other disposition of any of the claims which are being released and waived hereunder has occurred, (b) that each has the full right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into this Settlement Agreement and to consummate the transactions described herein, and (c) that this Settlement Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered and constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation in accordance with its terms. 8. In the event of a default of any obligation under this Settlement Agreement, the party declaring any such default shall provide the party allegedly in default with a notice explaining the default by Certified mail (Return Receipt Requested) or by a recognized overnight delivery carrier (the "Notice"). The failure to cure a default by the 1 Oth day after such Notice was received by the party to whom it was sent shall constitute a breach of this Settlement Agreement by the defaulting party or parties. Such breach, however, shall not be construed as a breach between all parties, and any such breach shall be enforceable only against the defaulting party by the party providing the Notice. Notice to the Town shall be made to the Town Clerk at the official address for of the Town of Gulf Stream, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, FL 33483. Notice to the Public Records Plaintiffs shall be made to Martin O'Boyle (with a copy to William F. Ring, Esq.) at 1280 W. Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL, 33442). 9. This Settlement Agreement is deemed to have been made, executed, and delivered in the State of Florida and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Accordingly, the Parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida in Case No. 2014 CA 004474 for enforcement of this Settlement Agreement. 10. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute a single agreement, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. Any facsimiles, photographs or photocopies of this Settlement Agreement shall be considered, for all purposes, as if it were an executed original. 11. The content of this Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to all matters covered and the transactions as contained herein. 12. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Settlement Agreement shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the Town and the Public Records Plaintiffs. 13. If any term, covenant, or condition of the Settlement Agreement or the application thereof shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms, conditions, and covenants shall remain valid and enforceable. Each term, covenant, or condition shall be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14. The signatures of the Public Records Plaintiffs hereto are provisional and contingent upon the Town executing this Agreement by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 12, 2018. The Settlement Payment shall be wired to Martin O'Boyle within 24 hours of the Town's execution of this Agreement. Upon execution of this Agreement by the below signatories, and receipt by O'Boyle of the Settlement Payment in immediately available funds, as required herein, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Settlement Agreement as of December /2, 2018. Martip/E—O'Boyle dividually and on behalf of each of thiPublicRecords Plaintiffs Town of Gul Renee Basel From:Renee Basel Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:56 PM To:Martin E. O’Boyle Subject:RE: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: The Town is not holding a $250 facilitation fee in connection with a prior request. In February 2019, you provided a facilitation fee for public records request GS #2689, the remainder of which was returned to you in accordance with the Settlement Agreement after production of responsive records. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, please provide a facilitation fee. Once the facilitation fee is received, the Town will process your public records request. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: Martin E. O’Boyle \[mailto:meo@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:56 AM To: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org>; Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. Dear Madam Custodian of Records & Ms. Renee Basel – please see the below records request. Please promptly advise if you need any clarifications; otherwise, I would appreciate it if the records could be produced promptly. In connection with this request, it is my understanding that the Town is holding a $250 deposit in connection with a prior request. In connection with this request, pursuant to the attached Settlement Agreement; and, more particularly Paragraph #5 thereof, the $250 which the Town is holding fulfills the obligation of the Requestor. 1 Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which refer to 23 N Hidden harbor Dr. Gulf Stream, Fl.; and, more particularly, the Dock and \\or Promenade for the period beginning January 1, 2017 thru the date of this request. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Monday, April 9, 2018 9:23 AM To:Robert A. Sweetapple (pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com); Trey Nazzaro Cc:Macfarlane, Mary Subject:FW: ROC Status on O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream (O'Boyle, Martin E.) Classic. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Macfarlane, Mary Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:59 AM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; Halley, Mindy <MHalley@jonesfoster.com> Subject: FW: ROC Status on O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream (O'Boyle, Martin E.) See below re: O’Boyle service. Mary T. Macfarlane Secretary to H. Adams Weaver, Joanne M. O’Connor and James C. Gavigan, Jr. Telephone: 561.650.5396 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | mmacfarlane@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 1 From: WSP Server <DBSServer@dbsinfo.net> On Behalf Of Rock Legal Services & Investigations Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:31 AM To: Macfarlane, Mary <MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com> Subject: ROC Status on O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream (O'Boyle, Martin E.) This message originated from outside your organization To: Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. This is an automated message relating to: Our Job Number: 2018007220 Your Reference Number: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream Party to be Served: O'Boyle, Martin E. Case Info: Florida Palm Beach 502014CA001572XXXXMBAJ MARTIN E. O’BOYLE vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM Documents: Witness Subpoena for Trial Original Service Address: Martin E. O'Boyle, 16 Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Latest Status: 4/9/2018 8:28 am Personal service was completed with the notes below. A signed return will soon follow. "I arrived at the address of 16 Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 at 6:45 am to conduct authorized wait time. A vehicle registered to the witness (license plate number Y23ART) was in the driveway and the lights were on inside. At approximately 7:13 am, a white male, who I believed to be the witness, exited the residence through the front door and walked to the vehicle registered to Mr. O'Boyle. Upon seeing me, he quickly retreated back into the residence and refused to answer upon knocking. I asked that he open the door and accept service in and but he refused. As a result, I read the documents out loud in a loud voice and left the same. I advised through the door that he was served." Thank you, Rock Legal Services & Investigations office@rocklegal.com Phone: (561) 296-7574 More detailed status is available at www.rocklegal.com/status.htm 2 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, May 30, 2019 4:49 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER New Case Martin E OBoyle VS The Town of Gulf Stream - Sept. 22, 2015 incident Attachments:Civil Cover Sheet.pdf; Complaint.pdf; Summons To Be Issued By Clerk.pdf Trey – kindly see the below email, which was sent to you a week ago. I have not received a response. If you do not intend to send one, please advise and I will no longer communicate with you; and proceed to set the deposition. I am trying to cooperate with you, but for reasons unknown to me, you are refusing to reciprocate. Trey, if I do not hear from you by the close of business on Friday, I intend to deliver the Subpoena and unilaterally set a video deposition date, which I now contemplate to be on June 10, 2019. I await your professional and courteous response, consistent with the civility in which lawyers are to function!  Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 2:07 PM To: Trey Nazzaro <TNAZZARO@GULF-STREAM.ORG> Cc: 'Michelle Melicia (mmelicia@commerce-group.com)' <mmelicia@commerce-group.com>; 'Renee Basel' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Subject: FW: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER New Case Martin E OBoyle VS The Town of Gulf Stream - Sept. 22, 2015 incident Trey – I write you as a pro se litigant. I assume that you will be counsel for the Town and Ms. Basel. Please advise. Please see the attached. I would like to take the deposition of Ms. Basel next Thursday at 9am at the Gulf Stream Town Hall, since I’m assuming that will be most convenient for you and Ms. Basel. 1 Kindly advise if you are agreeable or if you require a formal subpoena, whereupon I will oblige. Thank you. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the plaintiff or petitioner for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting judicial workload data pursuant to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion.) I.CASE STYLE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: _________________ Judge: ____________________ Martin E OBoyle Plaintiff vs. The Town of Gulf Stream Defendant II.TYPE OF CASE ☐ Condominium ☐ Contracts and indebtedness ☐ Eminent domain ☐ Auto negligence ☐ Negligence – other ☐Business governance ☐Business torts ☐ Environmental/Toxic tort ☐ Third party indemnification ☐ Construction defect ☐ Mass tort ☐Negligent security ☐Nursing home negligence ☐Premises liability – commercial ☐Premises liability – residential ☐ Products liability ☐ Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure ☐Commercial foreclosure $0 - $50,000 ☐Commercial foreclosure $50,001 - $249,999 ☐ Commercial foreclosure $250,000 or more ☐Homestead residential foreclosure $0 – 50,000 ☐Homestead residential foreclosure $50,001 - $249,999 ☐Homestead residential foreclosure $250,000 or more ☐Non-homestead residential foreclosure $0 - $50,000 ☐Non-homestead residential foreclosure $50,001 - $249,999 ☐ Non-homestead residential foreclosure $250,00 or more ☐Other real property actions $0 - $50,000 ☐Other real property actions $50,001 - $249,999 ☐Other real property actions $250,000 or more ☐Professional malpractice ☐Malpractice – business ☐Malpractice – medical ☐Malpractice – other professional ☒Other ☐Antitrust/Trade Regulation ☐Business Transaction ☒Circuit Civil - Not Applicable ☐Constitutional challenge-statute or ordinance ☐Constitutional challenge-proposed amendment ☐Corporate Trusts ☐Discrimination-employment or other ☐Insurance claims ☐Intellectual property ☐Libel/Slander ☐Shareholder derivative action ☐Securities litigation ☐Trade secrets ☐Trust litigation Filing # 90026288 E-Filed 05/23/2019 01:47:20 PM COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the Administrative Order. Yes ☐ No ☒ III. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply): ☐ Monetary; ☒ Non-monetary declaratory or injunctive relief; ☐ Punitive IV.NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: ( ) (Specify) 1 V.IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? ☐Yes ☒ No VI.HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED? ☒ No ☐Yes – If “yes” list all related cases by name, case number and court: VII.IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT? ☐Yes ☒No I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. Signature s/ Martin E. O'boyle FL Bar No.: Attorney or party (Bar number, if attorney) Martin E. O'boyle 05/23/2019 (Type or print name) Date IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MARTIN E. O’BOYLE Plaintiff, CASE NO.: v. THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. __________________________________________/ COMPLAINT TO ENFORCE FLORIDA’S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT The Plaintiff, Martin E. O’Boyle, (“Plaintiff”), Pro Se, hereby sues The Town of Gulf Stream. (“Defendant”) and states: COUNT I – VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 119 1. All conditions precedent to this action have occurred or have been excused or waived. 2. Plaintiff Martin E. O’Boyle is a citizen of Florida who resides in the Town of Gulf Stream, Florida. 3. Defendant is a Florida municipal government and at all times relevant hereto is an “agency” as that term is defined in §119.011(2), Fla. Stat. 4. Defendant’s Police Department initiated a criminal action against Plaintiff that emanated out of allegations concerning events that occurred at a Town Hall meeting in 2015. 5. Gulf Stream Police Officer John Passaggiatta signed an affidavit attesting to those events. 6. Former Town Manager William Thrasher signed an affidavit attesting to those events. 7. William Thrasher moved out of the State of Florida after he retired as Town Manager Filing # 90026288 E-Filed 05/23/2019 01:47:20 PM for the Town of Gulf Stream. 8. William Thrasher is now domiciled in North Carolina. 9. Both Thrasher and Passaggiatta are expected to testify against Plaintiff at his upcoming criminal trial. 10. Plaintiff’s criminal case was originally assigned to the 15th Judicial Circuit. 11. Due to a conflict, Plaintiff’s criminal case was reassigned to the 17th Judicial Circuit’s State Attorney Office. 12. Assistant State Attorney Nicole Bloom was assigned to this case. 13. Nicole Bloom has been prosecuting Plaintiff’s criminal matter. 14. Plaintiff made a records request to the 17th Judicial Circuit’s State Attorneys Office for communications between the 17th SAO and Officer Passaggiatta and received certain documents. 15. A true and correct copy of that request and response is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 16. The 17th Judicial Circuit’s State Attorney Office produced several text messages between itself and Defendant. 17. Plaintiff made a records request to the Town of Gulf Stream which requested: All records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which mention or refer to Martin O’Boyle, but limited to the incident at the Town Hall on September 22, 2015 regarding Martin O’Boyle. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by, or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream” 18. The request defined the Town of Gulf Stream broadly to encompass “its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers, its counsel …” 19. Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in several conversations discussing the scope of the request. 20. Plaintiff became frustrated with Defendant’s excessive need for clarification and clarified his request to use language that the Town had understood in the past. 21. On May 4, 2019, Plaintiff stated that he was seeking all records which emanate from the incident at the Town Hall on September 22, 2015 regarding Martin O’Boyle. 22. Plaintiff took pains to remind the Town to search for E-Mails, Phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications. 23. A true and correct copy of the clarification of the request is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 24. The Town finally understood that Plaintiff was seeking all records that emanated out of the September 22, 2015 incident at Town Hall. 25. A true and correct copy of the Town’s final responsive documents are available on the Town’s website. 26. Because the final production of records was nearly 1300 pages and contained numerous repetitive documents but contained only a single page of text messages. A true and correct copy of those text messages is attached as Exhibit 3. 27. On October 22, 2015, Town of Gulf Stream Officer explicitly asked ASA Nicole Bloom to “Please contact me on my below listed cell when you have an opportunity regarding case of Martin O’Boyle.” 28. The Town and the 17th SAO communicated via text message. 29. The Town did not produce several text messages it had with the 17th Judicial Circuit’s State Attorney Office. 30. The Town did not assert any exemptions to Plaintiff’s request that would apply to text messages. 31. The Town did not lawfully destroy records that were responsive yet not produced by the Town. 32. The Town did not send a notice under Section 119.021(4)(b), Fla. Stat. to Officer Passaggiatta or his cell-phone carrier for responsive text messages. 33. The Town has withheld responsive text messages and likely other responsive documents. 34. Plaintiff is a criminal defendant and has made this request in preparation for his criminal trial. 35. The request was made for a proper purpose. 36. A true and correct copy of a screenshot of the Town’s website is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 37. The Town has failed to display the contact information for the agency’s custodian of public records prominently on the Town’s website. 38. Prominently is an adjective which means “standing out so as to be seen easily” or “noticeable” or “eye catching" 39. The Town failed to produce all responsive records or has unlawfully destroyed responsive records. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court: (a) Enter an order requiring the Town to produce all responsive records (b) Declare that the Town unlawfully withheld public records. (c) Award costs of enforcement and attorney’s fees under §119.12, Fla. Stat. Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 23, 2019 By: /s/ Martin E. O’Boyle Pro Se Litigant 1280 West Newport Center Drive. Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone: (954) 570-5307 Facsimile: (954) 360-0807 For Service of Court Documents: moboyle@commerce-group.com PREPARED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL RECORDS REQUEST (the "Request") Date of Request: 03/20/2017 Requestor's Request ID#: 1402 REQUESTEE: Custodian of Records for the Office of the State Attorney for the 17`x' Judicial Circuit REQUESTOR: Martin E. O'Boyle REQUESTOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION: E -Mail: records@commerce-group.com Fax: 954-360-0807 or Contact Records Custodian at records@commerce-group.com; Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 REQUEST: Please provide copies of all records (as defined in Chapter 119) including, without limitation, all E -Mails, text messages, letters, memos and other communications (the "Communications") sent or received by John Passeggiata for the period beginning September 1, 2015 through the date of this request. As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST: THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED. SEE 4119.01(2)(F). FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS RECORDS REOUEST BE FULFILLED ON 11 X 17 PAPER. NOTE: IN ALL CASES (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2) ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §119.0711)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "IF A CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 30 -DAY PERIOD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES." ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY. PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE. It will be required that the Requestor approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01 (Definitions)), in advance of any costs imposed to the Requestor by the Agency. "BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES". 1/P/NP/FLRR 11.04.2016 Michelle Melicia From: Martin E. O'Boyle Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 8:49 AM To: Michelle Melicia Subject: FW: SA017 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - ( SAO 8132) M(WL-e,Gl e Ale%er Commerce Group 1280 West Newport Center Dr. Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 - Direct: 954-834-2203 Main: 954-360-7713 Fax: 954-360-0807 Email: mmelicia@commerce-group.com From: SAP - Susan Seltzer <SSeltzer@sao17.state.fl.us> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:50 PM To: Martin E. O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: SA017 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - ( SAO 8132) Mr. O'Boyle, To clarify, you are only asking us to review the redactions made to the text messages that were part of the responsive documents provided to you on June 22, 2018, received by you on July 2, 2018, (PR#8132). Please advise. Sincerely, Steal( gelti&I=. Susan Seltzer Public Records Custodian State Attorney's Office 201 S.E. 6th Street, West Wing, Suite 7130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 831-7228 From: Martin E. O'Boyle [maiito:meo@commerce-group.com] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:17 PM To: SAP - Susan Seltzer <SSeltzer@sao17.state.fl.us> Cc: Suze Courtney <scourtney@commerce-group.com> Subject: FW: SA017 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - ( SAO 8132) Dear Ms. seltzer -I refer you to the below an attached. The attached consists of an email from you responding to my inquiry of July 15, 2018 11:04 AM (immediately below); the Records Request (#1402) dated March 20, 2017; and the responsive documents provided by your office on July 2, 2018. In reviewing the file; and, more particularly, your responsive documents; and, more particularly, the various text messages, we find that the redactions are inappropriate. In that connection, we would ask you to revisit the redactions value made and reconsider sending the text messages absent the redactions. Although we are not required to do so, as a courtesy, 1 am providing you this correspondence to serve as formal notice (pursuant to Ch. 119.12(1)(b) Notice) that; the undersigned if we do not receive those records which your office has improperly redacted within five (5) business days, will institute a formal action against you. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo(a,commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O'Boyle Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 11:04 AM To: SSeltzer@sao17.state.fl.us Cc: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: SAO17 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - ( SAO 8132) Dear Ms. Seltzer: Thank you for your response as attached above (4MB). Would you kindly confirm to me in writing that this is a full and complete response to the records request (also attached dated 320.17). If it is not, please allow this correspondence to serve as formal notice (pursuant to Ch. 119.12(1)(b) Notice) that if we do not receive a full and complete response to the attached Records Request within five (5) business of this communication, 1 will institute a formal legal action against you. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive 2 Deerfield Beach, FI. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meoCc .commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Michelle Melicia Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 3:25 PM To: Martin E. O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: SAO17 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - IS IT OKAY TO PAY THE $7.20 BILLED? ( SAO 8132] Responsive documents received today from Satz- 17th Circuit Court — Re: Below Request Please provide copies of all records (as defined in Chapter 119) including, without limitation, all E -Mails, text messages, letters, memos and other communications (the "Communications") sent or received by John Passeggiata for the period beginning September 1, 2015 through the date of this request. As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. M� /1/614.;G%a. Commerce Group 1280 West Newport Center Dr. Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Direct: 954-834-2203 Main: 954-360-7713 Fax: 954-360-0807 Email: mmelicia@commerce-group.com 3 Michelle Melicia From: SAP - Susan Seltzer <SSeltzer@saol7.state.fLus> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:10 PM To: Martin E. O'Boyle Cc: SAP - Carolyn McCann; SAP - Steven Klinger Subject: RE: SAO17 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - ( SAO 8132) Mr. O'Boyle, In response to your email below, the records mailed to you on June 22, 2018, are all the records that we maintain that are responsive to your request. Sincerely, gam gebiekc Susan Seltzer Public Records Custodian State Attorney's Office 201 S.E. 6th Street, West Wing, Suite 7130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 831-7228 From: Martin E. O'Boyle [mailto:meo@commerce-group.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 11:04 AM To: SAP - Susan Seltzer <SSeltzer@sao17.state.fl.us> Cc: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: SAO17 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - ( SAO 8132) Dear Ms. Seltzer: Thank you for your response as attached above (4MB). Would you kindly confirm to me in writing that this is a full and complete response to the records request (also attached dated 3.20.17). If it is not, please allow this correspondence to serve as formal notice (pursuant to Ch. 119.12(1)(b) Notice) that if we do not receive a full and complete response to the attached Records Request within five (5) business of this communication, I will institute a formal legal action against you. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive 1 Requestor : Company : Address: • MICHAEL J. SATZ �� 2 20/8SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA BROWARD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 201 SE SIXTH STREET, WEST WING SUITE 7130, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301-336:i PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST Contact Mrs. Seltzer at (954) 831-7228/ SSeItzer@sao17.state.fl.us MARTIN O'BOYLE Request Reference #: COMMERCE GROUP 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE. City, State, Zip DEERFIELD BEACH, FL - 33442 Email:: RECORDS@COMMERCE-GROUP.COM Phone: Fax: Date: 8132 (954) 360-7713 (954) 360-0807 3/20/2017 CR_VS2012 Request Type: COPIES Defendant: Description : Copy of all records (including without limitation, all E -Mails, text messages, letters, memos and other communications sent or received by John Passeegiata for the period beEinninz September 1, 2015 t YOU ARE ADVISED that the State Attorney's Office is not the custodian of the official court records. The records you have requested are only those in the custody of the State Attorney, subject to all legal exceptions and/or redactions. For a copy of the complete and official record and/certified copies, contact the office of Brenda Forman, Clerk of the Court, 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, at(954) 831-6565 Pursuant to Chapter 119; Florida Statutes, request is made for. Record Type: Public Records Request Letter acknowledging request sent by Active Discovery provided by Reviewed/Redacted by GC pproveXisapproved by .z : File unable to be located by Unit Request Withdrawn --Date SAO record was destroyed per § 119.021(2)(d), Notes/Exemptions from Public Record Disclosure (For Reviewing ASA use only) (For SAO use only) Date Date Date Date Date See NotesfExemptions!Redactions indicated below SAO has no record as requested 0 Active internal affairs investigation => exempt, §112.533, FS; §655.057(1)(a), FS 0 Attorney notes=> confidential and exempt, Lopez v State 696 So. 2d 725 (Fla 1997); Arbelaez v. State, 775 So. 2d 909 (F1a3000) 0 Confession by Defendant on active cases=> exempt, § 119.071(2Xe), FS 0 Bank account numbers, debit, charge and credit account numbers and social security numbers-> exempt, §215.322(6)1, FS:§119.071(SXa)(b), FS; §655.057, FS; §655.059, FS D Biometric ID Information=>cxempt, §119.071(5)(g), FS D information revealing id of Confidential Informant or confidential source> exempt, §119.071(2Xf), FS 0 Defendant not entitled to free copy of file.=> Roesch v. State, 633 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993) 0 Criminal History Data,--> exempt, §943.0525, FS 0 Department of Corrections Records & Investigations=> exempt, §945.10, FS 0 Autopsy Photographs=> exempt, §406.135(1), FS o E.M.S. Reports--> exempt, §395.51, FS tW Home Addresses, etc., of current or former prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, firefighters, judges and code inspectors > exempt, §I 19.071(4)(d)1, FS 0 Traffic Crash Report exempt for 60 days after report is filed=>exempt, §316.066(5)(a), FS 0 Videotaped statement ofminor victim ofsexual batters>exempt, §119.0710)2.a., FS 0, DL and DMV records=>exempt, 8119.0712(2), FS AI Otherexemptions=> ��t t1t� i-'i."11ryiG/lt!l,)/i 4•i rsf ci-ti of -0:14: 1'-r tAke . ; >: '3.5, ; Ic 0 re Photo/video/audio recording that depicts or cords the killing of a human betrtg>exempt, F.S. 406.136 0.,,Security video/surveillance=>exempt 281.301, F.S and/or F.S. 119.071(3)(a) (7 i isCi'iV--piCGtiLCD}- a. CC1 e,-- - F.6./ . 't10)F/ I'l. 0 M ental Health records => exempt, 8394.46I5(1), FS; §456.057, FS I33/01 active, pending cases, information not disclosed to defense in discovery> exempt, Satz v. Blankenship,407 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 4DCA 1981); Winne Co. v. Public Records. 493 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986) 0 Personal assets of crime victim=> exempt, §119.071(2)(1), FS 0 Personal victim information in cases of sexual offense, child abuse, lewd & lascivious of ensc=> exempt, §I19.071(2)(h), FS; §794.024 0 Medical Records"> exempt, §395.3025(4), FS; 8395.3025(8), FS; §456.057, FS 0 PSI, PTI, pre -plea, post -sentence investigative records=> exempt, §945.10(1)(b), FS 0 Reports of abuse of vulnerable adult=> exempt, §415.107, FS 0 Department of Children & Families Reports of child abuse> exempt, §39.O132(4)(a), FS; §39.202, FS O School records-> exempt, §1002.22, FS 0 Photograph of victim of sexual offense=> exempt, 8119.671(2)(h) 0 Active criminal intelligence and investigative information=> exempt, §1I9.071(2)(c), FS 0 Identity of caller requesting or reporting "911" emergency=>exempt, §365.171(15), FS 0 Juvenile Records ->exempt, §985.04, FS 0 Drivers License digital imaging=> exempt, 8322.142(4), FS D Telecommunicationsrecords=>exempt,§119.071(5)(d) 0 Pharmacy Records=>exempt, §465.017(2) Federal Tax Information=>exempt- 26 USC 1603 Document # 13749 ORIGINAL ADM/2 COPY- Requesting Party COPY -Public Records File v5/22 Michelle Melicia From: Michelle Melicia Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:25 PM To: Martin E. O'Boyle Subject: RE: SA017 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - IS IT OKAY TO PAY THE $7.20 BILLED? ( SAO 8132) Attachments: RecordsReques #1402- (PRR #8132 )-SATZ - 17th Circuit Court- Responsive Docs Passeggiata- Received 7.2.2018.pdf Responsive documents received today from Satz- 17th Circuit Court — Re: Below Request Please provide copies of all records (as defined in Chapter 1'1(9) including, without limitation, all E -Mails, text messages, letters, memos and other communications (the "Comm - ications") sent or received by John Passeggiata for the period beginning September 1, 2015 through the datQ of this reauest. As totor74 records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. Mu g etLe Me. e a— Commerce Group 1280 West Newport Center Dr. Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Direct: 954-834-2203 Main: 954-360-7713 Fax: 954-360-0807 Email: mmelicia@commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O'Boyle Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 8:40 AM To: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Cc: Denise DeMartini <ddemartini@commerce-group.com> Subject: FW: SA017 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - IS IT OKAY TO PAY THE $7.20 BILLED? ( SAO 8132) Michelle — did we ever send the $7.20? If not, please handle asap. Keep me posted. Questions\Comments advise Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FI. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 1 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Records Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 3:09 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com>; Brenda Russell <brussell@commerce-group.com>; David Licker <dlicker@commerce-group.com>; William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com>; Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com>; Giovani Mesa <gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com>; Ian Singer <isinger@oboylelawfirm.com>; David Licker <dlicker@commerce-group.com>; Nick Taylor <ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com> Subject: SAO17 Seltzer response to RR#1402 - IS IT OKAY TO PAY THE $7.20 BILLED? RR#1402 REQUEST: Please provide copies of all records (as defined in Chapter 119) includinu. without limitation. all E -Mails. text messaees. letters. memos and other communications (the "Communications"i sent or received by John Passeueiata for the period bet!innina September 1. 2015 throueh the date of this reciuest. As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is priyileced. kindly provide a Priyileec Lou or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholdinf7 any such records. Also. to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records. we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. 2 From: Marti n E. O’Boy l e Se nt: Fri day, May 10, 2019 4:01 P M To: 'rbase l @gul f-stre am.org'; rtayl or@gul f -stre am.org Subje ct: FW: GS #4 - Se pte mbe r 22, 2015 Inci de nt - Gul f Stre am Pol i ce Issue 270 Attachme nts: GS #2704 (Re cords Re que st - Inci de nt - Se pte mbe r 22, 2015)_prod.IT.pdf De ar Ms. Base l & Madam Custodi an of Re cords: I make re f e re nce to the attache d and the be l ow w hi ch succe e de d the cre ati on and de l i ve ry of the attache d; and, the re fore supe rse de s the attache d. NO TE: In conne cti on w i th the capti one d, I am al e rti ng you that i f I do not re ce i ve the re que ste d re sponsi ve docume nts by the 4P M on Fri day, May 10, 2019, I i nte nd to se rve as f ormal noti ce (pursuant to Ch. 119.12(1) (b) Notice ) that i f w e do not re ce i ve a re sponse to the re f e re nce d Re cords Re que st wi thi n f i v e (5) busi ne ss days f rom the date of thi s e mai l , w e w i l l i nsti tute a f ormal l e gal acti on agai nst you, unl e ss an agre e d upon re asonabl e e x te nsi on i s re que ste d and grante d. Note: Thi s emai l was prepared usi ng dictati on software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be reli ed upon. If you wi sh clarifi cation, please call or wri te requesti ng the same. Thank you. Marti n E . O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfi eld Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct D i al: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marti n E. O’Boyl e Se nt: Saturday, May 4, 2019 2:12 PM To: 'Re ne e Base l ' <rbase l @gul f -stre am.org> Subje ct: FW: GS #2704 - Se pte mbe r 22, 2015 Inci de nt - Gul f Stre am P ol i ce Issue De ar Ms. Base l – upon re ce i pt of your e mai l be l ow , I re v i e we d the attache d, al ong w i th my ori gi nal re que st and the communi cati ons i n be tw e e n. I am fi ndi ng your communi cati ons as cre ati ng conf usi on. Consi de ri ng the f ore goi ng, I w i sh to state my re que st i n the si mpl e st of te rms. Se e i mme di ate l y be l ow : P l e ase provi de al l re cords pursuant to (and as de f i ne d i n) Chapte r 119 of the Fl ori da Statute s w hi ch e manate f rom the i nci de nt at the Town Hal l on Se pte mbe r 22, 2015 re gardi ng Marti n O’Boy l e . The re que ste d re cords shal l i ncl ude , wi thout l i mi tati on, al l E-Mai l s, phone re cords, me ssage s, l e tte rs, me mos and othe r communi cati ons se nt by , re ce i v e d by or cre ate d by the “Town of Gul f Stre am”. A s to an y reco rds w h ich y o u cho ose n ot to p rodu ce o n th e ba sis o f cla im that the record is privileg ed , kind ly p rovide a Priv ilege Log o r a n ex pla n atio n (p ursu ant to Ch apter 119) as to yo ur b a sis fo r with hold in g a n y su ch reco rds. A lso, to the ex tent that there are a n y red a ctio n s in an y o f th e reco rds, w e a sk that yo u pro v id e the b asis con sisten t w ith th e req u est in th e p rior senten ce. NO TE: To the ex tent tha t th ere ex ists d ocu ments a re respo n sive to this requ est, p lea se j ust p rov ide th o se d ocuments a s respon sive do cu m en ts to this requ est. NO TE: In conne cti on w i th the capti one d, I am al e rti ng you that i f I do not re ce i ve the re que ste d re sponsi ve docume nts by the 4P M on Fri day, May 10, 2019, I i nte nd to se rve as f ormal noti ce (pursuant to Ch. 119.12(1) (b) Notice ) that i f w e do not re ce i ve a re sponse to the re f e re nce d Re cords Re que st wi thi n f i v e (5) busi ne ss days w e w i l l i nsti tute a f ormal l e gal acti on agai nst you, unl e ss an agre e d upon re asonabl e e x te nsi on i s re que ste d and grante d. Note: Thi s emai l was prepared usi ng dictati on software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be reli ed upon. If you wi sh clarifi cation, please call or wri te requesti ng the same. Thank you. Marti n E . O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfi eld Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct D i al: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Re ne e Base l <RBase l @gul f-stre am.org> Se nt: Fri day , May 3, 2019 3:49 PM To: Marti n E. O’Boyl e <me o@comme rce -group.com> Subje ct: GS #2704 Good afternoon, Mr. O ’Boyle:   See attached correspondence.   Since rely, Ren eé Ro wan Basel Ex ecu tiv e Adm inistra tiv e Assista nt The te rm “Tow n of Gul f Stre am” shal l me an e ach of the f ol l owi ng: the Tow n of Gul f Stre am, i ts Commi ssi one rs, i ts Manage r, i ts e mpl oye e s, i ts of fi ce rs, i ts staf f , its Pol i ce De partme nt, i ts Pol i ce Off ice rs i ts counse l and the f ol l owi ng l aw fi rms: Swe e tappl e , Broe ke r & V arkas; Ri chman Gre e r, PA ; Jone s, Foste r, Johnston & Stubbs; Col e , Scott & Kissane , P.A.; and Johnson Anse l mo Murdoch Burke Pi pe r & Hochman, P .A . (incl udi ng, w i thout l i mi tati on, the attorne ys, e mpl oye e s and partne rs of e ach such l aw fi rm.) Tow n of G u lf Strea m 1 00 Sea R oa d G u lf Strea m FL 334 83 561 .27 6.51 1 6 561 .7 37 .01 88-fa x w w w .g u lf-strea m .org Confide ntiality Notice : Thi s e -mai l me ssage , i ncl udi ng any attachme nts, i s f or the sol e use of the i nte nde d re ci pi e nt(s). If you are not the i nte nde d re ci pi e nt, pl e ase contact the se nde r by re pl y e -mai l and de stroy al l copi e s of the ori gi nal me ssage . Fl ori da has a v e ry broad publ i c re cords l aw. Wri tte n communi cati ons re gardi ng Tow n of Gul f Stre am busi ne ss are publ i c re cords av ai l abl e to the publ i c upon re que st. Your e -mai l communi cati ons are the re fore subje ct to publ i c di scl osure . Unde r Fl ori da l aw , e -mai l addre sse s are publ i c re cords. If you do not w ant your e -mai l addre ss re l e ase d i n re sponse to a publ i c re cords re que st, do not se nd e l e ctroni c mai l to thi s e nti ty . Inste ad, contact thi s of f i ce by phone or i n w ri ti ng. me Verizon LTE 1:29 PM SA Nicole Bloom Message Mon, Mar 18,9:43 AM W It is. I will call you later in the day to explain. COk Thanks71. Tue, Mar 19, 3:43 PM 13 6 KA7t X.+* X I 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 1/8 Get Involved & Informed by coming by with any questions regarding the approval process.   Get informed by coming to one of our Town Hall meetings.  Read more about our Town Hall The Gulf Stream Police Department provides around-the-clock public safety services to the town. Located across the street from the Town Hall… Read more about our police department The Town of Gulf Stream is pleased to announce a new emergency notification system available to residents at no cost through CodeRED.  To register to receive free emergency and other important town related alerts, please visit the CodeRED enrollment website here. The Palm Beach County Mosquito Control Division’s top tips for protecting yourself from mosquitoes can be found here. Hurricane Preparedness Information For information regarding evacuations, shelters, and other hurricane related items, please visit Palm Beach County’s website at the following link: http://www.pbcgov.com/dem/hurricane/ Town Hall Public Safety  MENU 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 2/8 Welcome In 1916, the State of Florida began to open a stretch of roadway along the Atlantic Ocean coastline, as a more scenic alternative to Route 1, now called the Federal Highway. The road eventually became known as State Road A1A. To address high winds along the route, Australian Pines were planted along both sides of A1A, from Jacksonville to Miami. The Town of Gulf Stream is the only remaining stretch where the Australian Pine Canopy still remains. It has since been designated as an historic and scenic highway, allowing the Town to protect and cultivate new plants to maintain and expand a stand of more than 300 pines… Read more about the town Facts About Gulf Stream Population 1,001 residents – 2018 year estimate The median age in Gulf Stream is 58.2 years. The population is nearly split between males and females, with only two more men than women at the 2010 U.S. Census. Education Property/Households Town of Gulf Stream Boundary 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 3/8 Pay Your Water/Garbage Bill Online Town residents can now view and pay their monthly water bill at this link: https://gulfstream.secure.munibilling.com. When setting up your online account, each resident will need to use the personalized code printed on your utility bill. Contractor Registration & Permit Information All workers hired to perform services for your property (employees and deliveries not included) must be registered to do work in the Town. If you are hiring a contractor (for example, to do lawn work or make improvements to your home) please ask them to register at Town Hall if they are not currently on file. Occupational registration is designed to ensure workers are properly licensed and insured, which enhances the safety of the community.  Requirements Attached All work requiring a permit must be submitted on a City of Delray Beach application.  You can get those applications on their website here.  We require all permit applications to include four (4) sets of all plans, product approvals, and attachments. CodeRED Alerts 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 4/8 L I S T E N T O M E S S A G E V I E W E M A I L M E S S A G E S E E A R E A A F F E C T E D This is the Town of Gulf Stream with an important message for all residents. We have licensed the CodeRED Community Notification System to help disseminate important or critical in ... more Emergency Alert This is the Town of Gulf Strea ... 4/11/2019 2:25:07 PM General Alert Due to a water main break in P ... 3/14/2019 8:46:58 PM All Minutes and Agendas can be found by going to “Find a Town Record” All videos will be posted to the following link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyJTjen2HMOSbss-CYOpzdQ/feed?view_as=public FIND A TOWN RECORD VIDEO INFORMATION 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 5/8 Today May 22, 2019 Thursday May 23, 2019 Friday May 24, 2019 Saturday May 25, 2019 Legislative eorts regarding Public Records: https://youtu.be/tW8Itbr2HNg   SEE ALL DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTS 450565 Gulf Stream 2018 CCR April 2019 263 kB  Budget Presentation 2018 2019 5 MB  2017 Water Quality Report 259 kB  2017 Annual Financial Report 640 kB  LOCAL WEATHER 86°F 14m/h 87°F 7m/s 85°F 7m/s 87°F 6m/s GALLERIES Town of Gulf Stream Australian Pines 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 6/8 SEE ALL GALLERIES Gulf Stream School MORE NOTICES MORE EVENTS TOWN NOTICES PUBLIC HEARING August 22, 2018 ZONING IN PROGRESS July 3, 2018 Notice of Application Approval April 3, 2018 Public Records Requests May 30, 2017 Garbage, Recycling, Yard Waste and Bulk Waste April 20, 2017 UPCOMING EVENTS Town Hall Closed- Memorial Day All-day event MAY 27 Town Commission Regular Meeting 9:00 am at Gulf Stream Town Hall JUN 7 ARPB Regular Meeting 8:30 am JUN 27 CODERED 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 7/8 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Phone: (561) 276-5116 Fax: (561) 737-0188 Monday – Friday 9:00AM – 4:00PM THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM Police and Fire/Rescue Emergency 911 Police Non-Emergency (561) 243-7800 Police Administration (561) 278-8611 Fire/Rescue Non-Emergency (561) 243-7400 IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS Sign up for CodeRED alerts here. 5/22/2019 Home - Town of Gulf Stream https://www.gulf-stream.org 8/8 Palm Beach County Commission on Ethics Palm Beach County Oice of Inspector General History Approvals Calendar/Meetings Find a Town Record Town Code Contact © 2015-2018 Town of Gulf Stream. All rights reserved. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MARTIN E. O’BOYLE; Plaintiff, Case No. vs. THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. ________________________________________/ SUMMONS THE STATE OF FLORIDA To each Sheriff of the State: YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint in this law suit on defendant: THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Each defendant is required to serve written defenses to the complaint or petition on Martin E. O’Boyle, Pro Se Plaintiff whose address is 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons on that defendant, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of the defenses with the clerk of this court either before service on Pro Se Plaintiff or immediately thereafter. If a defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint or petition. DATED on May________, 2019 Martin E. O’Boyle Pro Se Plaintiff 1280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 By: ________________________ Telephone: (954) 360-7713 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: (954) 360-0807 moboyle@commerce-group.com Prepared with assistance of counsel Filing # 90026288 E-Filed 05/23/2019 01:47:20 PM  If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact Tammy Anton, Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telephone number (561) 355-4380 at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the schedu led appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.  Si usted es una persona minusv�lida que necesita alg�n acomodamiento para poder participar en este procedimiento, usted tiene derecho, sin tener gastos propios, a que s e le provea cierta ayuda. Tenga la amabilidad de ponerse en contacto con Tammy Anton, 205 N. Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; tel�fono n�mero (561) 355-4380, por lo menos 7 d�as antes de la cita fijada para su comparecencia en los tribunales, o inmediatamente despu�s de recibir esta notificaci�n si el tiempo antes de la comparecencia que se ha programado es menos de 7 d�as; si usted tiene discapacitaci�n del o�do o de la voz, llame al 711.  Si ou se yon moun ki enfim ki bezwen akomodasyon pou w ka patisipe nan pwosedi sa, ou kalifye san ou pa gen okenn lajan pou w peye, gen pwovizyon pou jwen k�k �d. Tanpri kontakte Tammy Anton, k��donat� pwogram Lwa pou ameriken ki Enfim yo nan Tribinal Konte Palm Beach la ki nan 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telef�n li se (561) 355-4380 nan 7 jou anvan dat ou gen randevou pou par�t nan tribinal la, oubyen imedyatman apre ou fin resevwa konvokasyon an si l� ou gen pou w par�t nan tribinal la mwens ke 7 jou; si ou gen pwobl�m pou w tande oubyen pale, rele 711. Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:16 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: Settlement - O'Boyle\\Gulf Stream Email referencing the state attorney case From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:08 PM To: Marty O'Boyle Subject: Re: Settlement - O'Boyle\\Gulf Stream Thanks for getting back to me, Marty. Are you in town? If so, we can meet tomorrow to discuss. As I mentioned to you when we were working on Chris’ settlement, our litigation defense will continue until such time as signatures appear on a release. This will mean signatures of all OLF lawyers, yourself, and, if needed, corporate representatives for companies that you cannot sign for. I will not postpone the trial on Tuesday unless those signatures are on the releases allowing me to schedule a special Commission meeting for approval. Let me know if Saturday or Sunday is convenient for you. Scott From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:00 PM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Subject: RE: Settlement - O'Boyle\\Gulf Stream This is a privileged and confidential settlement communication and may not be used in any legal or quasi legal proceeding or for any other purpose. Scott – thanks for your email and welcome back. After our meeting I memorialized my notes and provided them to our counsel; and to the best of my knowledge, our Agreement is precisely what you and I agreed to. I have no intention of changing my position from our handshake; and I assume that you feel the same way. I think the easiest thing to do is for you and I to meet (calmly and privately) and work through the drafts with the intention of “getting done”. Since our goals are the same, I think our working together toward and accomplishing the final (and successful) goal, should be a “lay up”. In that connection, aside from the Release language (which must be mutual – as agreed – and yours is not), we need to address the provisions of our Agreement and either delete them, make them more clear, incorporate them in yours, or use ours; but, I repeat, I have no intentions of altering our Agreement. 1 Let me know your wishes on how we could, together, bring this into the end zone. PS: I understand that there is a trial on Tuesday before Judge Haffely, Will the Town agree to delay it. There is no harm as I see it, but I need to hear from you as to this issue and as to getting this all behind this. Scott, let me assure you that I approach this with a favorable attitude. PS: Would you speak to Ms. Bloom at the State Attorney’s Office in Ft. Lauderdale. I am being pressured by our counsel (Michael Salnick) to subpoena Skip, the Commissioners and all others in the room the night that I went to the hospital from the Town Hall for depositions. Time is not our friend here; and I don’t see where it is productive for me to keep spending time and money on such non-sense; nor do I see it as wise to start deposing the Town lawyer, the Commissioners and the Town residents who attended the Commission Meeting that night . To do so, could only result in inflammation. I hope you could oblige my request here; I hope we could both work together and make the words in the formal document reflect our “handshake” agreement. Let’s get done!  Scott - kindly advise me promptly re my inquiries in this email. I reiterate that I think it unwise to proceed with any actions which could at all be (or become) inflammatory. I await your kind response. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com \[mailto:scottmorgan75@gmail.com\] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 2:10 PM To: Marty O'Boyle Subject: Re: Settlement - O'Boyle\\Gulf Stream Marty—I’m afraid I don’t understand this email. I am back in town and spoke with our lawyers, who said there is no impasse other than the form of the release. Your lawyer proposed a long, broad and attachment-filled release whereas we require the same type of release already signed by Chris O’Hare—one that is simple, clear and precise. Essentially, you and I agreed that the parties would discontinue their actions with each side bearing its own costs. That’s really what needs to be memorialized in the release so I am unclear why your attorneys are suggesting using a document with attachments and including vague language terms that down the road could lead to a problem with “interpretation.” A simple, clear release is preferable because it discourages the possibility of a future violation of the settlement terms---to put it simply, a judge will be able to quickly and easily understand the parties’ agreement and identify the occurrence of a breach. That’s the type of enforcement both of us should want. 2 If I am mistaken about the release, and you are actually seeking to change the nature of our agreement, please let me know. From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:26 PM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Subject: Settlement - O'Boyle\\Gulf Stream Hi Scott – sorry to disturb you on your vacation, but I thought it best to give you a progress report. Scott – although our side wants to get this done, I see little chance of our getting done before your return. Unless I’m missing something, in your absence, I don’t think we advanced a bit. I think after you get back, we should set up a meeting and see if we could get things on a course toward finality, which is my goal. th Can we set up a meeting sometime after the 12? Give it some thought. If your lawyers wish to abort (which is something that I wish not to see happen), let me know, as I do not want to continuing spending time, resources and money on a dead end effort. I hope you understand. I feel confident that you and I could get done. As I type this, I’m still struggling to understand why we haven’t advanced. I look forward to hearing from you as to how you wish to handle. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 3 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:09 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:Fw: Settlement - O'Boyle\\Gulfstream This email from Martin references the dock. Also at our meeting that followed this email, he asked me to intervene to have the criminal case withdrawn. From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 12:46 PM To: Marty O'Boyle Subject: Re: Settlement - O'Boyle\\Gulfstream Marty— give me a call when you get a chance. I just compared the agreements side by side and other than a need to include CAFI there are a number of differences but they are either stylistic or verbiage matters. CAFI needs to be put back in somehow— Maybe have Bill sign for CAFI. He’s included anyway as a lawyer for OLF. I have a few other thoughts on language that I think should be changed on your’s and Joanne’s. I want to go over them with you. Also you add a few clarifications that I think are reasonable and would agree to put in. A few others that I don’t object to but think he language could be written differently. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:29 PM, Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> wrote: Scott – thanks for the note. Tomorrow won’t work for a host of reasons. That aside, I need you to tell me where “what I laid out in the most recent draft” doesn’t work. As far as I see it, given the prior agreement, the open issues and the discussions with your lawyers, what I sent “rings the bell”. Given the above, please point out (with detail) what doesn’t work and why. Upon receipt, I will have what you send me reviewed and get back to you as quickly as I can. I believe our goals remain the same, but you now need to tell me. I’m very disappointed in that all the time and effort that I spent in good faith trying to work with your lawyers, now seem to have been a colossal waste of time. Hopefully, getting a commitment from you, will (at the very least), end the “Mole Game”. I look forward to hearing from you. UNFORTUNATELY, I RECEIVE TOO MANY EMAILS ON A DAILY BASIS. THE RESULT IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM ALL; AND MANY I DO NOT SEE AT ALL. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO SEND ME EMAILS; AND, IF YOU DON’T HEAR FROM ME WITHIN 48 HOURS, I URGE YOU TO CALL ME. I ALSO ASK YOU TO CC MS. BRENDA RUSSELL (BRUSSELL@COMMERCE-GROUP.COM) OR TO CALL HER (954 570 3513). THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 1 Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com \[mailto:scottmorgan75@gmail.com\] Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2017 2:29 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Subject: Re: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25-17 Marty— tried calling but couldn’t get you. I agree that this is a bad time of year to be coordinating schedules but I understand two trials are set for November and December so a month delay on mediation is probably not going to be that helpful. Let’s cut to the chase on this. Are you free tomorrow? I’ll bring over the documents and let’s figure it out. Then you and I will both know whether we should reschedule mediation or just let it go. No intermediaries so there will be no misunderstandings. Let’s identify the points of agreement and whether there really are any points of disagreement. If there are then we either work it out or not. But enough of going back and forth, forth and back. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> wrote: th Scott – thank you for your email below. Unfortunately, the 9 doesn’t work, as my “dance card” is pretty much full until after the end of the month. Next week is a “wipe rd out”, the following week I will be traveling, after that is my 33 Anniversary, then Thanksgiving, where we will be in WV until at least 12/3/17, after which I will either: (a) return to Florida for a few days then commence my end of the year “road trip”; or (b) rd commence my road trip on the 3. Although too early to say, (b) makes more sense, as st I will be in the neighborhood of my 1 stop. So, it looks like the soonest we could have a Mediation would be early December. The above aside, I’m struggling to understand the issues. This past weekend, I worked (certainly) 20 hours on the draft that I sent Joanne. The draft was redone, given what I understood “was the deal”. Then when Joanne did a U-turn on me and cancelled the Mediation, I was (somewhat) “shocked”! Scott, I have been preaching Mediation (which I believe would have gotten us done long ago) but the Town’s reluctance to go to Mediation, which still puzzles me, was an obvious impediment to that proposition. In any event, “we are where we are”. Having said that, I should be able to spend some time working on this project between now and month’s end, but I think the proper 2 approach, at this time, is to not revise the Settlement Agreement that I last prepared; but, rather, for someone to articulate to me where it fails. In that connection, my view was that “it worked”. Scott, I believe that mediation is the “key”, but the “Mole Game” has only resulted in frustration and has been a colossal waste of time. I thought our Goals were congruent, but I’m not sure anymore. So, I ask that you accommodate my request. Upon receipt of the articulation, we could then see if we could reach a meeting of the minds in concept; and, if not, we could see where we are missing, which is where Judge Hazouri comes in. I will now wait for the articulation. Please make sure that whoever sends it, it has your blessing, thus ending the “Mole Game”. Thank you; and I want you to know that I am hopeful that we could end this (whatever you want to call it) sooner rather than later. Thank you!  PS: A couple of minor items: 1. The $172 Broward case. It is getting to the point of silliness. For $172 it is taking on the United Sates of America v Microsoft (Anti- Trust). I have agreed to get rid of it. I can’t seem to get an answer. It is going to cost a fortune. What’s your pleasure. 2. Finishing my home at 23 Hidden Harbour, I need to get my Dock built. Our agreements permit it. Your code in 1981 (see #35 of our Agreement allows it). The Town is prohibiting me I can only assume “out of spite”. We have hired Palm Beach counsel. They advise us that their reading puts us on “Terra Firma”. Do you want o litigate it. I am ready to do so, as I am unwilling to wait any longer. I think it is a colossal waste of my money and the taxpayers money, but the decision rests with you. Our contractor is ready to go; and I am thinking seriously of making the installation with or without the Town’s blessing. Your acquiescence here eliminate another carve out in the potential settlement. As I said, I can wait no longer to start or institute suit. What’s your pleasure. From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com \[mailto:scottmorgan75@gmail.com\] Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 3:43 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Subject: Re: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25- 17 Marty, Thank you for the draft. I reviewed it and there are certainly some differences that we 3 Thank you for the draft. I reviewed it and there are certainly some differences that we need to iron out. I think it will be easier to work off of the draft that Jeff did, which is more in line with the O’Hare document, but regardless of which document is in front of us, the issues to resolve with the judge look to be pretty much the same. I spoke to Jeff who told me that he and Joanne and Bill were actually pretty close to finalizing a document although with a few issues that needed to be worked on. I relayed to him our conversation this morning and what I believe is your sincere interest in trying to resolve this. He agrees then that a meeting to focus on the remaining few issues could be helpful. So I have asked Joanne to set up a meeting next week with the judge, and I will have Joanne and Jeff attend with me. Hopefully, you’ll be available. If not, have Bill work out another date with Joanne. Thanks. Scott From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:42 AM To: Scottmorgan75 Subject: FW: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9- 25-17 Scott – below was an “OOPS!”. Please delete, as this one is the correct one. All relevant communications are now attached. I await hearing back from you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 9:14 AM To: Scottmorgan75 <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> 4 Subject: FW: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25- 17 Scott – thanks for all calling me this am. I’m glad to hear you are involved. Attached is where I left off (with what I sent Joanne). Attached is her response; and my response to her. That’s where we ended again. Please consider the Mediation. In my “heart of hearts”, I believe that the Mediation will “end the day”. I await hearing from you. Call me, day, night or over the weekend. Thanks again!  UNFORTUNATELY, I RECEIVE TOO MANY EMAILS ON A DAILY BASIS. THE RESULT IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM ALL; AND MANY I DO NOT SEE AT ALL. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO SEND ME EMAILS; AND, IF YOU DON’T HEAR FROM ME WITHIN 48 HOURS, I URGE YOU TO CALL ME. I ALSO ASK YOU TO CC MS. BRENDA RUSSELL (BRUSSELL@COMMERCE- GROUP.COM) OR TO CALL HER (954 570 3513). THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 5:55 PM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com>; William Ring <wring@commerce- group.com>; robertrivas@comcast.net Subject: FW: Attached draft of Joanne's Settlement Agreement as marked by MEO 9-25- 17 Joanne –as to the attached (my markup of your settlement agreement), I resubmit it (and the content of this email) for settlement purposes only. I also point out that the attached is a clean copy. If you want to see the changes, I ask that you do a comparison, as I’m afraid that the mark up which I prepared lost its integrity as such. 5 Moving on, as of today, as I see it, these are the remaining items necessary to complete the deal. 1. We need to discuss the reimbursement of the costs which I have incurred since the end of the last (aborted) settlement, when the Town “backed out” of their Agreement 2. The Insurance Company ROR Issue v Case #4474. The insurance company wants $$$ under the ROR. I believe that today (and I think there is negotiation there) they want $230,000. They believe that they get that more than that much out of #4474. One solution is for the Town: (a) to have their lawyers , advise the Town as to the validity of the ROR; and, if the insurance company “pushed” what rights the Insurer would have (which they are reserving pursuant to the Reservation of Rights); (b) Indemnify me; (c) for me to take on the risk with the Insurance Company in exchange, I would need to reserve any award from 4474; or (d) to handle akin to the process in #3 below. 3. We need to discuss the “O’Boyle Law Firm” issue with the Bar, as I see it, this must be addressed and dealt with. My suggestion is that all cases be tolled (how that works legally – you lawyers handle that) and the Document as it applies to O’Boyle’s Release only be held in escrow pending a clearance from the Bar as to the people at the O’Boyle Law Firm. We do not see this as an issue that cannot be overcome, provided the Town and the others (that will be part of the Settlement Agreement) all parties will work together toward that common (and – indeed – important) goal. Of course there would have to be a reasonable time limit placed on this portion, with a negative result being a voiding of the O’Boyle Release and other obligations under the Agreement. Joanne – I remind you that this document is being sent to you for discussion purposes only. I intend to look at it again and I am going to have my Lawyer’s and the OLF’s lawyers look at it. With that in mind, I want you to know that I submit the attached document subject to further change. Please review and get back to me with your comments and (invited) suggestions. In the meantime, I will provide you with a 2 day date for booking Hazouri, just in case we need rd some assistance (by way of a neutral (Highly experienced) 3 party with “no dog in this fight” and from a man who resolves issues for a living) in gaining finality, which I hope that that is what we all wish to do. I now await hearing from you. PS: Attached may be a little “rough”, but I wanted to get it out to you and to the others on our end quickly to avoid further delay. In that connection, I understand that you spoke to Ian and that your wishes (and mine as well – although I think it will likely take an expert to resolve certain portions) are to resolve “pre – Hazouri”. Although we share that goal, we have never been able to get there before and to have the benefit of a guy like Hazouri’s knowledge with these type Disputes (remember he resolves these things for a living) is nothing but a win. Let’s get done once and for all. Until finished, I like you realize that all is always on the table; that we can not draw a line in the sand if we want to reach success (flexible is the way to get there); that we must use our best to resolve without a Mediator; and, as a final solution, we must let the Mediator do his magic. UNFORTUNATELY, I RECEIVE TOO MANY EMAILS ON A DAILY BASIS. THE RESULT IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE A 6 CHANCE TO REVIEW THM ALL; AND MANY I DO NOT SEE AT ALL. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO SEND ME EMAILS; AND, IF YOU DON’T HEAR FROM ME WITHIN 48 HOURS, I URGE YOU TO CALL ME. I ALSO ASK YOU TO CC MS. BRENDA RUSSELL (BRUSSELL@COMMERCE- GROUP.COM) OR TO CALL HER (954 570 3513). THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 7 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 5:48 PM To:Robert Sweetapple; Trey Nazzaro Subject:FW: Transcript Production by Phipps Reporting Attachments:Rivas, Robert Vol.01 091919.pdf; 1XA9458-complaint sachs sax caplan v oboyle 2018ca012296.PDF Note that Rivas represented PB State Attorney’s office adverse to Marty O’Boyle after Marty made public records requests; concedes that O’Boyle was animated by his daughter’s DUI conviction (pp. 40-41). That is when he first met Ring and Jonathan. There is a lot of self-serving testimony similar to what Bill Ring did in the Sober House hearing re these cases being so complicated because of the RICO suit, Florida Bar complaints, counterclaims. Yet RICO suit long th dismissed (summer 2015 by Marra then summer 2016 by 11 circuit), no counterclaims in this case and he conceded Fla Bar complaints largely resolved by time he came in in 2017. See also Rivas’ Complaint against Marty for unpaid fees. They ultimately settled the $120k in fees for $50k of about .40 on the dollar. Only $164 in fees from this case were at issue there so it doesn’t really affect his fee claim (although in StopDirty we will have an argument that Marty will get a windfall if court gives him all of Rivas’ fees) Note that Rivas stayed on as counsel of record in this case until May 1, 2018 Para 10 and 12 of his complaint allege that in April 2018 MEO demanded changes to the engagement agreement and that those demands were a pretense to try to get Rivas to withdraw so MEO would not have to fire him. He also alleges: In late 2017 and early 2018, O’Boyle continually attempted to persuade the Law Firm to use its good offices to represent him in a course of conduct that would have been dishonest, repugnant, and imprudent. On February 20, 2018, the Law Firm formally communicated its refusal to represent him in this effort. O’Boyle’s anticipatory repudiation and breach of the engagement agreement on April 23 and 24, 2018 were thus intended to cause the engagement agreement to be terminated without O’Boyle appearing to have terminated it himself. Ring testified in Sober House that they had to replace Rivas with James because of what happened at the Jonathan deposition, Rivas being too “professorial” to handle the contentiousness the Town was adding to the case. Rivas testified Reeder asserted privilege and confidentiality at the subsequent depo I took of Rivas in the StopDirty case, asserting that the Settlement Agreement between MEO and Rivas is confidential. He directed Rivas not to testify re the “course of conduct.” I also asked Rivas in the Stopdirty depo about Ring’s testimony in Sober House that they had to replace Rivas with yet another lawyer (James) because the Town was so contentious, citing the Jonathan O’Boyle depo, and Rivas too “professorial” to handle that animosity. Rivas testified this was a “false pretense” . 1 Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com Flagler Center Tower 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: OConnor, Joanne M. Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 5:37 PM To: 'Robert Sweetapple' <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; 'Matthew H. Mandel' <MMandel@wsh-law.com> Cc: 'Cynthia Miller' <cmiller@sweetapplelaw.com> Subject: FW: Transcript Production by Phipps Reporting See Robert Rivas deposition attached and link below to exhibits, including the brief used in the Judge Barkdull case that was modeled for use in this case re the bad faith defense. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com Flagler Center Tower 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 5:14 PM 2 To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: Elaine <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> Subject: FW: Transcript Production by Phipps Reporting This Message originated outside your organization. Joanne, See Rivas depo and exhibits in drop box below. Please confirm receipt. I sent to Rivas to read and return an errata sheet. Giving it a cursory glance, I noticed that “mute” and “muted” should be changed to “moot” and “mooted” and “lunged” should be “plunged.” Best, Martin From: Phipps Reporting Production <production@phippsreporting.com> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 4:26 PM To: Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com> Subject: Transcript Production by Phipps Reporting Greetings, Attached please find the PDF-Full, Etran, ASCII, PDF-Mini and Exhibits as member(s) of your firm representing your client in this case have placed an order in the following matter: Deposition of : Robert Rivas Case Name of: Asset Enhancement, Inc. vs. Town of Gulstream Taken on Date: 09/19/2019 Phipps Job No. 108359 Dropbox Link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o995ydzsmac8h7g/AAARSzutgljeq0KIBOtUHVyfa?dl=0 Please confirm receipt via email reply. Phipps Reporting is a certified green business, and we plant a tree in one of America’s National Forests for every transcript not printed. Thank you for choosing Phipps Reporting as your litigation support partner! IMPORTANT NOTE: Delivery of this transcript, whether in paper, video or electronic format, is intended to be used only by the initial recipients of this e-mail and by their employees, clients and experts in this case. In order to avoid incurring additional fees on your invoice, we respectfully request that none of these items be delivered to any other party or third party without the written consent of Phipps Reporting, Inc. Thank you for your trusted cooperation. Have you tried our process services yet? Let us handle your setting from the very beginning, starting with the serve! Michelle Pamplona Production Assistant 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ O: 888-811-3408 | D: 561-331-4656 NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission as well as all documents transmitted herewith are privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it was sent. If the reader of this e-mail and/or the documents attached is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or reproduction, copying, or storage of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and telephone (888-811-3408). Thank you. 363908:315062 4 IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. _______________________ SACHS SAX CAPLAN, P.L., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN E. O’BOYLE, Defendant. ___________________________/ COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L., sues the Defendant, Martin E. O’Boyle, and alleges: 1. This is an action for money damages arising from the breach of an attorney engagement agreement. 2. Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const., and Fla. Stat. § 26.012(2)(a) inasmuch as the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $15,000. 3. The Plaintiff, Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L. (the “Law Firm”), is a professional limited company organized under the laws of Florida. Filing # 78446712 E-Filed 09/26/2018 11:56:38 AM - 2 - 4. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.011 inasmuch as the Defendant, Martin E. O’Boyle, resides in Palm Beach County and the cause of action accrued in Palm Beach County. 5. On June 16, 2017, O’Boyle and the Law Firm entered into a written agreement for the Law Firm to provide legal services to O’Boyle. The firm was to represent O’Boyle and several O’Boyle-controlled shell corporations in ongoing lawsuits on an attached list. A copy of the engagement agreement and list are annexed hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 6. During the representation, in accordance with the engagement agreement, O’Boyle took a few of the lawsuits off the attached list, and added an additional representation to the matters for which the Law Firm was engaged: The Law Firm was to analyze the potential viability of a suit against the Town of Gulf Stream for breach of a Settlement Agreement reached with O’Boyle on July 26, 2013. As time passed, by agreement, other matters were put into and taken out of the mix of matters assigned to the Law Firm. 7. The engagement agreement required O’Boyle to pay the Law Firm’s hourly rates for attorney services and to reimburse the Law Firm for out-of-pocket costs advanced on his behalf. He would be billed on a monthly basis for attorneys’ fees and cost reimbursements. - 3 - 8. Upon receiving his monthly invoices, O’Boyle raised a few objections to small amounts of the attorney’s fees and cost reimbursements charged. In every instance in which he raised an objection to an amount charged for fees and costs, he was given a credit on his account for the entire sum he objected to paying. 9. Other than that, O’Boyle paid the monthly sums invoiced for attorneys’ fees and cost reimbursements in their entirety for all services rendered and costs incurred through approximately November 30, 2017. He never paid a dime for any services performed or costs advanced after that date. He thus breached the terms of the engagement agreement. 10. In communications on April 23 and 24, 2018, O’Boyle demanded substantial changes in the terms of the engagement agreement and refused to pay any of the past due sums unless the demands he made were agreed to by the Law Firm first. O’Boyle thereby anticipatorily breached and repudiated the engagement agreement. 11. After due notice to O’Boyle, therefore, the Law Firm withdrew from representing O’Boyle in all matters. 12. On information and belief, the communications of April 23 and 24, 2018, and the demands O’Boyle made therein were motivated in part by O’Boyle’s wish to ensure the representation would be terminated. He sought to obscure and cover up the fact that he wished to terminate the representation by provoking the - 4 - Law Firm itself to terminate the representation. In late 2017 and early 2018, O’Boyle continually attempted to persuade the Law Firm to use its good offices to represent him in a course of conduct that would have been dishonest, repugnant, and imprudent. On February 20, 2018, the Law Firm formally communicated its refusal to represent him in this effort. O’Boyle’s anticipatory repudiation and breach of the engagement agreement on April 23 and 24, 2018 were thus intended to cause the engagement agreement to be terminated without O’Boyle appearing to have terminated it himself. 13. O’Boyle has never again paid any amount toward the past due balance that has accrued for services rendered and costs advanced after approximately December 1, 2017. The amount he owes is reflected on the summary attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B. 14. O’Boyle has breached the engagement agreement by failing and refusing to pay the amounts he owes under the engagement agreement. 15. O’Boyle now owes the Law Firm $120,019.35 in past due attorney’s fees and cost reimbursements. 16. The fees charged to O’Boyle were for services reasonably necessary to the representation. - 5 - 17. Under the terms of the engagement agreement, O’Boyle is obligated to pay interest at a rate of 18 percent on all “statements not paid within 30 calendar days following receipt of our invoice for services and costs.” 18. Finally, under the engagement agreement, O’Boyle is obligated to pay the Law Firm’s court costs and attorney’s fees incurred in this action. WHEREFORE, the Law Firm demands damages in the amount of $120,019.35, plus prejudgment interest at the agreed rate of 18 percent, court costs, a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and such other relief as the Court deems proper. Dated on September 26, 2018. Respectfully submitted, Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L. Counsel for Plaintiff By: /s/Robert Rivas Robert Rivas, Fla. Bar No. 896969 Joel Kenwood, Fla. Bar No. 254487 6111 Broken Sound Parkway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33487 (561) 994-4499 rrivas@ssclawfirm.com, dwilkerson@ssclawfirm.com, and jkenwood@ssclawfirm.com Exhibit A SACHS SAX CAPLAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Palm Beach County office: 6111 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33487 (561) 994-4499 VIA EMAIL ONLY: MOBOYLE@COMMERCE-GROUP.COM Martin E. O'Boyle Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Dr. Deerfield Beach, FI. 33442 Tallahassee office: 660 E. Jefferson St., Suite 102 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 412-0306 REPLY TO TALLAHASSEE OFFICE: ROBERT RIVAS rrivas@ssclawfirm.com Board Certified in Appellate Practice Friday, June 16, 2017 Re: Agreement to Provide Legal Services +1 'lilt NOW- PL4I w+ & S (ctescripti Fog- -Kw t42 Rs LASrEo oN Extub,♦ # 1 Dear Mr. O'Boyle: . r ,. soed th t cy I have , d us to se e our legal cou, sel and to represent you You and each of these corporate entities is bound by this Agreement to Provide Legal Services, which sets forth the basis upon which Sachs Sax Caplan ("Law Firm") will provide legal services and how we will be compensated for those services. All legal services on this matter and on any other matter for which the Law Firm provides legal services shall be provided pursuant to this letter agreement unless a Supplemental Agreement to Provide Legal Services has been agreed upon between you and the Law Firm. FEE FOR LEGAL SERVICES We agree to perform legal services in a professional manner and keep you informed of all material developments in a reasonable and timely manner. To enable us to do this, you agree to disclose to us all material facts and such facts as are requested and as are reasonably necessary for us to perform the services for which you have retained us. Although we may give you our professional judgment regarding the likelihood of a favorable outcome on a particular matter, we are never able to guarantee any particular result. We will endeavor to give you our best judgment in light of the law and the particular facts known to us. Engagement Agreement - Martin E. O'Boyle June 16, 2017 Page 3 RETAINER The Law Firm requires the posting of an initial retainer of $10,000. Accordingly, please remit your check for $10,000 made payable to Sachs Sax Caplan Trust Account. The retainer will be held in trust and applied toward any statement for attorneys' fees or costs, or toward payment of the final statement. Any unused balance at the end of the representation will be refunded. Any portion of the retainer applied toward outstanding statements during the representation shall be required to be replenished so that we will, at all times, have a sum equal to or greater than the initial retainer balance in trust. CONCLUSION If these terms meet with your agreement, please sign and return a copy of this engagement letter and return it to us along with your check for the retainer. We thank you for retaining us to represent you and we look forward to serving you. Very truly yours, SACHS SAX CAPLAN /s/Robert Rivas Robert Rivas RR/dpw THE UNDERSIGNED IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF EACH CORPORATE PLAINTIFF, HAS READ THIS AGREEMENT, AND AGREES TO BE $OL ND BY ITS TERMS. Ma E. O'Boyl , I}S AK l i eo DPrim eL. !Meni e2 P 413a.. M.k4 tre P- ?LA "A% b Date: June 16, 2017 Ex. 1- Matter and Plaintiff Listing - Sachs Sax Caplan Agreement B 1 C D 1 Matter Number Matter Name Matter Plaintiffs 2 502014CA001572XXXXMB !Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream Martin E. O'Boyle 3 502014CA002728XXXXMB ;Martin E. O'Boyle v Town of Gulf Stream ;Martin E. O'Boyle 4 502014CA003721 XXXXMB Stopdirtygovemment, LLC v Town of Gulf Stream . Stopdirtygovernment, LLC 5 502014CA005628XXXXAG !Martin E. O'Boyle and Christopher F. O'Hare v Town of Martin E. O'Boyle ;Gulf Stream 6 502014CA008076XXXXMB Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream ;Martin E. O'Boyle 502014CA0102I6XXXXM.B ;Asset Enhancement, Inc. vs. Town of Gulf Stream !Asset Enhancement, Inc. 7 Martin E. O'Boyle, Airline Highway LLC, Commerce Martin E. O'Boyle, Airline Highway LLC, 502014CA011940XXXXMB !Group, Inc., Commerce Realty Group, Inc., CRO Aviation, ;Commerce Group, Inc., Commerce Realty Group, Inc. Our Public Records, LLC, and CG Acquistion ;Inc., CRO Aviation, Inc. Our Public Records, Company, Inc. v. Town of Gulf Stream I LLC, and CG Acquistion Company, Inc. 8 ;Martin E. O'Boyle and Asset Enhancment, Inc. v Town of 502015CA00I737XXXXMB ;Gulf Stream, Robert Sweetapple, Scott Morgan, John C. ;Martin E. O'Boyle and Asset Enhancment, Inc. 9 !Randolph and Joanne O'Connor ;Martin E. O'Boyle and Asset Enhancment, Inc. v The Town 5020I4CC015050XXXXMB `Martin E. O'Boyle and Asset Enhancment, Inc. y 10 ;of Gulf Stream 11 ;Martin E. O'Boyle Pro se v. Town of Gulf Stream; Jones, 502016CA004546XXXXMB Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, PA; Sweetapple, Broeker, Varkas, P.L.; Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Piper & {Hochman, PA Martin E. O'Boyle CASE NO. 14-14780 (l7th JDC, IMartin E. O'Boyle v. Jones Foster Service LLC, Town of Martin E. O'Boyle 12 County Court) 'Gulf Stream 13 502015CA001498XXXXMB Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream Martin E. O'Boyle 14 COMMERCE REALTY GROUP, IN 21941 DATE INVOICE NO. DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT DEDUCTION BALANCE 6-16-17 Retainer 0955 6550.0000 10000.00 10000.00 CHECK 6-16-17 DATE CHECK 21941 NUMBER TOTALS» 10000.00 10000.00 Sach0002 Sachs Sax Capla Commerce Realty Group, Inc BB&T*4344 OR SECURITY PURPOSES, THE FACE FOFDESSPOCuMENT.SUNT'At Sli?CO„C,oago BACKGROUND' D Oibi,'BEYONGiN kP:MADEF,' Pay: TO THE ORDER OF COMMERCE REALTY GROUP, INC. 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442 954-360-7713 ***************************************Ten Sachs Sax Caplan Trust Account 6111 Broken Sound Parkway NW Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33487 o SECURITY FEATURES INCLUDED. DETAILS ON BACK BB&T 69-339/515 21941 10,000.00 CHCKNO. AMOUNT 21941 thy'► s! . dollars and no cents 11'02194111' 405L5033941:00051???0434411' 6-16-17 Retainer 0955 6550.0000 10000.00 10000.00 6-16-17 21941 10000.00 10000.00 Sach0002 Sachs Sax Capla Commerce Realty Group, Inc BB&T*4344 Exhibit B Martin O'Boyle 1280 W. Newport Center Dr. Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Balance Forward Less Payments Received Net Balance Forward Attorneys at Law 6111 Broken Sound Parkway NW Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33487 TEL: 561.994.4499 FAX: 561.994.4985 TAX ID: 26-2950872 September 17, 201 $120,019.35 $0.00 $120,019.35 Our File No.: 13525 Matter plaintiffs Dock at Hidden Harbour 2014-ca-1572: Clio 96 2014-ca-2728; Clio 105 2014-ca-3721; Clio 155 2014-ca-5628; Clio 261 2014-ca-8076; Clio 369 2014-ca-10216; Clio 418 2014-ca-11940; Clio 454 2014-cc-15050; Clio 476 2014-ca-1737; Clio 470 $91,788.92 $1,453.38 $528.91 $244.11 $9,987.40 $488.22 $691.65 $164.37 $162.74 $1,057.81 $3,336.18 $109,903.69 $10,115.66 PHIPPS REPORTING Raising the Bar! IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT · · · · ·IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA · · · · · · CASE NO.:· 502014CA010216XXXXMB ASSET ENHANCEMENT, INC., · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff, vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM,, · · · · · · · ·Defendant. ________________________________/ · · · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF · · · · · · · · ·ROBERT RIVAS, ESQUIRE · · · · · · · · · · · Pages 1 - 81 · · · · · · · Thursday, September 19, 2019 · · · · · · · · ·9:40 a.m. - 11:47 a.m. · · · · · · · · · · Phipps Reporting · · · · · · · ·2894A Remington Green Lane · · · · · · · ·Tallahassee, Florida 32308 · · · · · · ·Stenographically Reported By: · · · · · · JUDY LYNN MARTIN, NOTARY PUBLIC Job No.:· 108359 Page 2 ·1· ·APPEARANCES: ·2 · · ·On behalf of Plaintiff: ·3 · · ·ATHERTON McAULIFFE & REEDER PA ·4· · · · 224 Datura Street, Suite 815 · · · · · West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ·5· · · · (561) 293-2530 · · · · · martin@athertonlg.com ·6· · · · BY:· L. Martin Reeder, Esquire ·7 · · ·On behalf of Defendant: ·8 · · ·JONES FOSTER JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. ·9· · · · 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 · · · · · West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 10· · · · (561) 659-3000 · · · · · joconnor@jonesfoster.com 11· · · · BY:· Joanne O'Connor, Esquire, via telephone 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X ·2· ·Testimony of ROBERT RIVAS ·3· ·Direct Examination by MR. REEDER· · · · · · · · · · ·4 ·4· ·Cross-Examination by MS. O'CONNOR· · · · · · · · · · 36 ·5· ·Redirect Examination by MR. REEDER· · · · · · · · · ·71 ·6· ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 78 · · ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 79 ·7· ·ERRATA SHEET· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·80 · · ·READ AND SIGN LETTER· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·81 ·8 ·9 10· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS 11· ·PLAINTIFF Exhibits 12· ·Exhibit No. 1· · ·Robert Rivas' Declaration· · · · · 23 13· ·Exhibit No. 2· · ·Defendant's Supplement to · · · · · · · · · · · ·Line Item Objections In 14· · · · · · · · · · ·Compliance With Order Dated · · · · · · · · · · · ·March 14, 2019· · · · · · · · · · ·26 15 16 17· ·DEFENDANT EXHIBITS 18· ·Exhibit No. 1· · ·Complaint· · · · · · · · · · · · · 48 19· ·Exhibit No. 2· · ·Plaintiff's Motion to Strike· · · ·66 20· ·Exhibit No. 3· · ·Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition· · 67 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 ·1· · · · The following proceedings began at 9:40 a.m.: ·2· · · · · · ·THE STENOGRAPHER:· Do you swear or affirm that ·3· · · · the testimony you're about to give will be the ·4· · · · truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? ·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I do. ·6· · · · · · · · · · · · ROBERT RIVAS, ·7· ·having been first duly sworn or affirmed, as hereinafter ·8· ·certified, testified as follows: ·9· · · · · · · · · · · DIRECT EXAMINATION 10· ·BY MR. REEDER: 11· · · · Q· · What is your name, sir? 12· · · · A· · Robert Dale, D-A-L-E, Rivas. 13· · · · Q· · I'm here today to take your deposition in a 14· ·case called Asset Enhancement, Incorporated, versus Town 15· ·of Gulf Stream, defendant. 16· · · · · · ·Are you familiar with that case? 17· · · · A· · Yes. 18· · · · Q· · Are you a member of the Florida bar? 19· · · · A· · Yes. 20· · · · Q· · When were you admitted? 21· · · · A· · 1991, August I think. 22· · · · Q· · Can you give me a brief summary of what you do 23· ·as a lawyer? 24· · · · A· · It's been a long time.· You want sort of a 25· ·chronology? Page 5 ·1· · · · Q· · Well, whatever makes sense to you to tell the ·2· ·story of sort of what you do as a lawyer? ·3· · · · A· · Yeah, as it -- as it matters to this case -- ·4· ·first of all, a bit of background.· For 12 years before ·5· ·I quit to go to law school I was a newspaper reporter, ·6· ·the last few which I was an editor at The Palm Beach ·7· ·Post, but I had previously been a reporter at the Miami ·8· ·Herald and that drove me to be -- dealing with the ·9· ·newspaper's lawyers often, which I often did because 10· ·that's the nature of the reporting I did, I just came to 11· ·be really interested in the work that media lawyers do, 12· ·so that's what my goal was when I became a lawyer was to 13· ·be a media lawyer. 14· · · · · · ·And I went to work for Holland & Knight and I 15· ·worked on libel defense, enforcement of reporters' 16· ·privilege.· I rushed down to the courthouse when a judge 17· ·illegally closed a hearing, sealed a file.· But as it 18· ·relates to this case, I did a large number of lawsuits 19· ·that pertained to access to public records. 20· · · · · · ·Usually they were situations where news medium 21· ·had asked for records from a government agency and I 22· ·brought the lawsuit or a petition for writ of mandamus 23· ·to have the agency's unlawful conduct corrected. 24· · · · · · ·I did the same work for government agencies 25· ·over the years a number of times, and I think in that Page 6 ·1· ·area I've had about as much experience as anybody in the ·2· ·state, except a very small handful of people, including ·3· ·L. Martin Reeder, who probably had more experience than ·4· ·I do in that field. ·5· · · · Q· · Tell me what your relationship is to Sachs Sax ·6· ·Caplan. ·7· · · · A· · In the year 2000 I was -- my wife and I and ·8· ·children were in Palm Beach County, that's where -- ·9· ·that's where I'm known.· I consider it home, but my wife 10· ·wanted to move to Tallahassee.· My law practice is so 11· ·portable, everything I need is on my laptop, that I was 12· ·able to say, sure, I'll go to Tallahassee and still 13· ·practice in West Palm Beach, so we moved to Tallahassee. 14· · · · · · ·In 2004 I had dinner with a friend and had no 15· ·expectation of what was to happen, but we soon fell into 16· ·a discussion about whether I could -- whether I wanted 17· ·to open a Tallahassee office of the firm that was then 18· ·called Sachs Sax & Klein. 19· · · · · · ·So we came to agreement on it and I 20· ·discontinued my -- my solo practice and became a -- the 21· ·sole person in the Tallahassee office for a while of 22· ·Sachs Sax & Klein, then it became Sachs & Sax, then it 23· ·became Sachs & Sax, and then it became Sachs Sax Caplan, 24· ·same firm. 25· · · · Q· · Can I call them SSC? Page 7 ·1· · · · A· · You can, or just call it the Sachs firm. ·2· · · · Q· · Well, I have trouble saying Sachs twice ·3· ·quickly without embarrassing myself. ·4· · · · A· · I tell my partners that they should not have ·5· ·that, because nobody can say it.· People can't stand to ·6· ·say it.· It doesn't roll off the tongue.· What they need ·7· ·now, though, is to find somebody whose last name is ·8· ·spelled S-A-C-K-S so that they can be Sachs, Sax & ·9· ·Sacks -- so that we can be Sachs, Sax & Sacks. 10· · · · Q· · Is your domicile in Leon County? 11· · · · A· · I live in Tallahassee, yes. 12· · · · Q· · When were you and SSC retained to represent 13· ·O'Boyle with regard to the Asset Enhancement case? 14· · · · A· · Well, the initiation of my retention by 15· ·O'Boyle to handle his litigation with the town of Palm 16· ·Beach was for all of them at once, so there's no 17· ·distinguishing commencement dates between them, except 18· ·that over time I stipulated into cases on different 19· ·dates, but the engagement to ultimately undertake all of 20· ·this was in an engagement letter dated June 16, 2017. 21· · · · Q· · You said the town of Palm Beach, did you mean 22· ·the Town of Gulf Stream? 23· · · · A· · Yes, I -- slip of the tongue. 24· · · · Q· · So did the scope of your engagement include 25· ·the Asset Enhancement case versus the Town of Gulf Page 8 ·1· ·Stream? ·2· · · · A· · Yes. ·3· · · · Q· · About how many public records cases did you ·4· ·take on in June of 2017? ·5· · · · A· · Thirteen were listed on the engagement letter ·6· ·in an attachment to the engagement letter, but within a ·7· ·month one of them was determined to be one in which I ·8· ·would not really play any role, so it came to be 12. ·9· · · · Q· · Where were those public records cases pending? 10· · · · A· · One was pending in Broward Circuit Court, one 11· ·was pending in Palm Beach County Court, and all the rest 12· ·were in Palm Beach Circuit Court. 13· · · · Q· · When had those lawsuits been filed 14· ·predominantly? 15· · · · A· · 2014, some small minority, maybe two or three, 16· ·had been filed in -- did I say 2014? 17· · · · Q· · You did. 18· · · · A· · Good.· Okay.· A small minority were filed in 19· ·2015. 20· · · · Q· · Skipping to the end here for frame of 21· ·reference, when did your firm's representation of 22· ·O'Boyle and his affiliated entities end? 23· · · · A· · I obtained orders authorizing my withdrawal 24· ·and substitution of counsel on various different dates, 25· ·but they were all in approximately -- they were all in Page 9 ·1· ·March, a few were in April of 2018. ·2· · · · Q· · So your period of representation in these 12 ·3· ·or so cases ran from June of 2017 til about late March ·4· ·or early April 2018? ·5· · · · A· · Yes, to the extent that those were the dates ·6· ·when I was actually working on them and talking to the ·7· ·client about them and studying them, but the dates of ·8· ·actual substitution into the cases one by one would have ·9· ·been over a span of a couple of months.· So there would 10· ·be some slight discrepancies when I began a number of 11· ·the cases. 12· · · · Q· · Are you familiar with the Rowe factors that 13· ·courts in Florida apply when determining the 14· ·reasonableness of an application for attorney's fees? 15· · · · A· · Yes.· I re-read Rowe every time anything comes 16· ·up in state court pertaining to applications for 17· ·attorney's fees, and I did it one day this week for this 18· ·case. 19· · · · Q· · Before accepting the engagement of the SSC 20· ·firm and yourself in these 12 or so cases, did you 21· ·consider the nature and complexity and difficulty of 22· ·issues being litigated in these cases that you were 23· ·being asked to become responsible for? 24· · · · A· · Yes, I did more so than in most cases.· Do you 25· ·want me to tell you the reasons I looked so hard at it? Page 10 ·1· · · · Q· · Yes, sir. ·2· · · · A· · First of all, I was concerned that -- you ·3· ·know, I heard these stories from opponents of ·4· ·Marty O'Boyle about how bad he is and I wanted to ·5· ·satisfy myself that -- that that was not true or ·6· ·exaggerated, but most of all regardless of whatever one ·7· ·might say about how he makes people mad in the Town of ·8· ·Gulf Stream that I wanted to satisfy myself that I was ·9· ·not going to sign my name to any pleadings that I would 10· ·be embarrassed by, because they were wrong.· I made sure 11· ·that every one of the cases had a sound application of 12· ·the law to the facts, and that was my main concern. 13· · · · · · ·And I knew it was going to be a nightmare, 14· ·because I could see that between the 12 cases, the 15· ·federal lawsuit, and other litigation involving these 16· ·parties, it was all a whirlwind -- and I'm going to mix 17· ·my metaphors.· It was a whirlwind of different things 18· ·that were constantly being thrown together and made 19· ·relevant to one another and made part of each other in a 20· ·way that it was just a mess. 21· · · · Q· · Was the litigation that you were being asked 22· ·to step into acrimonious? 23· · · · A· · To say the least.· The Town regularly filed 24· ·bar complaints against -- against O'Boyle's lawyers, 25· ·including his son, all of which were found to be lacking Page 11 ·1· ·in merit and dismissed by the Florida bar.· The Town ·2· ·spent a million dollars on federal court racketeering ·3· ·lawsuit, which was just an astounding boon dottle. ·4· · · · · · ·The Town had more lawyers working on it ·5· ·than -- on all of them together than O'Boyle did.· And ·6· ·that's saying something, because O'Boyle had several. ·7· ·It was nightmarishly acrimonious. ·8· · · · Q· · You mentioned a federal lawsuit that was a ·9· ·RICO claim, a racketeer influenced corrupt organizations 10· ·claim, had that been disposed of at the time that you 11· ·became involved in June of 2017? 12· · · · A· · Yes, it was -- it had been filed by the Town, 13· ·summary judgment had been granted by the federal trial 14· ·court, Judge Marra I'm pretty sure.· It went to the 15· ·Eleventh Circuit and was affirmed on a holding that was 16· ·so obvious that I had predicted it in precise terms 17· ·before the lawsuit was filed, because I heard all about 18· ·the theory. 19· · · · Q· · What do you mean by that? 20· · · · A· · That the lawsuit -- 21· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· I'm going to object, move to 22· · · · strike.· This is irrelevant.· His opinion on 23· · · · Judge Marra's ruling is -- has no bearing on this 24· · · · case at all. 25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So you're objecting at a Page 12 ·1· · · · deposition based on relevance.· This is the kind of ·2· · · · stuff that makes this litigation so difficult. ·3· · · · People just take positions that are inane. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· You can answer -- ·5· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· This deposition is being taken ·6· · · · in lieu of your testimony at the hearing. ·7· ·BY MR. REEDER: ·8· · · · Q· · You can answer the question. ·9· · · · A· · Well, the theory of the litigation was that 10· ·under certain circumstances the making of public records 11· ·requests under Florida law could be a predicate act for 12· ·a racketeering charge and/or the filing of a lawsuit to 13· ·enforce the public records law could be, and I thought 14· ·the various suggestion that under any circumstances 15· ·those two activities could form a predicate act for a 16· ·racketeering charge was frivolous. 17· · · · Q· · Why would that be frivolous? 18· · · · A· · Because there's a deeply embedded 19· ·constitutional right in Florida to request access to 20· ·public records and to file access.· Public policy 21· ·supports those activities.· They can't be criminal. 22· · · · · · ·And I've had peripheral involvement, actually 23· ·direct involvement in -- litigating some racketeering 24· ·cases over the years, and I know that there's a list of 25· ·very specific almost all violent crimes that are Page 13 ·1· ·required to take place before -- before you could have ·2· ·the predicates necessary for a racketeering charge. ·3· · · · Q· · Understanding that it was a federal RICO ·4· ·claim, did you also review similar claims by the Town ·5· ·brought as counterclaims in state court? ·6· · · · A· · Actually none of them were surviving during ·7· ·the period of time when I was involved, so my -- my ·8· ·memory may not be that great because it didn't really ·9· ·matter to me, but I did look up and notice that there 10· ·were instances of the Town filing lawsuits for abuse of 11· ·process and some other things like that. 12· · · · · · ·It appeared to me as if the Town had filed 13· ·these -- these conspicuously non-meritorious claims 14· ·early on in those lawsuits in order to ensure that the 15· ·plaintiff could not successfully get a -- an expedited 16· ·Public Records Act hearing on the case. 17· · · · Q· · Now, in the cases that you handled, did the 18· ·Town attempt to assert an affirmative defense of bad 19· ·faith? 20· · · · A· · Yes, that was discussed extensively in the 21· ·case. 22· · · · Q· · Can you give me a brief summary of what it was 23· ·that you understood the Town to be pleading when it 24· ·alleged that there was bad faith as a defense to a 25· ·public records lawsuit? Page 14 ·1· · · · A· · Basically the same subject matter facts that ·2· ·formed the racketeering lawsuit and that the Town just ·3· ·repeats over and over again in every context, burning up ·4· ·the fax -- O'Boyle was burning up the fax machine and ·5· ·they were overwhelmed, they couldn't deal with all the ·6· ·public records request, and it was part of an ·7· ·intentional and calculated scheme to render the Town ·8· ·unable to comply with public records request and that it ·9· ·was part of a -- even broader scheme to funnel money to 10· ·the -- to O'Boyle's son's law firm and so the -- he was 11· ·really trying to make money. 12· · · · · · ·In this context, I just want to point out that 13· ·that affirmative defense could not possibly have had any 14· ·bearing on the Asset Enhancement or Stopdirtygovernment 15· ·cases. 16· · · · Q· · You mentioned that the Town had filed bar 17· ·complaints against Mr. O'Boyle's son, Jonathan O'Boyle, 18· ·one of the lawyers working on the case and other lawyers 19· ·who appeared for O'Boyle in the public records cases. 20· · · · · · ·Were -- had those bar complaints been fully 21· ·disposed of at the time you got on board or did those 22· ·continue during the period when you were representing 23· ·the plaintiff in the Asset Enhancement case and the 24· ·other cases? 25· · · · A· · They were continuing, and I don't remember Page 15 ·1· ·when they ended, but I do remember talking with ·2· ·Jonathan O'Boyle and Bill Ring about their final ·3· ·hearing, where the last -- the last of the bar ·4· ·complaints against them was -- was adjudicated. ·5· · · · Q· · Did you understand the Town to the extent that ·6· ·it was alleging bad faith as an affirmative defense, did ·7· ·you understand that the Town was wrapping up the facts ·8· ·that it had submitted to the bar in its allegations of ·9· ·bad faith? 10· · · · A· · Yeah.· That's what I meant about a hurricane, 11· ·or maybe I'd say all these cases were mixed together 12· ·kaleidoscopically.· The facts that were alleged and 13· ·shown to be without merit in the federal lawsuit were -- 14· ·many of them were the same ones alleged in the bar 15· ·complaints, many of them.· It was just a repetition of 16· ·the same stuff when they file pleadings in the public 17· ·records lawsuits. 18· · · · Q· · Did the Town's litigation tactics have a 19· ·bearing on -- you know, as to the experience and skill 20· ·level needed to represent O'Boyle and his entities 21· ·adequately in this public records litigation? 22· · · · A· · Yes.· That's why O'Boyle came to me.· He -- he 23· ·needed somebody that had two characteristics he was 24· ·looking for, and we discussed these at length, one is 25· ·extensive public records experience and the other is Page 16 ·1· ·just extensive experience in handling matters in trial ·2· ·courts and developing good strategies to prosecute and ·3· ·defend cases in state trial courts.· I had plenty of ·4· ·that. ·5· · · · Q· · What about your experience litigating before ·6· ·judges in Palm Beach County and also litigating before ·7· ·the judges of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, could ·8· ·you elaborate a little bit on that, please? ·9· · · · A· · They all knew me, at least by reputation. 10· ·Some of them had had extensive experience with me. I 11· ·tried a case in front of Glenn Kelley just about two 12· ·years before the O'Boyle cases started to come up in 13· ·front of him. 14· · · · · · ·All the judges that -- well, most of the 15· ·judges that presided over the O'Boyle cases were people 16· ·I was familiar with from different walks of life, some 17· ·of them were people I practiced law with or against 18· ·before any of the public records -- before -- before 19· ·they became judge. 20· · · · Q· · Did you believe that your experience and 21· ·reputation before the trial and appellate courts for 22· ·Palm Beach County was a factor in O'Boyle's decision to 23· ·hire you? 24· · · · A· · Those are the criteria -- some of the criteria 25· ·against which he interviewed me.· By the way, I didn't Page 17 ·1· ·answer part of your question.· You mentioned also the ·2· ·Fourth District Court of Appeal.· I've been board ·3· ·certified in appellate practice in about 75 percent of ·4· ·all my appellate practices in the Fourth District.· So ·5· ·there isn't a judge now or during these O'Boyle cases in ·6· ·the Fourth District that I hadn't appeared in front of ·7· ·many times. ·8· · · · Q· · Was it your practice when you were retained as ·9· ·a lawyer to handle a public records case that you would 10· ·also handle any appeal resulting from the case? 11· · · · A· · Certainly. 12· · · · Q· · What was the hourly rate that the SSC firm 13· ·agreed to and O'Boyle agreed to for the representation 14· ·of -- in the Asset Enhancement case and the other cases? 15· · · · A· · In my discussions with him, I simply offered 16· ·to charge the standard rate that my law firm charges 17· ·across the board for my services. 18· · · · Q· · How much is that? 19· · · · A· · That's $395 an hour and I -- I was reluctant 20· ·to do it for such a small amount.· I just talked myself 21· ·into it because I thought, well, it's hard to explain to 22· ·a proposed new client why you want to charge him more 23· ·than you charge anybody else.· And so I just told him I 24· ·would do it for my standard rate. 25· · · · · · ·With the degree of my specialization and with Page 18 ·1· ·the nature of these lawsuits and with the difficulty ·2· ·that would be involved in them, I should have charged ·3· ·more, could have charged more as well. ·4· · · · Q· · You said earlier in your deposition that ·5· ·you're familiar with a handful of lawyers around Florida ·6· ·who you would consider qualified to accept a ·7· ·representation like you did. ·8· · · · · · ·Are you familiar, at least in general, with ·9· ·their hourly rates and how they would compare to $395 an 10· ·hour? 11· · · · A· · Most of them charge at least $500 an hour, 12· ·five, six, some go beyond $600 an hour. 13· · · · Q· · Now, what was the agreement between the SSC 14· ·firm and O'Boyle with respect to whether you would 15· ·charge for travel time considering that you reside in 16· ·Tallahassee? 17· · · · A· · The agreement at the outset was that I would 18· ·charge my standard hourly rate for travel time, whether 19· ·I was flying or driving.· As it turned out in this 20· ·particular case, I never flew because flight schedules 21· ·are just so damn bad between Tallahassee and West Palm 22· ·Beach. 23· · · · · · ·So if I was going to go all the way down to 24· ·Deerfield, it was at least a seven-hour drive and 25· ·O'Boyle agreed to pay that.· It's right there in the Page 19 ·1· ·engagement letter. ·2· · · · · · ·The practice I always had over the years was ·3· ·and that the firm has, that I and all my partners are ·4· ·comfortable with, if I got a partner who's got a ·5· ·homeowners association, our -- our firm does a lot of ·6· ·multifamily housing representation of associations and ·7· ·people involved in disputes with associations. ·8· · · · · · ·Since I'm not particularly an expert in that, ·9· ·although I'm an expert in conducting appeals, if I need 10· ·to conduct an appeal for a homeowners association and I 11· ·need to, say, go down for oral argument, I don't charge 12· ·for that.· Because it's not right for the client to have 13· ·to pay for the fact that the firm's expert in appeals 14· ·happens to be in Tallahassee, that wasn't the client's 15· ·choice. 16· · · · · · ·But over the years since I moved to 17· ·Tallahassee in 2000, any time anybody would call me from 18· ·anywhere in the state, and it happened occasionally, I 19· ·would always say I'm going to charge you my travel time, 20· ·because otherwise I just can't afford to take two days 21· ·off every time I have to go, in one case, back and forth 22· ·to Naples and, another two cases, back and forth to Key 23· ·West, if only I could get some more of those, in one 24· ·case, back and forth to Tampa. 25· · · · · · ·So I charge clients when there's a good Page 20 ·1· ·justification for the fact that they've made a choice to ·2· ·get a guy from Tallahassee to come down to their town ·3· ·and litigate a public records case.· That was the ·4· ·circumstance with O'Boyle, because he had not been ·5· ·previously -- although we have -- our office is in Palm ·6· ·Beach County and the litigation was in Palm Beach ·7· ·County, he had not previously had any relationship and ·8· ·he had made an affirmative choice to hire a lawyer from ·9· ·Tallahassee to come back and forth to Palm Beach County 10· ·to litigate, and I told him I was going to charge him 11· ·for all my travel time. 12· · · · Q· · Was that agreement to charge them for all your 13· ·travel time modified at some point in the litigation you 14· ·handled for O'Boyle, including the Asset Enhancement 15· ·case? 16· · · · A· · At approximately the time, as best I recall, 17· ·when O'Boyle's office received maybe the third monthly 18· ·bill, I got a call from Bill Ring and he complained 19· ·about the travel time.· I said, well, you know, it's in 20· ·the engagement agreement. 21· · · · · · ·But nonetheless from our discussion, I agreed 22· ·to reduce it to where I would charge automatically for 23· ·three hours to travel back and forth to Palm Beach 24· ·County, that's a flat fee.· So going forward from there, 25· ·you see three hour entries for travel to Palm Beach Page 21 ·1· ·County. ·2· · · · · · ·Before approximately August, you'd see time ·3· ·entries billing for seven hours of time, but then in ·4· ·about August you'd see on the invoices a couple of ·5· ·credits.· So I retroactively gave what's referred to on ·6· ·the invoice -- on a statement as a courtesy credit for ·7· ·what I agreed to refund back to O'Boyle by reducing ·8· ·travel time from seven hours to three hours. ·9· · · · Q· · So ultimately what you're seeking -- what 10· ·O'Boyle is seeking to recover in this attorney's fee 11· ·hearing is three hours for each one-way trip from 12· ·Tallahassee to Palm Beach County or Palm Beach County 13· ·back to Tallahassee; is that correct? 14· · · · A· · That's correct.· I think of it as three 15· ·sevens, but realistically much more often than not when 16· ·I would go to South Florida in this litigation, it would 17· ·require me to go to Deerfield Beach.· That finally makes 18· ·it add up to at least seven hours and sometimes closer 19· ·to eight. 20· · · · Q· · I want to return to the issue of all these bar 21· ·complaints.· Were you worried that the Town might file a 22· ·bar complaint against you if you got involved in this 23· ·litigation, was that a risk that you were taking on? 24· · · · A· · I considered the possibility and it was a risk 25· ·I was taking on, because the Town had demonstrated a Page 22 ·1· ·history of not -- of filing bar complaints when there ·2· ·was no basis for them.· It's just not my nature to be ·3· ·discouraged by that kind of thing, so I -- ·4· · · · Q· · Lunged ahead? ·5· · · · A· · Yeah, lunged ahead, I didn't worry about it ·6· ·frankly. ·7· · · · Q· · So during the approximately 10 months the ·8· ·engagement lasted, did you or your firm file any ·9· ·additional public records cases on behalf of O'Boyle? 10· · · · A· · No. 11· · · · Q· · Did you and your firm take on any nonpublic 12· ·records new matters for O'Boyle or entities controlled 13· ·by him in addition to the cases that are listed in the 14· ·engagement letter? 15· · · · A· · Yes.· I represented O'Boyle in some other -- 16· ·other matters besides these public records cases. 17· · · · Q· · Were you personally involved in nonpublic 18· ·records matters for Mr. O'Boyle? 19· · · · A· · Yes. 20· · · · Q· · Were any other lawyers from your firm involved 21· ·in those nonpublic records matters? 22· · · · A· · Yes.· One of them involved the Town of Gulf 23· ·Stream's planning and zoning -- application of its 24· ·zoning laws and -- so I got an expert -- one of my 25· ·partners he was an expert in those types of dirt law to Page 23 ·1· ·be involved. ·2· · · · · · ·(Marked for identification is Plaintiff ·3· ·Exhibit Number 1.) ·4· ·BY MR. REEDER: ·5· · · · Q· · I'm going to show you what has been premarked ·6· ·as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for this deposition.· Can you ·7· ·identify that document, please? ·8· · · · A· · This is my affidavit -- my declaration in this ·9· ·particular case that was prepared in support of the 10· ·Asset Enhancement's motion to recover attorney's fees. 11· · · · Q· · Is that your signature on the second page?· It 12· ·looks like it's an electronic signature. 13· · · · A· · Yes.· I specifically under the rule authorized 14· ·the use of electronic signature to file this. 15· · · · Q· · This declaration in paragraph 10 indicates 16· ·that Asset Enhancement is seeking to recover $9,085 of 17· ·your time; is that correct? 18· · · · A· · That's right. 19· · · · Q· · Is there a schedule attached to your 20· ·deposition -- I mean, your declaration? 21· · · · A· · Yes. 22· · · · Q· · Does that detail the dates and the hours 23· ·worked and descriptions of the work? 24· · · · A· · Yes.· It's much less than I actually worked, 25· ·but it details all the ones that for purposes of this Page 24 ·1· ·fee application I had -- was able to and did identify as ·2· ·being for the Asset Enhancement -- Enhancement case. ·3· · · · Q· · So I'll get to that other work in a moment, ·4· ·but first as to the work identified in your declaration, ·5· ·do the time entries shown on the schedule attached to ·6· ·your declaration accurately reflect the hours you ·7· ·actually worked? ·8· · · · A· · I'm very scrupulous to put the amount of time ·9· ·that I actually worked or less in all time entries. 10· · · · Q· · Do the descriptions of the work that appear on 11· ·this schedule attached to your declaration accurately 12· ·reflect the work you performed? 13· · · · A· · Yes, I usually am -- well, I'm more detailed 14· ·and specific than most lawyers I'd say. 15· · · · Q· · Now, you mentioned a moment ago other work. 16· ·Did you do other work in this case that was charged to 17· ·the client that is not included in the schedule attached 18· ·to your declaration? 19· · · · A· · Yes.· In the early months -- particularly in 20· ·the early months, but really throughout all of this 21· ·litigation I very often had to spend many hours doing -- 22· ·reading of things that couldn't be specifically 23· ·allocated to one case. 24· · · · · · ·So, for example, I read all the motions for 25· ·summary judgment, the appeal briefs, and the Town of Page 25 ·1· ·Gulf Stream's racketeering case.· It was necessary for ·2· ·me to do that to represent O'Boyle in all of these ·3· ·cases, because the same factual matters were gone over ·4· ·with -- were gone over and over again in all the public ·5· ·records cases.· So I need to know -- I needed to be ·6· ·prepared and know what the response was to these things ·7· ·and understand them well enough to be able to respond to ·8· ·them. ·9· · · · · · ·So if I had a way to capture all of that time 10· ·and allocate it to Asset Enhancement, this exhibit would 11· ·reflect a good deal more time. 12· · · · Q· · Is the Town -- or will the Town benefit to the 13· ·extent that that time was necessary and you worked it 14· ·but O'Boyle has not sought to recover that time that was 15· ·not specifically allocated to each case? 16· · · · A· · Yes.· The Town is getting a windfall. 17· · · · Q· · Do you have an opinion as to whether the fees 18· ·that Asset Enhancement is seeking to recover from the 19· ·Town based on you and your firm's work, that is the 20· ·$9,085 fee reflected in your declaration, is that 21· ·reasonable and necessary attorney time? 22· · · · A· · Absolutely.· In my -- throughout my career any 23· ·client being billed this amount for the matters I 24· ·handled during the period of time I represented Asset 25· ·Enhancement would be very pleased to see what they Page 26 ·1· ·consider a very modest amount of time and a modest bill. ·2· · · · Q· · Have you learned that an expert paid by the ·3· ·Town, Mr. Mandel, has reviewed your declaration and ·4· ·expressed opinions that a substantial portion of the ·5· ·fees you charged were either unnecessary or excessive? ·6· · · · A· · Yes, I saw his -- I saw the Town's filing of ·7· ·his opinion. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· I'm going to hand you a document ·9· · · · that's premarked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. 10· · · · · · ·Joanne, this is Defendant's Supplement to Line 11· · · · Item Objections In Compliance With Order Dated 12· · · · March 14, 2019, dated July 24, 2019. 13· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Got it. 14· · · · · · ·(Marked for identification is Plaintiff 15· · · · Exhibit Number 2.) 16· ·BY MR. REEDER: 17· · · · Q· · If you would, just take a look at that 18· ·document. 19· · · · A· · Okay. 20· · · · Q· · Now, that document if you turn three pages in 21· ·to it has three pages of conclusions that are referenced 22· ·as Exhibit A. 23· · · · · · ·Do you see those? 24· · · · A· · Yes. 25· · · · Q· · Then it has some dates, important dates, and Page 27 ·1· ·then it has a bunch of time schedules attached? ·2· · · · A· · Right. ·3· · · · Q· · So I believe -- what I'm going to try to do is ·4· ·direct you to just your and your firm's involvement -- ·5· · · · A· · Good. ·6· · · · Q· · -- because this involves a lot of others too. ·7· · · · · · ·So if you turn to the conclusions, you see on ·8· ·the first page of conclusions a Roman numeral I-B, ·9· ·Rivas' fees and you see the $9,085? 10· · · · A· · Correct. 11· · · · Q· · Could you just read what Mr. Mandel's opinion 12· ·is there? 13· · · · A· · Rivas' fees, $9,085, should be eliminated as 14· ·he didn't appear until July 28, 2017, more than two 15· ·years after the documents had been produced. 16· · · · Q· · Do you have an opinion as to whether that is a 17· ·correct and reasonable view that no fees would be 18· ·awardable because the documents had been produced two 19· ·years prior to when you became involved? 20· · · · A· · That's -- that's an absurd contention.· If the 21· ·Town had wanted to mute the case, the Town could have 22· ·easily have muted the case.· The Town could have simply 23· ·filed a motion to dismiss the case as mute. 24· · · · · · ·As a matter of fact if the Town thought this 25· ·case was mute back whenever it was in 2015 that the Page 28 ·1· ·documents were produced, the attorneys for the Town, in ·2· ·my opinion, had a professional obligation to report to ·3· ·the Court that they believed the case was mute. ·4· · · · · · ·The argument they're making now is ·5· ·inconsistent with that.· They never made that argument ·6· ·back then.· If they had filed a motion and it's true ·7· ·that there was anything mute about the case, then the ·8· ·case would have been dismissed back then and they would ·9· ·have simply had to say -- had to establish for the Court 10· ·that it's mute because the documents were produced and 11· ·let the chips fall where they may as far as the 12· ·attorney's fees to be awarded and whether or not the 13· ·Town's conduct would be -- not be producing them until 14· ·that late day whether that would be found to be unlawful 15· ·under the public records law. 16· · · · Q· · Based on your knowledge about the public 17· ·records law, if a public agency is sued for violating 18· ·the law and then produces records that it refused or 19· ·failed to produce prior to the filing of the lawsuit, 20· ·can it avoid attorney's fee liability by simply 21· ·producing the documents and saying, okay, the case is 22· ·mute? 23· · · · A· · Sometimes they can.· There's a case in which 24· ·that -- that was allowed to happen and it's a case in 25· ·which it was found that the Town -- the Town's failure Page 29 ·1· ·to produce the documents before the lawsuit was filed ·2· ·was not an unlawful failure to comply with the public ·3· ·records law. ·4· · · · · · ·But all of the cases say the Court has to ·5· ·evaluate whether or not there was an unlawful failure to ·6· ·comply with the public records law prior to the time the ·7· ·lawsuit was filed and was that -- such that the lawsuit ·8· ·-- filing the lawsuit was justified by the law at that ·9· ·time.· If they produced the documents late, they can 10· ·just go to court, cut off any more attorney's fees.· Go 11· ·to court and say we produced these, we're late, you 12· ·know. 13· · · · · · ·So Court declared that this -- this has been 14· ·muted by the production.· There's nothing -- no relief 15· ·to be sought here except attorney's fees and we'll go 16· ·forward on the arguments about attorney's fees. 17· · · · Q· · In this particular case based on your 18· ·understanding of the facts, did the Town have a sound 19· ·position to argue that the case was mute and that no 20· ·fees could be recovered? 21· · · · A· · It's certainly not -- I'm trying to remember 22· ·whether the Town even made that argument, that was even 23· ·before my time, but I don't recall reading a pleading in 24· ·which they said that. 25· · · · Q· · Looking at Exhibit 1, describing your time, Page 30 ·1· ·what were you doing on this case? ·2· · · · A· · Nearly everything that I worked on between ·3· ·June of 2017 and August of 2017 was arguing over whether ·4· ·the Town would be authorized to belatedly add a pleading ·5· ·that was an affirmative defense.· First it was described ·6· ·as and called bad faith and -- yeah, as a matter of ·7· ·fact, that's what they called it -- for a moment I ·8· ·started to mix this up with Stopdirtygovernment, but ·9· ·they -- they never got past -- they made the argument 10· ·strictly with the -- about the bad faith affirmative 11· ·defense in this case. 12· · · · Q· · So the Town was actively in June and July and 13· ·August of 2017 was actively arguing that it had a 14· ·defense to this case based on alleged bad faith on the 15· ·part of the plaintiff? 16· · · · A· · Right. 17· · · · Q· · So there was -- would I be correct in 18· ·understanding that to mean that there was no concession 19· ·by the Town in court that -- that there was no need to 20· ·litigate this bad faith issue that the Town was raising, 21· ·because the records had already been provided and the 22· ·case was mute? 23· · · · A· · Going back to when the Town now claims the 24· ·case was muted, the Town furiously fought to avoid any 25· ·finding that the Town had unlawfully failed to comply Page 31 ·1· ·with the Public Records Act and that's why the ·2· ·litigation went on and it was not -- it was not mute. ·3· · · · Q· · Now, Mr. Mandel's -- I'm back to Exhibit 2 ·4· ·now, the conclusion section.· If you'll turn to the ·5· ·second page, there is something called Roman numeral II, ·6· ·Model 2; do you see that page? ·7· · · · A· · Yes. ·8· · · · Q· · At the bottom of the page, Roman numeral II-B, ·9· ·we're back to talking about your fees and this appears 10· ·to be an alternative opinion on the part of Mr. Mandel. 11· · · · · · ·If he's wrong about the idea -- the argument 12· ·that the case was mute and the plaintiff gets no fees, 13· ·he's got a Model 2 here, an alternative position.· Do 14· ·you see that, starts at the bottom of the page? 15· · · · A· · Yes. 16· · · · Q· · If you could just read for the record what his 17· ·conclusion is under Model 2. 18· · · · A· · Rivas' fees should be reduced by $6,517.50, 19· ·parens, sum of Numbers 1 and 2 herein. 20· · · · Q· · So if you turn the page and you look at 21· ·Numbers 1 and 2 -- and take whatever time you need to 22· ·read those and familiarize yourself with those.· Those 23· ·appear to be Mr. Mandel's reasoning for why it would be 24· ·justified to deduct $6,517.50 from your fees, after 25· ·you've had a chance to read them. Page 32 ·1· · · · · · ·I'd just like you to take them one at a time ·2· ·and I would like to hear what your opinion is of his ·3· ·proposed reductions. ·4· · · · A· · How do I respond in other words? ·5· · · · Q· · Yes, sir. ·6· · · · A· · Number 1, need to reduce calendar call ·7· ·attendance to three hours, reduction of 2.5 hours.· This ·8· ·is just a careless -- reflects a careless lack of ·9· ·knowledge of the facts.· We had to wait hours for the 10· ·calendar call to take place.· The judge was out -- the 11· ·judge who was assigned to this case was Judge Garrison. 12· · · · · · ·Judge Garrison got up and said, well, I'm 13· ·going to disqualify myself, because my wife used to work 14· ·for the Town and a different judge had to be obtained. 15· ·And in addition, I had to prepare because the Town's 16· ·lawyer, I can't -- I can see his face and I can't think 17· ·of that guy's name. 18· · · · Q· · Sweetapple? 19· · · · A· · No, it's not Sweetapple.· Is there a guy from 20· ·Cole, Scott & Kissane -- I'll think of it, but he had 21· ·noticed that he was going to try to argue at this 22· ·calendar call in favor of the bad faith defense being 23· ·allowed to be pled and -- so I was prepared for that and 24· ·as I -- as I thought was probably going to happen, the 25· ·judge just said you want to argue a motion here.· No, Page 33 ·1· ·we're not going to argue a motion here.· Thank you.· So ·2· ·it was a long calendar call and preparation took some ·3· ·time. ·4· · · · · · ·Number 2, need to reduce by 14 hours at $395 ·5· ·an hour, reduction of $5,530.· All of this time spent ·6· ·for research and many communications regarding a hearing ·7· ·on the Town's motion for leave to add affirmative ·8· ·defense of bad faith.· Plaintiff lost hearing on ·9· ·July 13, 2017.· Rivas never billed for attendance at the 10· ·hearing and plaintiff lost prior hearing on the same 11· ·issue on July 6 before Judge Barkdull in Case 8076. 12· · · · Q· · What is your response to that? 13· · · · A· · Two times here, as -- as he did in the first 14· ·one, he just keeps referring to something that happened 15· ·in some other case with some other lawyer or me and some 16· ·other case.· It's just not -- the -- in the experience 17· ·of lawyers, two calendar calls because they're called 18· ·calendar calls, don't automatically amount to the same 19· ·length of time.· There's just no validity.· This is 20· ·totally random or arbitrary to call for this particular 21· ·reduction. 22· · · · · · ·The Town's motion for leave to add the 23· ·affirmative defense of bad faith was a very, very 24· ·difficult issue.· It involved all of the same facts that 25· ·were involved in the RICO claim, the same facts that Page 34 ·1· ·keep swirling and circulating and everything. ·2· · · · · · ·The facts of this -- this case, the Asset ·3· ·Enhancement lawsuit, in by -- as a consequence -- as a ·4· ·result of my preparation, I was able to explain to the ·5· ·Court that there's absolutely no affect on the Town's ·6· ·ability to respond to this public records request.· The ·7· ·illegality that's cited in this lawsuit had nothing to ·8· ·do with any other public records request or with there ·9· ·being too many or with there being lawsuits. 10· · · · · · ·In due course nobody rushed the Town.· In due 11· ·course the Town got a public records lawsuit, sent it to 12· ·Sweetapple, Sweetapple made a redaction.· My client felt 13· ·the redaction was an unlawful redaction, sued to have 14· ·the redaction unredacted. 15· · · · · · ·There's not the slightest implication that 16· ·when Sweetapple made the redaction, any of this other 17· ·stuff about burning up fax machines or filing hundreds 18· ·of public records request -- first of all, none of that 19· ·was happening at this exact time frame, and, secondly, 20· ·even if it were happening, he made a decision that we 21· ·sued over.· It's got -- the making of that decision has 22· ·nothing to do with anything about this bad faith 23· ·affirmative defense.· But, you know, some judges will 24· ·allow a pleading because they -- they just feel with 25· ·some justification that every pleading's got to be Page 35 ·1· ·allowed. ·2· · · · Q· · Bottom line, getting back to the 9,085 number ·3· ·that O'Boyle seeks to recover here, having read Mandel's ·4· ·criticisms of that time, do you stand by the time as ·5· ·being necessary and reasonable? ·6· · · · A· · Absolutely it's necessary and reasonable and ·7· ·the client paid it, which is a reflection of what the ·8· ·client thought, and I believe any of my clients would ·9· ·have paid it.· You notice down here it says research, 10· ·review file, write, and file motion to strike, it was 11· ·clear when the judge granted the motion for leave to add 12· ·the bad faith affirmative defense, the judge explicitly 13· ·said I'm not saying that it's viable, I'm just saying 14· ·I'm going to allow you to plead it. 15· · · · · · ·So in spite of all that preparation, the judge 16· ·didn't actually reach the question of whether the bad 17· ·affirmative defense was a sound legal theory as a matter 18· ·of law, and so instead we had to come back and reargue 19· ·the whole matter on a motion to strike the affirmative 20· ·defense that the judge had previously authorized to be 21· ·filed.· Whereas in front of another judge, the judge 22· ·might have said I'm not going to allow the pleading of 23· ·this affirmative defense because of futility.· It's not 24· ·a legally sound affirmative defense. 25· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Mr. Rivas, I'm through with my Page 36 ·1· · · · questions, except I would just ask the court ·2· · · · reporter just for clarity, because I think my ·3· · · · colleague is going to have some exhibits, could you ·4· · · · just correct these two to indicate that they're ·5· · · · Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 and 2. ·6· · · · · · ·Do you want to take a break while we get your ·7· · · · exhibits? ·8· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· That would be great.· Thank ·9· · · · you. 10· · · · · · ·(Recessed at 10:35 a.m. to 10:38 a.m.) 11· · · · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION 12· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 13· · · · Q· · Morning, Mr. Rivas, I'm Joanne O'Connor. 14· · · · A· · Good morning, Ms. O'Connor.· How are you 15· ·today? 16· · · · Q· · Can you tell me what you did to prepare for 17· ·this deposition this morning? 18· · · · A· · I first identified and printed out every 19· ·document that I thought might be relevant or that I 20· ·might need to refresh my recollection about particular 21· ·things. 22· · · · · · ·Once I had all of them in hand, I went through 23· ·all of those documents just to read them and think about 24· ·them and remember what they said and think about what 25· ·additional documents I needed because of questions that Page 37 ·1· ·they -- they raised and what things I needed to look ·2· ·into and I just kept doing all of that. ·3· · · · · · ·I had a telephone conversation with ·4· ·Mr. Reeder, and I had an email from Mr. Reeder.· I wrote ·5· ·some responses to the email, sent it to -- sent them to ·6· ·him and then we talked some more on the telephone. ·7· · · · Q· · Did you communicate with anyone at The O'Boyle ·8· ·Law Firm about your deposition today? ·9· · · · A· · No. 10· · · · Q· · How about Delray? 11· · · · A· · No. 12· · · · Q· · Did you take a look at the document that is 13· ·hopefully marked as Exhibit 1, it's my cross-notice of 14· ·taking your deposition. 15· · · · · · ·Do you see that? 16· · · · A· · Yes. 17· · · · Q· · Did you bring any documents responsive to 18· ·duces tecum this morning? 19· · · · A· · Are you under the impression I've ever seen 20· ·this duces tecum? 21· · · · Q· · I am. 22· · · · A· · I have never seen this duces tecum. 23· · · · Q· · Okay. 24· · · · A· · Let me clarify.· There have been one or two 25· ·previous attempts to schedule my deposition and I Page 38 ·1· ·noticed in those attempts that the Town unchecked my box ·2· ·for eService, and I recall that weeks later I overheard ·3· ·a reference to a subpoena in a conversation with ·4· ·Mr. Reeder and said, oh, there's a subpoena, well, why ·5· ·don't you send me a copy, so he sent me a copy. ·6· · · · · · ·In this particular instance -- this particular ·7· ·notice of taking deposition duces tecum, I never became ·8· ·aware of it by any means.· I've never seen it before. ·9· · · · Q· · I apologize about that. 10· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· We don't need to mark that as 11· · · · Exhibit 1.· We can continue. 12· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 13· · · · Q· · Mr. Rivas, you indicated that you had done 14· ·some due diligence before you agreed to represent 15· ·Marty O'Boyle and his entities in June of 2017; is that 16· ·right? 17· · · · A· · That's right. 18· · · · Q· · You indicated that you heard stories from 19· ·opponents regarding how bad Martin O'Boyle is; correct? 20· · · · A· · No.· I indicated I had read things about how 21· ·bad Martin O'Boyle is.· At least that's what I think I 22· ·said and that's what I meant to say, that's what I'm 23· ·thinking. 24· · · · Q· · What stories had you read about Martin O'Boyle 25· ·before you agreed to take on this representation? Page 39 ·1· · · · A· · I was aware going back to when the Gulf Stream ·2· ·Town Council first approved the engagement of -- it's my ·3· ·dementia setting in.· I can't think of his name.· It's a ·4· ·name I know well, although I don't know him well.· The ·5· ·lawyer who brought the racketeering case. ·6· · · · Q· · Jerry Richman? ·7· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Jerry Richman? ·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Jerry Richman.· Approving of the ·9· · · · going forward with that case and I obtained a draft 10· · · · of the lawsuit at that time and I was -- because I 11· · · · was asked about it by The Coastal Star, they just 12· · · · as a -- sort of an expert opinion they wanted me to 13· · · · tell them what I thought of it. 14· · · · · · ·Also I read things that were in the news 15· · · · media.· There was The Florida Bar article about 16· · · · people who used public records law abusively. 17· · · · There were discussions about amending the public 18· · · · records law, and I remember reading about the 19· · · · substance of those discussions and often O'Boyle 20· · · · would be one of a small handful of people who were 21· · · · the accused when it came to this thing about abuse 22· · · · of public records requests and litigation, just 23· · · · public stuff frankly. 24· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 25· · · · Q· · When did you first meet any attorneys who Page 40 ·1· ·worked for The O'Boyle Law Firm? ·2· · · · A· · If you go back a few years, you'll find that ·3· ·O'Boyle sued the State Attorney of the Fifteenth Circuit ·4· ·for alleged public records violations.· I just don't ·5· ·remember what year and month it was, but it was a good ·6· ·length of time before I was invited to get involved in ·7· ·Gulf Stream. ·8· · · · · · ·So I represented -- and the State Attorney had ·9· ·several people who in his office, the Deputy State 10· ·Attorney and the woman who conducts appeals, both said, 11· ·oh, you need to talk to Robert Rivas -- oh, 12· ·Mike Edmondson also recommended me to Dave Aronberg, so 13· ·Dave called me and I agreed to represent the State 14· ·Attorney against O'Boyle and I met -- 15· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Do you mean, Aronberg? 16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· And I met Bill Ring in 17· · · · that context, that's the first attorney I ever met 18· · · · with who represented O'Boyle. 19· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 20· · · · Q· · Tell me about the nature of that 21· ·representation and why the State Attorney had retained 22· ·you in a matter adverse to Mr. O'Boyle, what was going 23· ·on. 24· · · · A· · He -- O'Boyle had served public records 25· ·requests on the Fifteenth Circuit State Attorney's Page 41 ·1· ·Office and when he wasn't satisfied with the response, ·2· ·he brought a lawsuit claiming that the response was not ·3· ·in compliance with the public records law. ·4· · · · · · ·And if I tried to tell you more detail, I just ·5· ·think I might get it wrong because my memory is so ·6· ·faded.· I'll try if you want me to, I just have to give ·7· ·you the proviso that a lot of it could be wrong, but I ·8· ·-- we went back and forth and then the case settled, ·9· ·that's the bottom line. 10· · · · Q· · Do you recall that wasn't just public records 11· ·request, that Martin O'Boyle had made more than 1,000 12· ·public records request to the State Attorney? 13· · · · A· · No, that's not true, not in anything in which 14· ·I represented the State Attorney.· I was representing 15· ·the State Attorney in a matter that involved a couple of 16· ·discrete public records request that he was concerned 17· ·about. 18· · · · · · ·That's one of the reasons I have trouble 19· ·remembering what the litigation was is because there 20· ·were other things swirling around.· The State Attorney 21· ·wanted me to help conduct an internal review and 22· ·establish policies for -- policies for handling certain 23· ·things, making sure the policies were in compliance with 24· ·the laws.· So it wasn't just O'Boyle that I was working 25· ·with Dave Aronberg on. Page 42 ·1· · · · Q· · Do you recall if these public records request ·2· ·pertained to a 2011 misdemeanor DUI conviction of ·3· ·Martin O'Boyle's daughter? ·4· · · · A· · I remember that that was what animated ·5· ·O'Boyle.· I can't say that I know that the requests ·6· ·were -- yes, it was.· They were something like all ·7· ·communications over a certain period of time that made ·8· ·any reference to such-and-such subject and the -- and ·9· ·the key factor in the description of the records being 10· ·sought was he was looking for information that would 11· ·help him in his trial and appeal and post conviction 12· ·proceedings about his daughter's DUI conviction. 13· · · · Q· · Had you been involved in an earlier matter for 14· ·the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office under 15· ·Michael McAuliffe when Martin O'Boyle flew banners over 16· ·downtown West Palm Beach in 2011? 17· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Let me just object here.· It 18· · · · seems to me, Joanne, that you're exceeding the 19· · · · scope of discovery here in this attorney's fee 20· · · · proceeding, which is all about whether the fees 21· · · · charged by the Sachs Sax firm in the Asset 22· · · · Enhancement case were necessary and reasonable. 23· · · · · · ·The Town and O'Boyle entered into a settlement 24· · · · agreement, as you know.· In paragraph 3 of that 25· · · · settlement agreement, the parties agreed that any Page 43 ·1· ·further discovery concerning the amounts of ·2· ·attorney's fees and costs shall be limited to the ·3· ·depositions of the parties' attorneys and expert ·4· ·witnesses on the subject of the reasonable amount ·5· ·of attorney's fees and costs. ·6· · · · It sounds to me, Joanne, like you're dredging ·7· ·up a bunch of ancient history that has nothing to ·8· ·do with the reasonableness of the attorney's fees. ·9· ·If you care to explain how it does, you know, I'll 10· ·listen.· Otherwise I move to strike all these 11· ·questions. 12· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· I'll withdraw the question 13· ·about the 2011, but I certainly -- we will proceed 14· ·with the response with regard to Mr. O'Boyle's 15· ·prior activities with the Palm Beach State 16· ·Attorney, and it certainly goes to the 17· ·reasonableness of his pursuit of this litigation in 18· ·particular and in general against the Town of Gulf 19· ·Stream. 20· · · · MR. REEDER:· Well, the reasonableness of it is 21· ·not at issue.· It's been stipulated by the Town 22· ·that violated the law.· The only issue is what's 23· ·the reasonableness of attorney's fees. 24· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· Right.· It goes to the 25· ·reasonable costs of enforcement and whether the Page 44 ·1· · · · costs that Mr. O'Boyle incurred were necessary to ·2· · · · further the Public Records Act. ·3· · · · · · ·And certainly the legislature has recognized ·4· · · · in amending the Public Records Act that a party's ·5· · · · improper purpose is certainly relevant in the ·6· · · · attorney's fee analysis. ·7· · · · · · ·We submit that although the statute may not ·8· · · · apply retroactively, that it's a codification of ·9· · · · what certainly is appropriate for courts to 10· · · · consider under the case law. 11· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Well, I totally disagree. 12· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· I'll move on. 13· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 14· · · · Q· · Mr. Rivas, the first time you met an attorney 15· ·with The O'Boyle Law Firm with Mr. Ring involving this 16· ·matter in the Palm Beach -- when you represented the 17· ·Palm Beach State Attorney's Office; is that correct? 18· · · · A· · That's correct. 19· · · · Q· · What about any other attorneys with The 20· ·O'Boyle Law Firm prior to your retention in the summer 21· ·of 2017, had you met any of them? 22· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Objection, asked and answered. 23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think I met Jon O'Boyle -- I'm 24· · · · pretty sure I met Jon O'Boyle, because he attended 25· · · · something in the State Attorney litigation.· As I Page 45 ·1· · · · sit here right now, those would be the only two ·2· · · · that I think I met in that time frame. ·3· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: ·4· · · · Q· · Are you an active member of First Amendment ·5· ·Foundation in Florida? ·6· · · · A· · No. ·7· · · · Q· · Do ever attend any of their events? ·8· · · · A· · No. ·9· · · · Q· · Relative to the due diligence that you did 10· ·before you agreed to this representation, did you -- 11· ·well, strike that. 12· · · · · · ·Prior to being retained in the summer of 2017, 13· ·had you become aware through the news articles that you 14· ·read or otherwise of the public records litigation that 15· ·The O'Boyle Law Firm was pursuing on behalf of clients 16· ·throughout the state of Florida? 17· · · · A· · Yes, I believe I testified about that.· Those 18· ·were the things that I read. 19· · · · Q· · So you are aware that The O'Boyle Law Firm was 20· ·filing hundreds of Public Records Act lawsuits on behalf 21· ·of clients throughout the state of Florida? 22· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Objection.· I think that's a 23· · · · false characterization of the facts. 24· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 25· · · · Q· · What have you learned -- and I apologize if Page 46 ·1· ·it's repetitive, but I don't recall you describing this. ·2· ·What did you learn specifically about what The O'Boyle ·3· ·Law Firm, their involvement, in Public Records Act ·4· ·litigation prior to you being retained in the summer of ·5· ·2017? ·6· · · · A· · I read the articles, I read some publicity, I ·7· ·read -- there was some story that was part of a joint ·8· ·effort by a couple of different newspapers in the state. ·9· ·I read those things -- you asked me what's my knowledge 10· ·of about them, and I don't have any knowledge.· I just 11· ·read articles and I'm aware of those things being 12· ·referred to. 13· · · · Q· · Were you aware prior to agreeing to this 14· ·representation of the number of public records request 15· ·that Martin O'Boyle and its entities had made to the 16· ·Town of Gulf Stream? 17· · · · A· · I can't remember today, but I do know that I 18· ·read those articles.· And whatever they say, I read 19· ·them. 20· · · · Q· · Well, did you inquire of your client or anyone 21· ·at The O'Boyle Law Firm about how many public records 22· ·requests had been made to the Town of Gulf Stream? 23· · · · A· · I inquired -- no, the answer is no. 24· · · · Q· · You indicated that you were retained in 13 25· ·lawsuits.· It sounds like it ultimately was 12 after Page 47 ·1· ·one -- let's call it 12 lawsuits that Martin O'Boyle or ·2· ·its entities had filed against the Town of Gulf Stream; ·3· ·is that right? ·4· · · · A· · That's right. ·5· · · · Q· · Was it your understanding that there were a ·6· ·number of other lawsuits that Martin O'Boyle and his ·7· ·entities had filed against the Town of Gulf Stream? ·8· · · · A· · My understanding at the time I started was ·9· ·that the 12 I was working on were the only 12 that were 10· ·left. 11· · · · Q· · If I could -- while we're talking about these 12· ·lawsuits, let's talk about your engagement agreement. 13· ·Which if you could turn to what's marked as exhibit -- 14· ·Defendant's Exhibit 6 -- strike that.· Hold on. 15· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Let's go ahead and mark -- 16· · · · there's a complaint Sachs Sax Caplan versus 17· · · · Martin O'Boyle as Exhibit Number 1. 18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Would you like to use the one 19· · · · that was downloaded from the Clerk's file or the 20· · · · one that doesn't have that "not a certified stamp" 21· · · · on the face of it? 22· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Sure.· If you have the one that 23· · · · was downloaded, that would be great. 24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So you want the one that has a 25· · · · stamp on it that says not a certified copy? Page 48 ·1· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· No, I'd like the one that shows ·2· · · · it was filed. ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· They're both here, they're ·4· · · · side by side. ·5· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· I see, the amended complaint. ·6· · · · I'd like to -- ·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Wait a minute, did you say the ·8· · · · amended complaint? ·9· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· No, the complaint that's dated 10· · · · September 26. 11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry, I'm sorry.· Let me 12· · · · clarify what I was confused about.· My mistake. 13· · · · The complaint has beside it the amended complaint. 14· · · · The complaint looks like the one that came from 15· · · · eService, because it's got the file stamp 16· · · · information.· And the amended complaint was clearly 17· · · · downloaded from the Clerk's Office, so it's got the 18· · · · legend across each page that says not a certified 19· · · · copy.· Now we're going to turn to the one that's 20· · · · the original complaint and mark it as Exhibit 1. 21· · · · · · ·(Marked for identification is Defendant 22· · · · Exhibit Number 1.) 23· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 24· · · · Q· · If you could turn to Exhibit A to the 25· ·complaint, please. Page 49 ·1· · · · A· · Okay. ·2· · · · Q· · There is what appears to be an engagement ·3· ·agreement dated June 16, 2017; do you see that? ·4· · · · A· · Yes. ·5· · · · Q· · Is that the engagement agreement that you ·6· ·referred to when Mr. Rivas (sic) asked you when you had ·7· ·been retained to represent Martin O'Boyle and its ·8· ·entities? ·9· · · · A· · It is. 10· · · · Q· · Is this an engagement agreement that was 11· ·drafted by you? 12· · · · A· · I drafted an engagement agreement and I 13· ·emailed it to Bill Ring with the intention that he would 14· ·help with a few details in the preparation of the 15· ·agreement and then I would finish fixing it up and send 16· ·him a final one. 17· · · · · · ·But instead, as you can see from all those 18· ·marks and you can see the part that's in italics on the 19· ·first page, he just took the draft that I did and he 20· ·scribbled on it to what was then his satisfaction in 21· ·editing and signed it and sent it back to me. 22· · · · Q· · Did you understand Mr. Ring to be serving as 23· ·general counsel for Martin O'Boyle and its corporate 24· ·entities? 25· · · · A· · Back then I -- I would have been aware of what Page 50 ·1· ·he put on letters and how they referred to him.· I don't ·2· ·remember now what his title was. ·3· · · · Q· · Was Mr. Ring your primary client contact for ·4· ·the matters for which you were engaged that are -- ·5· ·appear to be listed at Exhibit 1? ·6· · · · A· · No.· O'Boyle was my primary client contact, ·7· ·but he would sometimes be hard to reach and sometimes ·8· ·things that were not really major, I would talk to ·9· ·Bill Ring about and Bill would often go back and forth 10· ·with O'Boyle and come back to me with answers to things. 11· · · · Q· · If you could look at, please, Exhibit 1 to the 12· ·Exhibit A engagement agreement of Matter and Plaintiff 13· ·Listing; do you see that? 14· · · · A· · Yes. 15· · · · Q· · Are these the 13 cases that you referred to 16· ·for which you were retained in the summer of 2017? 17· · · · A· · Yes. 18· · · · Q· · Do you know offhand which is the one case that 19· ·you were only short -- only representing Mr. O'Boyle or 20· ·his entities for a short period of time? 21· · · · A· · Let me see if I can figure this out. 22· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Let me just note here for clarity 23· · · · of the record that there are only 12 cases listed 24· · · · here, not 13.· There are 13 lines, but the first 25· · · · line is headings, like matter number, matter name, Page 51 ·1· · · · and matter plaintiffs, so there's 12 cases. ·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's interesting.· And based ·3· · · · on that, I need to correct my previous testimony. ·4· · · · I looked at the bottom and saw 13 and thought there ·5· · · · were 13.· So what I meant to say is there are 12 ·6· · · · listed here and then it became 11, because one of ·7· · · · them, due to circumstances that I was not involved ·8· · · · in, they just said, oh, you don't need to be ·9· · · · involved in that one. 10· · · · · · ·And now you're asking me which one was that 11· · · · and I think it was the one that's numbered 12 on 12· · · · this list. 13· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 14· · · · Q· · That's a lawsuit that was filed against my law 15· ·firm; correct? 16· · · · A· · I see it is. 17· · · · Q· · In addition to that lawsuit against my law 18· ·firm at Number 12, Mr. O'Boyle and Asset Enhancement had 19· ·also sued myself individually as well as the Town's 20· ·outside counsel, Mr. Sweetapple, and its mayor, 21· ·Scott Morgan, in Case Number 1737, entry Number 9. 22· · · · · · ·Do you see that? 23· · · · A· · Yes. 24· · · · Q· · Then if we look at Line Item 11, you were also 25· ·retained to represent Martin O'Boyle in another lawsuit Page 52 ·1· ·against my law firm, Mr. Sweetapple's law firm, and the ·2· ·law firm Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Piper & Hochman. ·3· · · · · · ·Do you see that? ·4· · · · A· · Yes. ·5· · · · Q· · Your testimony is that these -- your ·6· ·understanding is that these 12 cases were a subset of a ·7· ·larger number of cases that Martin O'Boyle had filed ·8· ·against the Town of Gulf Stream; is that right? ·9· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Objection, misstates his prior 10· · · · testimony. 11· · · · A· · Right.· That's what you keep trying to say. 12· ·My understanding is that at the time I was engaged, 13· ·these were the last -- and it's 11, not 12.· These were 14· ·the last -- I'm sorry, you're right.· It's 12.· The last 15· ·of the -- there were no other public records lawsuits 16· ·pending as of the time I started working on these. I 17· ·suppose I could be wrong, but that was my understanding 18· ·all along. 19· · · · Q· · Right.· So we can agree that there were more 20· ·public records lawsuits than these 12 pending at a prior 21· ·point in time, more public records lawsuits that 22· ·Mr. O'Boyle filed against the Town of Gulf Stream? 23· · · · A· · Yes, there's no question about that, before I 24· ·became involved. 25· · · · Q· · You had testified on questioning by Mr. Reeder Page 53 ·1· ·that the Town had more lawyers working on matters than ·2· ·Mr. O'Boyle put together, or something to that effect. ·3· · · · · · ·Do you remember that testimony? ·4· · · · A· · Yes. ·5· · · · Q· · That's certainly not correct relative to ·6· ·public records matters, is it? ·7· · · · A· · My recollection is that it was; correct. ·8· · · · Q· · What attorneys do you recall working for the ·9· ·Town on public records matters? 10· · · · A· · I wish I had some reference. 11· · · · Q· · Other than myself and Bob Sweetapple, do you 12· ·recall working with any other lawyers during the time 13· ·period in which you were representing Mr. O'Boyle or his 14· ·entities in public records cases? 15· · · · A· · Yes, there was Edward Nazzaro, and then there 16· ·was the guy whose name I can't remember who showed up at 17· ·the calendar call we discussed a while ago determined to 18· ·argue about bad faith and I see -- I think he was with 19· ·Johnson, Anselmo. 20· · · · Q· · Mr. Nazzaro is the Town attorney for the Town 21· ·of Gulf Stream; correct? 22· · · · A· · In-house counsel, yes. 23· · · · Q· · That lawyer that you recall coming to that 24· ·calendar call, did you have any other interactions with 25· ·that lawyer? Page 54 ·1· · · · A· · Yes, regularly. ·2· · · · Q· · Who at The O'Boyle Law Firm were you working ·3· ·with on this matter? ·4· · · · A· · My direct involvement until working with ·5· ·lawyers at The O'Boyle Law Firm was limited to ·6· ·Jon O'Boyle and I saw -- I'm aware of what you're ·7· ·referring to.· I saw frequent references to things being ·8· ·done where I didn't directly communicate with them by ·9· ·Ian Singer and Nick Taylor, although Nick was out of the 10· ·case -- really out of the cases and had no involvement 11· ·after the very earliest stages, but primarily Ian Singer 12· ·and another guy whose name I can't recall. 13· · · · Q· · Giovanni Mason, did you work with 14· ·Giovanni Mason at The O'Boyle Law Firm on public records 15· ·matters? 16· · · · A· · No, that's another name I heard occasionally, 17· ·but I never met or communicated with him at all. 18· · · · Q· · You said Nick Taylor was out of the case early 19· ·on, were you aware that Nick Taylor continued to bill 20· ·time on this particular matter up until the time that 21· ·you substituted in? 22· · · · A· · No.· My memory could be faulty, but that would 23· ·be because as I mentioned, I didn't work directly with 24· ·the other people in The O'Boyle Law Firm, not very much. 25· · · · Q· · You talked about the Town of Gulf Stream Page 55 ·1· ·filing Bar complaints against certain attorneys at The ·2· ·O'Boyle Law Firm, have you ever represented any O'Boyle ·3· ·Law Firm attorney individually? ·4· · · · A· · No. ·5· · · · Q· · You never represented any O'Boyle Law Firm ·6· ·attorneys before the Florida Bar; is that right? ·7· · · · A· · That's correct. ·8· · · · Q· · Where do you get your information regarding ·9· ·the status of those Florida Bar complaints? 10· · · · A· · Well, there are two sources, one is that it 11· ·was told to me by Bill Ring and Jon O'Boyle and the 12· ·second is that I have been to the Florida Bar website 13· ·and see no disciplinary record against those 14· ·individuals. 15· · · · Q· · Are you familiar with an affidavit that 16· ·Jon O'Boyle submitted to the Florida Bar in about 17· ·May 2015? 18· · · · A· · No. 19· · · · Q· · Are aware that Martin O'Boyle filed complaints 20· ·against the Town's attorney? 21· · · · A· · Now that you mention it, I do recall he did 22· ·that.· He told me he did that. 23· · · · Q· · You're aware that he filed a Bar complaint 24· ·against me; correct? 25· · · · A· · I just don't remember that. Page 56 ·1· · · · Q· · Are you aware Mr. O'Boyle filed a Bar ·2· ·complaint against Mr. Sweetapple? ·3· · · · A· · I think I do recall that. ·4· · · · Q· · You never worried that Martin O'Boyle might ·5· ·file Bar complaints against you? ·6· · · · A· · No, for the same reason I don't worry about ·7· ·you and other Town of Gulf Stream attorneys filing a Bar ·8· ·complaint against me, because I don't -- I don't worry ·9· ·about things that are just not true, and I think of them 10· ·as being things that can happen.· I'm not worried about 11· ·things that I know I didn't do. 12· · · · Q· · Travel time, it sounds like a significant 13· ·percentage of your practice is still in Palm Beach 14· ·County; is that right? 15· · · · A· · That's correct. 16· · · · Q· · Do you maintain an apartment or condo or other 17· ·place where you stay when you come down for cases in 18· ·Palm Beach County? 19· · · · A· · No, I've constantly thought about it, but I 20· ·never quite reached the tipping point where I thought it 21· ·would be financially feasible and I stay in hotels. 22· · · · Q· · This complaint that we've marked as Exhibit 1; 23· ·do you recognize it? 24· · · · A· · Yes. 25· · · · Q· · Is this a lawsuit that you caused your firm to Page 57 ·1· ·file against Martin O'Boyle? ·2· · · · A· · This is a law firm (sic) that I filed against ·3· ·Martin O'Boyle. ·4· · · · Q· · What was the purpose of filing the lawsuit? ·5· · · · A· · It's clear on the face of the allegations in ·6· ·the complaint. ·7· · · · Q· · It was for unpaid attorney's fees; is that ·8· ·right? ·9· · · · A· · That's correct. 10· · · · Q· · If you look at paragraph 13, could you read 11· ·that paragraph for the record? 12· · · · A· · O'Boyle has never again paid any amount toward 13· ·the past due balance that has accrued for services 14· ·rendered and costs advanced after approximately 15· ·December 1, 2017.· The amount he owes is reflected on 16· ·the summary attached to this complaint as Exhibit B. 17· · · · Q· · If you could turn to Exhibit B, you see the 18· ·entry for Case Number 2014-ca-10216? 19· · · · A· · Yes. 20· · · · Q· · Is that a reference to the case we're here on 21· ·today involving Asset Enhancement? 22· · · · A· · Yes. 23· · · · Q· · There was a balance due of $164.37; correct? 24· · · · A· · Yes. 25· · · · Q· · This case we're here on today was included in Page 58 ·1· ·the lawsuit that you filed against Martin O'Boyle in ·2· ·September 2018; correct? ·3· · · · A· · Yes. ·4· · · · Q· · Let me ask you -- there's an entry at the top ·5· ·of Exhibit B that says matter plaintiffs and it has an ·6· ·entry of $91,788.92; do you see that? ·7· · · · A· · Yes. ·8· · · · Q· · What does that reflect? ·9· · · · A· · Now I understand.· I was befuddled 10· ·momentarily. 11· · · · · · ·Here's what -- here this is.· When I started 12· ·this representation, you see Bill Ring's edits on the 13· ·engagement letter I proposed and he coined -- he coined 14· ·the terminology matter plaintiffs.· As curious as that 15· ·sounds, the engagement letter went to the -- to the 16· ·accounting department in my law firm and they transposed 17· ·the words matter plaintiffs on to a matter. 18· · · · · · ·So matter plaintiffs became a client matter 19· ·number and there was also dock at Hidden Harbor, and I 20· ·think in the earliest days of representing O'Boyle those 21· ·were the only two matters that were listed as client 22· ·matters.· They were just Numbers 1 and 2. 23· · · · · · ·The -- it stayed that way -- I guess the 24· ·reason I fell into the habit of the practice of putting 25· ·everything, all the litigation, under matter plaintiffs Page 59 ·1· ·is because at first and for some months it was all just ·2· ·so much non-allocable study of the history of all the ·3· ·O'Boyle litigation that I just found it sound to just ·4· ·put it all on -- on one bill. ·5· · · · · · ·Then at some point I started to -- I started ·6· ·to try to put in time entries the information that would ·7· ·enable us -- eventually when an attorney's fee recovery ·8· ·was being sought, I'd have a reference to something, not ·9· ·necessarily the case number, but something.· I'd say 10· ·Stopdirtygovernment, the Judge Small case, or the 11· ·matter -- the circuit court case number, something that 12· ·would identify to me when I went back through all those 13· ·bills which matter that was on. 14· · · · · · ·But then in around March, Bill Ring came to 15· ·me -- March of 2018.· Bill Ring came to me and said we 16· ·would like you to start putting -- we'd like you to 17· ·create a matter for each separate piece of litigation 18· ·and segregate your time on these matters according to 19· ·the specific litigation, so we have a separate bill for 20· ·each one. 21· · · · · · ·So the very last -- maybe it was only one 22· ·month.· We had all of these matters where the matter 23· ·number literally was the entire case number from circuit 24· ·court.· It wasn't the matter number, but it was the 25· ·matter description. Page 60 ·1· · · · · · ·Is that -- is that clear? ·2· · · · Q· · Yeah, I think that makes sense. ·3· · · · · · ·Let me ask you this:· The spreadsheet of time ·4· ·entries that's Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 that's attached to ·5· ·your declaration reflects that your services in this ·6· ·case covered the period of June 29 to August 2, 2017, at ·7· ·least the services that you billed for, would you agree ·8· ·with that? ·9· · · · A· · It's not all the services I billed for, but 10· ·that's all the services where I gave an identifier in 11· ·the narrative that told me which matter to put it on. 12· · · · Q· · Now, this lawsuit that you filed against 13· ·Mr. O'Boyle, asserts that he stopped paying your fees 14· ·and costs after November 30, 2017; is that right? 15· · · · A· · That's my understanding, yes. 16· · · · Q· · So this case, Asset Enhancement, would have 17· ·been one of those earlier cases that you would have 18· ·billed under matter plaintiffs; is that right? 19· · · · A· · Yes.· All the time entries for which fees are 20· ·being sought in this instance date back to the era when 21· ·matter plaintiffs was the only matter and there was no 22· ·separate matter under 2014-ca-10216. 23· · · · Q· · Was any portion of the $9,085 for which 24· ·Mr. O'Boyle seeks to recover for your fees in this case, 25· ·was any portion of that part of the $91,788.92 on this Page 61 ·1· ·Exhibit B to your complaint? ·2· · · · A· · No. ·3· · · · Q· · The balance of $164.37 that is attributed to ·4· ·this case, was that for a fee or cost for which ·5· ·Mr. O'Boyle seeks to recover here? ·6· · · · A· · No. ·7· · · · Q· · What is that for; do you know? ·8· · · · A· · It's for attorney's fees that I billed after ·9· ·we started separating out the different lawsuits into 10· ·separate client matters.· So this would have been all 11· ·that was ever billed to the client matter 10216.· My 12· ·guess -- can I guess something? 13· · · · Q· · Sure. 14· · · · A· · I suspect it just has -- I see it's only 15· ·$164.37, it's probably a charge for the submission of a 16· ·stipulation for substitution of counsel. 17· · · · Q· · Let's go back and look at this -- Plaintiff's 18· ·Exhibit 1 and your spreadsheets that's attached to it 19· ·that affects purposes for which fees are claimed in this 20· ·case if we could. 21· · · · A· · Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 to this -- oh, okay, my 22· ·declaration. 23· · · · Q· · Correct, yes.· Look at Exhibit 1 to your 24· ·declaration, please. 25· · · · A· · Yes.· Okay. Page 62 ·1· · · · Q· · Is it fair to say that you were active in this ·2· ·case for just four weeks? ·3· · · · A· · No.· I remember it kept coming up, but really ·4· ·doing anything substantively and specifically billable ·5· ·to this case, the only -- my only involvement was to do ·6· ·the activities that are described in these time entries. ·7· · · · Q· · Those activities involved attending a calendar ·8· ·call; correct? ·9· · · · A· · That's correct. 10· · · · Q· · Opposing a motion -- the Town's motion for 11· ·leave to add that single affirmative defense; correct? 12· · · · A· · Yes. 13· · · · Q· · Then researching, writing, and filing a motion 14· ·to strike that same affirmative defense? 15· · · · A· · That's right. 16· · · · Q· · The opposition to the Town motion for leave to 17· ·affirm to add the bad faith affirmative defense, do you 18· ·recall that Judge Barkdull had allowed the Town leave to 19· ·assert the same affirmative defense? 20· · · · A· · Yes. 21· · · · Q· · Ultimately Judge Artau disagreed with your 22· ·opposition and allowed the Town leave to amend the same 23· ·affirmative defense; right? 24· · · · A· · I believe that happened after I substituted 25· ·out and I'm not aware of it. Page 63 ·1· · · · Q· · Well, didn't you attend the -- if you look at ·2· ·your entry on July 11, 2017, do you see the reference to ·3· ·a hearing on 7/13 on motion for leave to add affirmative ·4· ·defense? ·5· · · · A· · Yes. ·6· · · · Q· · Do you recall attending that hearing? ·7· · · · A· · Yes, that's the one in front of Barkdull, but ·8· ·he explicitly said at that hearing on that motion that ·9· ·he wasn't going to hear the futility argument, he wasn't 10· ·going to rule on the merits of whether the bad faith 11· ·affirmative defense stated a cause of action -- I mean, 12· ·stated a legally valid affirmative defense. 13· · · · · · ·So his ruling made clear that we can move to 14· ·strike the bad faith affirmative defense pleading once 15· ·it was pled, and then the time entry on August 2nd was 16· ·because if you're going to move to strike a pleading, 17· ·you have a deadline to meet.· So we had to file this 18· ·motion, but it -- it wasn't -- 19· · · · Q· · Do you see in front of you an order granting 20· ·motion that's handwritten? 21· · · · A· · Is that among the things you sent me? 22· · · · Q· · Yeah. 23· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· I don't see it, Joanne. 24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, I don't either. 25· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Does it say Martin O'Boyle, Page 64 ·1· · · · plaintiff, versus Town of Gulf Stream, defendant? ·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Aren't you talking about ·3· · · · something that should be in the Asset Enhancement ·4· · · · case? ·5· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Yes. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· So it should say Asset ·7· · · · Enhancement, not Marty O'Boyle; right? ·8· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: ·9· · · · Q· · Judge Barkdull wasn't the judge in the Asset 10· ·Enhancement case, was he? 11· · · · A· · I may have switched my cases, but that was 12· ·my -- 13· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· We do have a document here -- I 14· · · · don't know why we don't have the one you referred 15· · · · us to, the handwritten order, but I've just handed 16· · · · Mr. Rivas another document from your stack that may 17· · · · help him answer your question. 18· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Is that the brief in opposition 19· · · · to defendant's motion to amend? 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· This is an 8076. 21· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Correct. 22· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· It's the Sober House case; right? 23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, I see, you're saying 24· · · · Barkdull was presiding only over the Sober House 25· · · · case, and I do recall he presided over only one. Page 65 ·1· · · · So I must be mistaken that he was the one that ·2· · · · granted leave to amend. ·3· ·BY MR. REEDER: ·4· · · · Q· · I guess my question is were you made aware ·5· ·prior to opposing the Town's motion for leave to add the ·6· ·bad faith defense in the Asset Enhancement case, were ·7· ·you aware that Judge Barkdull had already granted the ·8· ·Town leave to add that same defense? ·9· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· In another case? 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· In 80 -- yes, of course, I was 11· · · · aware. 12· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 13· · · · Q· · Then ultimately Judge Artau also allowed the 14· ·Tone leave to add that affirmative defense; correct? 15· · · · A· · You mean denied the motion to strike it? 16· · · · Q· · No. 17· · · · A· · You mean the initial granting of the motion 18· ·for leave? 19· · · · Q· · Correct. 20· · · · A· · Well, yeah, but as I said before, he 21· ·explicitly said he was not ruling on the merits on 22· ·whether it stated a lawfully cognizable affirmative 23· ·defense.· He left it open to file a motion to strike it. 24· · · · Q· · You did file a motion to strike it? 25· · · · A· · That's the last time entry. Page 66 ·1· · · · Q· · Do you recall -- you had -- do you have the ·2· ·motion to strike in front of you? ·3· · · · A· · Is it among the things you sent us? ·4· · · · Q· · Yes. ·5· · · · A· · Yes.· I have the plaintiff's motion to strike. ·6· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Let's mark that as Defense ·7· · · · Exhibit 2. ·8· · · · · · ·(Marked for identification is Defendant ·9· · · · Exhibit Number 2.) 10· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 11· · · · Q· · You spent a significant amount of time on this 12· ·motion, didn't you? 13· · · · A· · I spent three-and-a-half hours on this. 14· · · · Q· · Before spending three-and-a-half hours on 15· ·this, you had spent a total of 14 hours opposing the 16· ·Town's -- working on opposing the Town's motion to leave 17· ·to add the bad faith defense? 18· · · · A· · That's right. 19· · · · Q· · If you look at the plaintiff's brief in 20· ·opposition to defendant's motion to amend from the 8076 21· ·case that you should have as well? 22· · · · A· · I don't have it among the exhibits you sent 23· ·me, but Martin -- Mr. Reeder showed it to me a minute 24· ·ago, because he got it from someplace.· Hang on a second 25· ·if you want me to get it in front of me. Page 67 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Tell me what we're looking for, ·2· · · · Joanne, I'm sorry. ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The 8076. ·4· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Plaintiff's brief in opposition ·5· · · · dated July 5th. ·6· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· I've got it. ·7· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: ·8· · · · Q· · You've got one of those documents that was ·9· ·printed for exhibits? 10· · · · A· · This document is not in the pile of documents 11· ·that I have. 12· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· It was in the pile of documents 13· · · · that was handed to me, Joanne.· I can't account for 14· · · · the discrepancy.· They were supposed to make two of 15· · · · each. 16· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· I'd like to mark it as Exhibit 17· · · · 3. 18· · · · · · ·(Marked for identification is Defendant 19· · · · Exhibit Number 3.) 20· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 21· · · · Q· · Do you see, Mr. Rivas, if you look at Exhibit 22· ·3, that's a pleading that was filed on July 5, 2017, in 23· ·the Sober House case? 24· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· He doesn't have the exhibit right 25· · · · now, I do.· Since we've only got one copy, I was Page 68 ·1· · · · just taking a brief look at it.· Just give me a ·2· · · · moment. ·3· · · · · · ·I'm handing it now to Mr. Rivas.· Do you need ·4· · · · him to look at anything in particular before you ·5· · · · start asking questions? ·6· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: ·7· · · · Q· · If you can turn to page 10, do you see that ·8· ·was a pleading that was filed by Jon O'Boyle and ·9· ·yourself as counsel for the plaintiff in the Sober House 10· ·case? 11· · · · A· · Yes. 12· · · · Q· · To the extent that you did work in either 13· ·drafting or revising this pleading, would you have 14· ·billed Mr. O'Boyle for that work? 15· · · · A· · I assume that this is among the things that 16· ·were submitted in the 8076 case. 17· · · · Q· · You would have had the benefit of that 18· ·research and that pleading when you prepared your motion 19· ·to strike in the Asset Enhancement case that we've 20· ·marked as Exhibit 2; correct? 21· · · · A· · That's right. 22· · · · Q· · Do you recall whether the motion to strike was 23· ·ever heard by Judge Artau? 24· · · · A· · I believe that it was not heard on my watch. 25· · · · Q· · Ultimately in this -- you continued as counsel Page 69 ·1· ·of record in this suit until April 2018; is that right? ·2· · · · A· · Yes. ·3· · · · Q· · At that time Elaine James and her law firm ·4· ·were substituted in as counsel of record in this matter? ·5· · · · A· · Let me -- let me get positive by looking at ·6· ·the order.· That sounds about right. ·7· · · · Q· · I'm asking you -- that Mr. O'Boyle's fees that ·8· ·were incurred by you on August 2, 2017, but you remain ·9· ·counsel of record until April of 2018.· Were there any 10· ·other steps taken by you on behalf of Asset Enhancement 11· ·to prosecute this matter during that time period? 12· · · · A· · No, by the way, I've just confirmed that the 13· ·date of my withdrawal from the Asset Enhancement case 14· ·was May 1, 2018. 15· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Let me just check my notes. I 16· · · · might just have a couple more questions. 17· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 18· · · · Q· · If you could look at your declaration and the 19· ·exhibit entry that's attached to it. 20· · · · A· · Yes. 21· · · · Q· · You see on the entry at Number 12 for June 29, 22· ·2017, where it says confer with client representatives 23· ·by phone and email? 24· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· I'm sorry, could you tell me 25· · · · again where I'm looking?· I'm looking on Page 70 ·1· · · · Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, the schedule.· I can't find ·2· · · · it. ·3· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· Line Item 12 on the far left ·4· · · · column there's numbers, if you see Number 12. ·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It's the June 29th, 2017, entry. ·6· · · · I'm there. ·7· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Me too.· I'm just a date's guy ·8· · · · instead of a ·9· · · · little-bitty-number-in-the-far-left-hand column 10· · · · guy. 11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yeah, especially since the 12· · · · little-bitty numbers in the far-left-hand corner 13· · · · don't make any sense.· How does that come to be 12 14· · · · when it's the second entry? 15· ·BY MS. O'CONNOR: 16· · · · Q· · I don't know, your document. 17· · · · · · ·Who are the client representatives that you're 18· ·referring to there in that time entry? 19· · · · A· · It could have been any or all of Bill Ring and 20· ·the two O'Boyles, could have even been a conference call 21· ·with all three of them.· It could have been separate 22· ·calls with all three of them.· I can't say, but I can 23· ·say that it was limited to those people. 24· · · · · · ·MS. O'CONNOR:· I don't have any other 25· · · · questions. Page 71 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· I just have a few on follow-up. ·2· · · · I'll try to be quick. ·3· · · · · · · · · · ·REDIRECT EXAMINATION ·4· ·BY MR. REEDER: ·5· · · · Q· · Just to make sure we have a clear record on ·6· ·this.· Do you remember that I asked you questions about ·7· ·things you looked at before you decided to take on this ·8· ·representation and specifically I asked you about, you ·9· ·know, what homework you did on the particular actions 10· ·that Mr. O'Boyle was retaining you and your firm to 11· ·represent him on? 12· · · · A· · Yes. 13· · · · Q· · Did I understand your testimony on that point 14· ·to be in essence that you reviewed all these public 15· ·records, complaints, the ones listed in the attachment 16· ·to the engagement letter, and made your own 17· ·determination that these were meritorious claims that 18· ·you would be proud to be involved in on behalf of 19· ·Mr. O'Boyle? 20· · · · A· · That's exactly right to the -- and the other 21· ·things that I have referred to in response to 22· ·Ms. O'Connor's questions were things that when I read 23· ·them, my focus was not on whether I was going to accept 24· ·this case.· She just asked me if I ever read things. 25· · · · · · ·And over the year or two before I substituted Page 72 ·1· ·into these cases, I had -- I had noticed as anybody ·2· ·who's a member of the media law Bar would, all those ·3· ·articles about Marty O'Boyle. ·4· · · · Q· · So to the extent that you may have read ·5· ·information referring to other cases he had brought or ·6· ·other disputes he was involved in, you didn't make any ·7· ·sort of assessment as to the merits of those matters; is ·8· ·that correct? ·9· · · · A· · I became aware that there were those issues 10· ·and arguments out there, just as a matter of fact they 11· ·were out there.· I didn't make any attempt to make any 12· ·independent judgment of the validity of them. 13· · · · Q· · Now I'm going to shift to the time you 14· ·actually worked that we're trying to recover for here, 15· ·and that's listed, of course, on the schedule to your 16· ·declaration, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. 17· · · · · · ·In summary is it fair to say that all or most 18· ·of that time relates to either attending a calendar call 19· ·that was especially lengthy because Judge Garrison 20· ·recused himself and another judge had to be obtained, 21· ·preparing for that calendar call in which your opponent 22· ·had sought to have a motion for leave to add a bad faith 23· ·affirmative defense heard, or preparing for hearing and 24· ·writing papers relating to the Town's attempt to add a 25· ·bad faith defense to the case? Page 73 ·1· · · · A· · That's all exactly right. ·2· · · · Q· · So let me ask you about the implications for ·3· ·any public records case, but in particular the Asset ·4· ·Enhancement case, of a determination by the Court ·5· ·whether to allow or to deny an affirmative defense of ·6· ·bad case -- bad faith, what implications would that have ·7· ·for the prosecution of the case? ·8· · · · A· · If the pleading were allowed in this case, it ·9· ·would mean that the door is open for many, many 10· ·witnesses, tens of thousands of documents, and a massive 11· ·amount of confusion before eventually what I would hope 12· ·would have to happen is that when we managed to get the 13· ·Court's attention focused on what this actual lawsuit is 14· ·about, the Court, if the Court was not confused and 15· ·misled by all this irrelevant stuff, would realize 16· ·the -- the whole dog and pony show about the 17· ·racketeering charges and burning up faxes and all that 18· ·stuff was totally irrelevant. 19· · · · Q· · So the Court's decision in the Asset 20· ·Enhancement case whether to permit the bad faith 21· ·defense, would it have implications on discovery? 22· · · · A· · It would have greatly expanded the scope of 23· ·discovery.· It would have been a massive -- it would 24· ·have totally changed the complexion of the case. 25· · · · · · ·As a matter of fact one of the reasons you Page 74 ·1· ·find nothing else happened after August 2nd is -- is ·2· ·that we were trying to stay focused on cases where the ·3· ·bad faith affirmative defense hadn't been authorized and ·4· ·been denied so that we could try to get those tried ·5· ·first. ·6· · · · Q· · So I believe you also testified a little bit ·7· ·about this earlier, that some judges would tend to be ·8· ·liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings and others ·9· ·perhaps a little less liberal and that could vary from 10· ·judge to judge? 11· · · · A· · Absolutely. 12· · · · Q· · It did vary from judge to judge in the cases 13· ·you handled; correct? 14· · · · A· · It did. 15· · · · Q· · Where as Judge Barkdull allowed the 16· ·affirmative defense of bad faith, it was your hope and 17· ·intention that Judge Autau would not in the Asset 18· ·Enhancement case; right? 19· · · · A· · That's right. 20· · · · Q· · To the extent that he was considering it, what 21· ·importance was there to moving to strike that defense in 22· ·getting a rigorous -- asking the Court to take a 23· ·rigorous look at the merits of that defense, the legal 24· ·merits? 25· · · · A· · Yeah, it -- you're asking me whether the Page 75 ·1· ·defense would be meritorious. ·2· · · · Q· · No.· I don't think I was very clear -- ·3· · · · A· · The implications for litigation or -- ·4· · · · Q· · Well, you mentioned a moment ago that the ·5· ·scope of discovery, for example, would have been vastly ·6· ·expanded.· By filing a motion to strike the affirmative ·7· ·defense right after the Court had indicated that it ·8· ·would allow them to plead it, would that hopefully choke ·9· ·off that discovery by getting the Court to find as a 10· ·matter of law that there was no merit to that defense? 11· · · · A· · It would be possible.· Some judges would say 12· ·the fact that you have a motion to strike pending is not 13· ·grounds to inhibit discovery, but a lot of judges would 14· ·say -- looking at the facts in this particular case and 15· ·the pleadings in this particular case, a lot of judges 16· ·would say, yeah, I agree, we shouldn't have any 17· ·discovery until we resolve this motion to strike. 18· ·There's a legal basis for either conclusion and I 19· ·believe it's discretionary. 20· · · · Q· · So would it be accurate to say that in general 21· ·almost all of the time that you're seeking to recover 22· ·for here, other than your actual physical attendance of 23· ·docket call, and even that was related to this, was all 24· ·about trying to choke off and defeat what you viewed as 25· ·an unmeritorious legal defense the Town was attempting Page 76 ·1· ·to assert that would have profound implications to the ·2· ·cost and complexity of the lawsuit if that defense were ·3· ·to be allowed? ·4· · · · A· · Yes, it would have been massive. ·5· · · · Q· · In light of all that Ms. O'Connor has asked ·6· ·you and what I have asked you, returning again to the ·7· ·critical question of the reasonableness and necessity of ·8· ·fees you incurred, having had this discussion and having ·9· ·your memory refreshed by the various documents that 10· ·Ms. O'Connor and I have shown you, do you stand by your 11· ·opinion that all of the time sought to be recovered was 12· ·reasonable and necessary in the amount of the $9,085 13· ·claim? 14· · · · A· · Given that all of that litigation was caused 15· ·by the Town, this -- it would be a windfall for the Town 16· ·if less than $10,000 was awarded for this litigation. 17· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· I don't have any further 18· · · · questions. 19· · · · · · ·THE STENOGRAPHER:· I just have a couple 20· · · · questions, you want this by tomorrow; correct? 21· · · · · · ·MR. REEDER:· Yes. 22· · · · · · ·Joanne, I think I promised or Elaine promised, 23· · · · I don't know who, but somebody promised that we 24· · · · would get a transcript to you.· I've asked that it 25· · · · be expedited, that way we can have it tomorrow. Page 77 ·1· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· If you're going to use it. ·2· · · · MR. REEDER:· Well, we're going to use it on ·3· ·Monday. ·4· · · · THE STENOGRAPHER:· Did you want to order a ·5· ·copy? ·6· · · · MS. O'CONNOR:· No. ·7· · · · THE STENOGRAPHER:· Did you want to read or ·8· ·waive, sir? ·9· · · · MR. REEDER:· I'm okay if you waive, but it's 10· ·up to you. 11· · · · THE WITNESS:· I'll do whatever you prefer. I 12· ·think I ought to read. 13· · · · (Thereupon, the reading and signing of this 14· ·deposition was RESERVED. 15· · · · The proceedings concluded at 11:47 a.m.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 78 ·1· · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH ·2 ·3· ·STATE OF FLORIDA ·4· ·COUNTY OF LEON ·5· · · · · · ·I, JUDY MARTIN, Notary Public, State of ·6· ·Florida, certify that ROBERT RIVAS personally ·7· ·appeared before me on September 19, 2019 and was ·8· ·duly sworn. ·9 10· · · · Signed this 20th day of September, 2019. 11 12 13· ·____________________________________________ · · ·JUDY LYNN MARTIN 14· ·Notary Public, State of Florida · · ·My Commission No. GG1925542 15· ·Expires: April 9, 2022 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 79 ·1· · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER ·2 ·3· ·STATE OF FLORIDA ·4· ·COUNTY OF LEON ·5 ·6· · · · · · ·I, JUDY LYNN MARTIN, do hereby certify ·7· ·that I was authorized to and did stenographically ·8· ·report the foregoing deposition of ROBERT RIVAS; ·9· ·that a review of the transcript was requested; and 10· ·that the transcript is a true record of my 11· ·stenographic notes. 12· · · · · · ·I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a 13· ·relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of 14· ·the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any 15· ·of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with 16· ·the action, nor am I financially interested in the 17· ·action. 18· · · · · · ·Dated this 20th day of September, 2019. 19 20· ·____________________________________________ · · ·JUDY LYNN MARTIN 21 22 23 24 25 Page 80 · · · · · · · · · · · ERRATA SHEET · · · · · · ·DO NOT WRITE ON THE TRANSCRIPT · · · · · · · ENTER CHANGES ON THIS SHEET ASSET ENHANCEMENT, INC. VS. TOWN OF GULF STREAM Deponent:· ROBERT RIVAS Date of :· September 19, 2019 Case No.:· 502014CA003721XXXXMB PAGE· ·LINE· · · · REMARKS ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. Signature of Witness ____________________________ Dated this _________ day of ___________, __________. Job No.:· 108359 Page 81 September 20th, 2019 L. Martin Reeder, Esquire ATHERTON McAULIFFE & REEDER PA 224 Datura Street, Suite 815 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 293-2530 martin@athertonlg.com Enclosed please find your copy of the deposition of ROBERT RIVAS, which was taken in the above-styled cause on September 19, 2019.· Please have deponent execute the Errata Sheet, which can be found at the back of the transcript, when reading your copy, and have it returned to us for distribution to all parties. If deponent does not read and sign the deposition within 30 days, the original, which has already been forwarded to the ordering attorney, may be filed with the Clerk of the Court. If deponent wishes to now waive signature, please have deponent sign his/her name in the blank at the bottom of this letter and return to the address listed below. Very truly yours, ____________________________________________ JUDY LYNN MARTIN Phipps Reporting, Inc. www.PhippsReporting.com I do hereby waive my signature. _______________________________ ROBERT RIVAS Job No.:· 108359 Very truly yours, ____________________________________________ JUDY LYNN MARTIN Phipps Reporting, Inc. www.PhippsReporting.com Renee Basel From:Donna White <pasodonna@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 1, 2016 10:26 AM To:Donna White Subject:Fwd: 15-13964-GG Martin O'Boyle v. The Town of Gulf Stream, et al "Opinion Issued On the Courts own Motion Opinion" (9:14-cv-80317-DMM) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: william spengler <spen72648@aol.com> Date: Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:55 AM Subject: Re: 15-13964-GG Martin O'Boyle v. The Town of Gulf Stream, et al "Opinion Issued On the Courts own Motion Opinion" (9:14-cv-80317-DMM) To: Edward Slominski <edwardpslominski@yahoo.com> Cc: ccsnavely@aol.com, mneyexpert@aol.com, malcmurphy@hotmail.com, lbrody@brainmattersresearch.com, jmmp1059@yahoo.com, ssg0904@aol.com, augusto.titarelli@gmail.com, zbruker@carecloud.com, xcjmsx@aol.com, wmcfl@aol.com, wesell@comcast.net, vermafl@gmail.com, toal.toallaw@verizon.net, thunderrowes@att.net, swordout@aol.com, socermom12@aol.com, sjrgaq@bellsouth.net, shelleyohare@yahoo.com, ronald@hukvaldy.com, rjdenton479@gmail.com, rdittman@bellsouth.net, pasodonna@gmail.com, pamelalandquist@gmail.com, ozmeister71@hotmail.com, nickventura@comcast.net, newbob88@me.com, mschindlbeck@att.net, mortmiller1@msn.com, molyneub@bellsouth.net, miguelneumann@hotmail.com, lindnerflmuc@aol.com, jonathanjohnson@deloitte.com, jj.rollins@hotmail.com, janet.r.ireland@gmail.com, jamiemarra@aol.com, james_malone@att.net, ilkccim@aol.com, hp@assetprotectionattorneys.com, honor0429@yahoo.com, hermanstevensjr@aol.com, georgeandkaren10@gmail.com, fsalvatore58@gmail.com, flrose@optionline.net, fjrusso@bellsouth.net, feeneyirene@bellsouth.net, eslmd@medicalcybernetics.com, drmel2000@aol.com, drcrossen@earthlink.net, docdud@gmail.com, diananassau@yahoo.com, dfr99@hotmail.com, ddevlin@mindspring.com, daghartung@yahoo.com, cwille14@gmail.com, crykie5@gmail.com, clipco@bellsouth.net, christopher.mellor@tesco.net, carlinoc@bellsouth.net, benjjreynolds@aol.com, amnetcomm@aol.com, aircraftem@aol.com, abennettdelray@comcast.net, Traciesafwat@aol.com, TKC_Engineering@roadrunner.com, Sandy5230@aol.com, SEABRZDELR@aol.com, JAM5@optionline.net, HJLANCE@aol.com, "eedenha@aol.com" <EEDENHA@aol.com>, Bryandefrances@hotmail.com, Bdudley1@gmail.com I'm not convinced O'Boyle has any real interest in settlement or any interest on behalf of the community. That would seem to leave only one interest. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Edward Slominski <edwardpslominski@yahoo.com> wrote: Just One more of the cases the mayor assured us they would likely win. More Likely Oboyle will win damages. Time to have the Mayor back down and get to the negotiation table. A shameless irresponsible waste of our monies. Sent from my iPhone Begin 1 th appealed to the 11 Circuit. Gulfstream lost!  <img20160729174846.pdf> 2 Renee Basel From:Scott Morgan <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 8, 2019 6:21 PM To:Robert Sweetapple; Joanne O'Connor; Trey Nazzaro; Jeff Hochman Subject:Fwd: Gulfstream-Settlement-mediation; First Amendment retaliation suit-Ovelmen ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Subject: RE: Gulfstream-Settlement-mediation; First Amendment retaliation suit-Ovelmen To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Scott-although I do not yet have a copy, I understand that we have filed suit against the Town and Wantman in connection with the RICO Action. I am alerting you to this event, since I don't want you to think that the filing was any type of ambush. Consequently, I wanted to get ahead of it. th; My hope is that this will not affect the up-and-coming settlement conference of lawyers on the 25or, if they can't reach a settlement at that time, the subsequent Mediation on March 4th. The above aside, if you are interested, it may be worthwhile for just you and I to sit and talk before then. I leave that decision up to you. If you wish for that to occur, you will let me know. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 1 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:33 PM To:Rita Taylor; Renee Basel Cc:Records Subject:GS #2350 (PRR 1298-Revised) Attachments:Basel E-Mail of 11.17.16 at 231 p.m..pdf Dear Madame Custodian of Records and Ms. Basel: This will acknowledge receipt of the E-Mail received by records@commerce-group.com along with the attached letter dated November 17, 2016. A copy of the aforementioned documents are attached for convenience. As with the letter that I sent to you regarding PRR1297, I am once again perplexed. It seems to me a simple search of the words “Laudani” and “Orthwein” will result in locating the responsive documents (if any exist). Please let me know why (in the first 15 minutes) this was not done. Because of the similarities (including the similarity in cost) with PRR1297, I ask that you respond to the inquiries in PRR1297 to the extent that they are applicable and/or to the extent that they need to be conformed to 1298. I remind you that it has been 29 days since you have had this simple request. I consider your non-responsivness to be just another example of the bad faith that permeates in your offices. Please accommodate my constitutional rights. If you are going to insist on the $47.50, let me know as soon as possile (both for this Request and Request1297), whereupon I will immediately make the payments (under protest), while reserving my rights. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 From: Renee Basel [mailto:RBasel@gulf-stream.org] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:31 PM To: Records Subject: GS #2350 (PRR 1298) Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e- mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. TOWN OF GULF STREAM PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Delivered via e-mail November 17, 2016 Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: records@commerce-group.com] Re: GS #2350 (PRR 1298) Please provide copies of all records (including, without limitation,) text messages and emails where Tom Laudani was the sender or recipient and Joan Orthwein was the recipient or sender from January 1, 2011 to present Dear Martin E. O’Boyle [mail to: records@commerce-group.com]: The Town of Gulf Stream received your public records requests on October 19, 2016. You should be able to view your request at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/103156/Page1.aspx In light of the breadth of your request, which covers “all records (including, without limitation) text messages and emails” sent or received by the referenced individuals during a nearly five and a half-year period, producing all records responsive to your request will require extensive clerical or supervisory assistance. The Town has spent at least 15 minutes on your request and now estimates that to respond to your request will require approximately an additional half hour of IT support at $95.00 per hour, the labor cost of the personnel providing the service, per Fla. Stat. § 119.07(4)(d). If the costs of producing these documents will exceed your deposit, the Town will provide you with an initial production of responsive records and an estimate for the production of any additional responsive records. If the costs of production are less than the deposit, the Town will provide you with the responsive records and a refund. (1/2 hour @ $95.00 = $47.50) = Deposit Due: $47.50 in cash or check. Upon receipt of your deposit, the Town will use its very best efforts to further respond to your public records request in a reasonable amount of time. If we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records T OWN OF G ULF S TREAM P ALM B EACH C OUNTY, F LORIDA Delivered via e-mail May 25, 2018 Martin E. O’Boyle \[mail to: meo@commerce-group.com\] Re: GS #2619 (Chapter 119 Records Request) I am asking her to provide me as a Records Request pursuant to F.S. Chapter 119 all communications between the Town (and any of its agents, representatives an Managers) and the Fl. DOT or Broad Spectrum or any party with an email address ending in “@broadspectrum.com”, for the period beginning 7/1/17 through the date of this request. I alerted the DOT today that one of the cameras was missing. I wanted to report it to you. Please provide me with a Police Report #. As to the signs that had been taken, since all is now Public Record, can you ask the Town to scan and send me the information requested during our call this morning as well as the related information previously requested on Chapter 119 Requests, which you may accept any applicable requests made herein to be received as such. Dear Martin E. O’Boyle \[mail to: meo@commerce-group.com\]: The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records request dated December 27, 2017, to which we responded on January 5, 2018 with a partial production of records, estimate for the production of additional records and a request for clarification. The original public records request and the Town’s response can be found at the following link: http://www2.gulf-stream.org/weblink/0/doc/116225/Page1.aspx The Town’s policy is to administratively close public records requests after 30 days, in some circumstances, if we do not hear back from a requestor. In our January 5, 2018 letter, the Town informed you that “if we do not hear back from you within 30 days of this letter, we will consider this request closed.” The Town received your most recent correspondence dated May 22, 2018, approximately 130 days after our January 5, 2018 response, providing the Town with notice of this public records request pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 119.12(1)(b), and further informing the Town of your intent to “institute a formal legal action” if you do not receive a response before five business days have elapsed, which would be May 30, 2018. As a courtesy, the Town directs you to Fla. Stat. § 119.12(3), which may result in the Town being awarded fees against you for such a lawsuit even if you prevail, and requests that we work together to avoid litigation. It is the Town’s intent to provide you with the records you seek in a reasonable amount of time, after payment of any lawful fees, if applicable. Because the Town responded to your public records request with a request for clarification and/or a request for a deposit and you failed to respond within 30 days, your request has been administratively closed. If you would like to re-request these records, please let us know. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel As requested by Rita Taylor Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:59 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:Gulf Stream - Records - 2704 - 2705 - 2720 Renee – in connection with the Caption, as we both know, I have made several inquiries. You have not responded. Are you wishing me to file suit? If so, I will oblige, but that’ not my goal. Please respond. If I don’t hear from you promptly., I will take it that the only way I’m going to get a response is to file suit. Once again, I urge you not to make me go that route. Thank you Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Renee Basel From:Trey Nazzaro Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 5:37 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M.; rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com Subject:Gulf Stream O'Boyle Litigation History and Martin O'Boyle Statements at Public Meetings Attachments:06 13 14 Meeting.pdf; 09 12 14 Budget Hearing.pdf; 10 10 14 Meeting.pdf; 01 09 15 Meeting.pdf; 03 13 15 Meeting.pdf Bob and Joanne, Below are some notes regarding litigation history. Attached with summary immediately below are meeting minutes with statements by O’Boyle highlighted. He once posted a banner that said “Mayor Morgan is Destroying Gulf Stream. BANKRUPTCY IS COMING!” The truck was towed at one point; I believe his wife is the owner. However, I did not see anything attributable to him saying “I will bankrupt the town.” He always blamed the commission/ elected officials. Attached highlighted: 101014 Budget Hearing: Note read into the record from O’Boyle agent, in response to RICO O’Boyle “wants all to be prepared for the strike which he will inflict” 61314 Meeting: O’Boyle stays seated during pledge of allegiance inside Town Hall because he does not feel he is in America and the flag salute means nothing in the Town Hall Chambers 31315 Meeting: O’Boyle states that he hopes that no one would be injured (veiled threat?) discussing the RICO action and the Mayor’s previous comment about death by 1,000 cuts 91214 Budget Hearing: O’Boyle speaks and states “I' m not going to be messed around with by you guys. Let' s make that straight and I will spend the money, I have the money, and if you want to fight you are going to get a fight. I told you last time I thought the best thing is for everyone to sit down and see if there' s a way to resolve things.… I' ve been down this road before and I spent over a million dollars on similar situations.” 1915 Meeting: O’Boyle is not afraid of the Mayor, Commission, or RICO action. Public Records Litigation The Town has gone to trial in public records cases seven times, winning six of seven cases (three won against Oboyle, one lost). The one time the Town lost resulted in O’Boyle claiming ridiculously high attorney’s fees for work unrelated to his efforts to obtain records. In that case, O’Boyle initially sought more than $500,000, but has since reduced his request by more than 30% before the issue of fees has even submitted to the court. Since the fall of 2013, the Town has defended 44 public records lawsuits. This does not include approximately 16 public records cases brought by O’Boyle that were settled in early 2013, when the Town paid O’Boyle $180,000 and made certain concessions related to improvements to O’Boyle’s home not allowed under the Town code; these concessions were wholly unrelated to public records. 1 O’Boyle (and entities) public records lawsuits against the Town by year: 2013: 16 (settled, $180,000 paid and concessions regarding his home) 2014: 17 2016: 1 2019: 1 Litigation history: Martin O’Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 2014CA000834 in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. (Sign-in sheet) Town prevails at trial The Town prevailed at trial in a written order dated January 31, 2017, in a case that serves as the perfect example of what the Town has called frivolous conduct. In that case, O’Boyle made the public records request on January 21, 2014. It was the last of nine public records requests O’Boyle sent to the Town by fax over a 15-minute period. The previous week the Town had received 90 public records requests, but was still able to acknowledge this request the same day. The request was for the sign in sheet on the desk in the front lobby of Town Hall. When the Town did not respond immediately, O’Boyle filed suit the very next day, on January 22, 2014. The Town followed its normal procedures and produced the sign in sheet on January 23, 2014, before it was even aware of the lawsuit. Four months later, O’Boyle filed an affidavit with the court stating for the first time that he made the request verbally and was denied the record at that time. The Judge found that O’Boyle did not demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that he made the verbal request, and found that the Town’s response was reasonable under the circumstances. Martin O’Boyle and Asset Enhancement Inc. v Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 2014CC015050 in the County Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Chandler docs and Legal bill) Town prevails at trial The Town prevailed at trial in an order dated December 7, 2017 against O’Boyle and his entity Asset Enhancement (“AEI”). One public records request was made by each Plaintiff in 2014, three years before the 2017 trial. Three days before trial, O’Boyle withdrew his count that alleged a 5-month delay in responding to a request was unlawful. O’Boyle’s public records request sought public records from Robert Sweetapple and others, including the former director of CAFI, Joel Chandler. Chandler had recently resigned from CAFI and provided Sweetapple with records from his time at CAFI. The O’Boyle Law Firm claimed in other litigation that the records from Chandler were stolen and should be returned. The remaining public records request from AEI and the sole focus of the trial were redactions to an attorney bill that the Town provided, redacting only 15 words on a 4-page bill with 45 billing entries. The O’Boyle Law Firm argued that attorney invoices could not as a matter of law contain attorney work product under the public records act, and in doing so advocated for a change in Florida law that has been accepted for 30 years. No authority or support was provided to change the law. AEI’s argument was for outside attorneys to not put anything usable in an attorney bill because the bills are public records. It is unclear to the Town how vague attorney bills would increase government transparency and accountability. The court reserved jurisdiction to determine whether the Town was entitled to attorneys fees, costs, and/or sanctions. Martin O’Boyle v. Jones Foster Service LLC and Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 14-14780 73 in the County Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. (attorney bill) Case Dismissed by Plaintiff In late 2017, in response to a case brought by Martin O’Boyle in his pro se capacity, the Town filed a motion for sanctions and a motion to dismiss after the case lay mostly dormant for three years. The public records request sued over was an attorney bill, which was provided after charging a fee of $117.50 for an attorney to review the 2 invoice for attorney work product. The lawsuit seemed to imply that the Town could not charge attorney time for review of the invoices for exempt attorney work product. The request was made on September 22, 2014, and the Town responded by producing the records seven days later, on September 29, 2014. The Town securing a dismissal was the result of strong advocacy in the face of what it called in these motions a frivolous and harassing lawsuit, before laying out similar conduct by O’Boyle over the recent years in other litigation. Additional Litigation handled by the Town’s insurance carrier initiated by O’Boyle Martin O’Boyle v. Robert Sweetapple and Mayor Scott Morgan (individually and in his capacity as the Mayor of the Town of Gulfstream), Case No. 9:14-cv-81250-KAM, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiff asserted claims against Mayor Morgan for (1) retaliation in response to speech protected by the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count II), (2) civil conspiracy (Count III), (3) conspiracy to commit slander (Count IV), and (4) conspiracy to commit retaliation (Count V). In essence, the Plaintiff claimed that Mayor Morgan engaged in “retaliation” by making various unfavorable public statements about the Plaintiff in response to the Plaintiff’s various litigation efforts. During the discovery phase Magistrate Judge William Matthewman repeatedly found that O'Boyle had engaged in improper conduct while taking depositions as a pro se plaintiff. O'Boyle asked improper, vague, and irrelevant questions, and O'Boyle conducted his questioning in a manner designed to harass the deponent and waste time. See DE 177 at 4 (“This exchange displays Plaintiffs lack of professionalism and cavalier attitude and serves as an example of the time that was wasted during Defendant's deposition due to Plaintiffs conduct.”); DE 177 at 6 (“Such a procedure is wholly unprofessional, discourteous, and designed to delay and prevent the witness from properly and honestly answering the questions.”); DE at 8 (“All of these excerpts show how Plaintiff unprofessionally and improperly conducted Defendant’s deposition. Plaintiff’s actions caused the deposition to be unnecessarily long and contentious.”); DE at 9 (“In sum, Plaintiffs deposition of Defendant was unnecessarily long and contentious due to Plaintiffs improper manner of conducting the deposition.”). O'Boyle's conduct during discovery in the Federal Litigation resulted in him being sanctioned multiple times. See DE 90; DE 157; and DE 231. After protracted litigation, the Plaintiff stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit on August 18, 2016. The Plaintiff then filed a similar lawsuit in state court in Case No. 2017 CA 005226. While the Plaintiff threatened to join the Town and Mayor Morgan, no such joinder ever occurred. The new lawsuit was then dismissed on November 6, 2017. Martin O’Boyle v. William H. Thrasher, Jr. (individually), Garret Ward (individually), and Town of Guflstream, Case No. 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH, In the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiff asserted claims against then-Gulf Stream Police Chief Garret Ward for battery (Count I), assault (Count II), unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s papers under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count III), and unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s person under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count IV). The Plaintiff also asserted claims against the Town of Gulfstream for unlawful seizure of his papers under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V) and unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s person under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count VI). Finally, the Plaintiff asserted claims against William H. Thrasher, Jr., for assault (Counts VII and VIII) and battery (Count IX). The Town, Thrasher, and Ward filed a motion seeking to dismiss of the Amended Complaint. On February 5, 2015, the Court granted the motion dismissing the case with prejudice and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s determination and a $10,304 fee award in favor of the Town. The Plaintiff paid the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust $10,331.49 as the result of an award entered by the trial court. Martin O’Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream, Case No. 2015 CA 001498 AI, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Trespass Case). The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Town of Gulfstream for (1) inverse condemnation (Count I), ejectment (Count II), and trespass (Count III). The dispute involves whether certain underground 3 improvements (buried electrical undergrounding conduit) installed in an easement near the Plaintiff’s residence encroaches onto the Plaintiff’s property. The case was initiated in 2015, is not yet set for trial, and the Town continues to defend. Public records requests to the Town by year 2013 650 public records requests (18 lawsuits concluded as part of 2013 settlement agreement with O’Boyle; 10 lawsuits initiated by O’Hare) 2014 1230 public records requests (resulted in approx. 33 lawsuits by O’Hare and O’Boyle \[and related entities\]) 2015 396 public records requests 2016 405 public records requests 2017 160 public records requests (65 since new public records bill passed May 23, 2017) Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Staff Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 2015 AT 9:00 A.M., IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to order. Mayor Morgan called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Morgan. III. Roll Call. Present and Scott W. Morgan Mayor Participating: Robert W. Ganger Vice Mayor Joan K. Orthwein Commissioner Thomas M. Stanley Commissioner Donna S. White Commissioner Also Present and John Randolph Town Attorney Participating: William H. Thrasher Town Manager Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk Garrett Ward Police Chief Danny Brannon Engineer Julio Martinez Resident Christopher O'Hare Resident Martin O'Boyle Resident Christine Dehaseth Coalition IV. Minutes. A. Regular Meeting & Public Hearing 12 -12 -14 @ 9:00 A.M. There were no changes. Vice Mayor Ganger moved the approval of the minutes and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanley with all voting AYE at roll call. V. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. Attorney Randolph asked to add Reimbursement for Attorney Sweetapple and it was placed under item IX B (Changed Item B to C) . VI. Announcements. A. Regular Meetings and Public Hearings 1. February 13, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 2. March 13, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 3. April 10, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 4. May 6, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 5. June 12, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 Mayor Morgan called attention to the next meeting date of February 13, 2015 and asked if anyone had a conflict with this date and none were acknowledged. VII. Communication from the Public (5 min. maximum) The Mayor asked if anyone wanted to speak and Mr. Martinez was recognized. Mr. Martinez was recognized and stated his name and that he lives in Place Au Soleil, that he was the former president of the Homeowner's Association and has had the privilege of working with most of them in making the Town much better. He came to reach out, as he is now retired and has a little bit of extra time, so he wanted to come back and give to the Town. He stated that it was an honor living here. He stated that all he could say was Rita and Bill Thrasher were not perfect, but that he wouldn't trade them for anybody else. He said that as far as the Town's Commission is concerned, they do a phenomenal job and when he walked around any neighborhood in this Town of Gulf Stream it was phenomenal what they have going on. The Chief of Police, same thing, crime rate extremely low. When he looked at other towns and tried to see what's perfect, he found that it was this one right here. So he's talking from the bottom of his heart and stated that the Commission would have to take a pay cut next year, as they are getting paid too much money for what they're doing. He said, you guys on a bad day are better than another Town Commission's best person on their best day. He has spoken with other town commissions and stated that they do really give a lot. He just didn't want that to go unnoticed. The other thing he wanted to share with them is, when the Pledge of Allegiance comes up, there are a lot of people who fought for this country who can't get up, who would pay anything in the world to stand up when the Pledge of Allegiance comes up. The disabled who fought for this Country and as far as he's concerned, living here in the Town of Gulf Stream, he's living the American dream and it doesn't matter where he is in the world, when he hears the Pledge of Allegiance, he stands up with respect for all the soldiers, and the folks who have given us all the freedoms that we have today. He said you guys deserve all the credit for what you do and he didn't want it to go unnoticed. He said they could count on him to be here whenever needed. Mayor Morgan stated that they did appreciate his comments very much. Mr. O'Hare was recognized and stated, Happy New Year commissioners and staff, 2015 was going to be significant. He stated that about a year ago, he told them about the handicap access violations in Town Hall, and the poorly designed ramp in the parking lot and voile a new ramp was built. He told them about the restrooms, voile, they have 2 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 been remodeled. He told them about the poorly designed security pad and now he noticed that a new pad had been installed lower and said very good. He also stated that he told them about the locked doors, fire exists that have to be opened during Town Hall and now they are. He told them about social security numbers on the Town's website and now they're gone. He stated that while he was on the subject, the lock on the restroom doors was too high and that a handicapped person couldn't use them. He stated that the ramp needed a railing and he was just telling them this so a lawyer didn't come in here and sue them. Just for their information. He stated that when he sees a problem he wants to fix it and when he sees something wrong he wants to right it. About six months ago, Mr. Sweetapple, on behalf of Mayor Morgan, told him to dismiss all his complaints against the Town and in exchange the Town would exclude me from the forty page RICO action that was prepared at that time against Mr. O'Boyle and himself. It was a take it or leave it offer. A few months ago Mayor Morgan made the very same take it or leave it offer again. He doesn't hear very well, so sometimes he has to go back and read the minutes to know what happened at the meeting. Now that he has examined those minutes he finds that the Commission has given no authority to Mr. Morgan to act on their behalf in these legal matters, except for some BAR complaint which he doesn't know anything about. He stated that Mayor Morgan has acted without Commission knowledge, direction or approval. He asked if the Commission wanted that to continue or give him authority to act on their behalf with the attorneys? There was no answer. He continued that the threat of an impending RICO claim against him was terribly debilitating, it was disturbing to him and his family, not knowing if people were now casting him in the roll of the Town's ugly description. He said it was stressful and destabilizing not knowing if he would be charged with organized crime and have to defend himself. He asked them all again, if they would retract their previous claims that he conspired to defraud the Town He thanked them very much. Mayor Morgan advised Mr. O'Hare that this was a public comment section not a Q & A. He also asked if there was anyone else. Mr. O'Boyle was recognized and stated that his name was Martin O'Boyle, 23 Hidden Harbor Drive, Gulf Stream. That he had a few words to say but before he said them he wanted to respond to Mr. Martinez. He stated that the United States Supreme Court allowed him to sit down during the Pledge of Allegiance. He stated that the United States Supreme Court was one of three bodies of the government. He stated that if you didn't like what the Supreme Court does you should petition them to change it. He stated that he came here today in peace and with the hope that the Town Commission wished to end the 3 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 litigation and expense between them as he sees it spiraling out of control, something that he didn't want to see happen and he assumed the Commission didn't want to see happen. He stated that the bills were going to be in an area that none of them probably ever imagined and so it was in this spirit that he requestd that the Commission or the Council, as the case may be, agree to a sit down with our Counsel and with them as there's no lose and all win. He stated that if nothing could be resolved they'd lose nothing, if something could be resolved they'd save him, and them a great deal of money and there are other thorny items that could certainly be put into a settlement agreement with the plethora of lawyers up there now. Despite what he just said, he asked that they please don't make a mistake that his desire for peace is laced with fear. So he wants to make it clear that he fears not our Mayor, Commission or solicitor nor their illusive RICO action. But nonetheless he thinks it's in everyone's best interest to try to come to a resolution recognizing no loss, all gain. He said that unfortunately he's been out of town for the last few months and has not been at a meeting, but he's watched them and said they are great on TV. He also stated that they have a decorum policy that's not being enforced. He asked that either the solicitor or the Chief of Police to please revisit the decorum policy and enforce it as it should be. He stated that last night he read the Agenda and he saw a new sign ordinance. He asked where that came from and were we going to talk about it later. He thanked him for allowing him to speak. Mayor Morgan advised Mr. O'Boyle that this was a comment period, and that question and answer would be brought up later in the agenda and that he would be able to ask questions at that time. Mayor Morgan asked Mr. Brannon about the undergrounding report. VIII. Reports. A. Utility Undergrounding - Danny Brannon (Engineer) Mr. Brannon was recognized and stated Danny Brannon, Brannon & Gillespie glad to be here this morning. He advised that as he had indicated at the last Commission meeting, they were expecting the prints from the contractor and they did get them the next day and they have been forwarded on. The binding cost estimate from Florida Power and Light Company was delivered this morning at 8:30AM. He said they haven't looked at them yet but they have it in their hands and now can move forward with that. He said that right now in Phase I it appeared that they're about 14 of 1% over budget of their expected expenses to complete the project are on track, they are pretty close as they may not have used all the landscaping money, but they're very close on the budget on Phase I. 4 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 Commissioner Ganger posed the following question asking if that included the contingency in Phase I or just the budget. Mr. Brannon replied that it's in the total budget including the contingency. Commissioner Ganger said, so we've used the contingency. Mr. Brannon replied yes and that's indicated on page 5 of their packet. The demonstration street light from the vendor is being shipped and they're expecting a local distributor to be contacting them. They will be delivering it to the Town Hall soon and they will get it installed. They expect to get it in a week or two. He stated that those were the main points of the status at this point. He said they will be moving forward with the design work to try to get their packages put together to go after bid for Phase 2 as soon as possible. Commissioner Ganger asked if the contingency in the initial budget of Phase 2 was proportionate to the contingency in Phase 1. Mr. Brannon replied that Phase 1 is 2.4 million and Phase 2 is 3 million. Commissioner Ganger asked if Mr. Brannon thought that, based upon experience, in using the contingency in Phase 1 that there really isn't a contingency in Phase 2, or were they separate issues. Mr. Brannon stated that he thought that Phase 2 would be tight. He thinks that it is going to consume the contingency of Phase 2 also. He stated that some of it had to do with the delays in getting AT &T and Comcast executed. He said that they had other projects that they've seen in the past that were dragging out because of this. Mr. Ganger stated that they had already paid for AT &T last December for the upcoming year and asked if there was any way they can wiggle out of that. Mr. Brannon stated that AT &T's contract said that they estimate their costs to convert and that the building will be actual and it will be trued up at the end of construction. So they were paid their estimated cost. He stated that with Comcast, typically their estimated costs are their cost. AT &T's varies and it generally will be a little more than they estimated. Commissioner Ganger asked if we had an active program to figure out if we can keep ourselves from overspending this budget because we've 5 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 already paid for it. He paid for it, Mr. Morgan paid for it, they all paid for it. Mr. Brannon stated yes I think we had 50% of the project cost paid up front when the residents were given the option of paying upfront or financing. Commissioner Ganger said no one residents of this community and be presented that fundamentally shave from the estimated costs emphasized that overspending on not happen. would want to go back to the say oops. He believed a plan should says was there any opportunity to so that they do not overspend. He this project is something that must Mr. Brannon indicated that they worked very diligently to keep the costs down. Commissioner Ganger said he appreciated that and a contingency is just what it is. The contingency is there because you don't know everything and to make sure that they've got something in there for what they don't know. They now had a years experience actually doing the job so he thinks they would be better served now to go back and say was there any way they could spend more efficiently in Phase 2 so they don't overspend. Mr. Ganger said he hated to be a broken needle on this and apologized to the Commission, commenting that he put a lot of his time on this over the many years and hated to see it go off the tracks. Mayor Morgan stated that these are good points and asked Mr. Brannon to take it as gentle encouragement. Mr. Brannon stated that he would. Mayor Morgan asked if there were any other questions and thanked Mr. Brannon. Mayor Morgan called on the Town Manager regarding ethics training. B. Town Manager - Ethics Training Mr. Thrasher stated that just as a reminder as of January 1, 2015, all elected officials had to go through additional training, 4 hours of training, there's 2 hours on ethics, 1 hour on open meetings and 1 hour on open records. He is expecting that the Florida League of Cities will provide the opportunity for them to do that on line rather than set up a special meeting here or somewhere else. But as L' Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 soon as that is finalized he said he would make sure they have that information, most likely that very same day. Mayor Morgan asked when this had to be completed by. Mr. Thrasher advised that the information that he had so far is March 31st so that gave them about 90 days from January 1st. However, there weren't any online training options right now. He stated that the Palm Beach County League of Cities had a Palm Beach State College opportunity, he thinks in the middle of the month. He stated he had been informed repeatedly that the Florida League of Cities was developing an online training program and as soon as he had that information he would pass it on to them. Mayor Morgan thanked Mr. Thrasher. He advised that the Architectural Review Board will meet on January 22nd and he looked forward to the minutes of that meeting. C. Architectural Review & Planning Board 1. Meeting Dates a. January 22, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. b. February 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. C. March 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. d. April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. e. May 28, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. D. Finance Director 1. Financial Report for December 2014 There were no comments or questions regarding the report and Mayor Morgan declared it approved as submitted. E. Police Chief - 1. Activity for December 2014 There were no comments or questions and it was approved as submitted. IX. Items for Commission Action. A. Ordinance No. 15/1; AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 66, ZONING, OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES, AT ARTICLE VII, NORTH OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY DISTRICT, BY DELETING SECTION 66- 327, SIGNS, IN ITS ENTIRETY; FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE VIII SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATION, DIVISION 7, SIGNS, BY DELETING SECTIONS 66 -446, 66 -447 AND 66 -448 AND REPLACING SAID SECTIONS WITH REGULATIONS WHICH ESTABLISH THE TOWN AND RENUMBERING EXISTING SECTION 66 -449, UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES, AS SECTION 66- 7 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 450; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. The Town Clerk read Ordinance 15/1 by title. Mayor Morgan advised that this was an ordinance that they had all reviewed and asked the Town Attorney to explain the significance of it. Mr. Randolph stated that he made a couple of grammatical changes in the ordinance that they had before them that he'd like to go through. First of all at 66 -446A he added the word "of" so it reads "the purpose and intent of the regulations in this division is to establish content neutral graphic controls to the promotion (of) identification ". He didn't think the word "of" was in the documents they had in front of them. He also changed Item 6 to read as follows: allow the proper placement of legible and effective signs while avoiding the over concentration and excessive height, bulk, density and area of signs placed in the Town. There is a comma out of place, but I don't think that is substantive enough to bring to your attention because I can't find it right now. Town Clerk advised that it was on page 5. Mr. Randolph stated Item F on page 5, it said that no signs other than government signs, are permitted on public property or within the rights of way and he didn't think that they had the word town inserted in the document they had, it just said rights of way. He reminded there has been a challenge as to the facial constitutionality of the current sign ordinance which is contained within 66 -466 and 66 -448. That ordinance draws distinctions between political signs, real estate signs, and other kinds of signs. Although he felt that the existing sign ordinance is appropriate, because of the fact that there is a challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinance, he had prepared this ordinance in an attempt to make their ordinance content neutral. He said that some say that if you have to look at the content of a sign to determine whether it's legal or not, that it's not content neutral and therefore, not constitutional. He pointed out this ordinance had been drafted in a way so as to not distinguish between the type of sign or the language on a sign, it simply provided regulations relating to signs generally and it has a definition of sign, it has time, place and manner regulations pertaining to signs and that's what they can regulate, time, place and manner, not content. So it has provision that states no bigger than 4 feet in height including 8 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 the supporting pole. The sign face of any sign shall not exceed 4 square feet. Each property in the Town shall be permitted to have a maximum of 12 square feet of sign face. All signs should be set back 10 feet from any property line. No sign shall be erected or placed such that it blocks the views of any government sign or the sight lines of traffic street signs or traffic signals. No signs other than government signs were permitted on public property or within the rights of way. No sign may be attached or fixed or painted or otherwise placed on any dwelling or any other building associated with the dwelling, including, but not limited to sheds, carports, garages and pool houses. The government signs are not subject to the restrictions in Subsections A through G above. There is an exemption for mailboxes which are regulated by the Federal Government to be allowed within the rights of way. So that's the purpose of this ordinance. We have also deleted from your Code that section relating to signs at Section 66 -327 which states signs shall be prohibited within the North Ocean Overlay District except the following. And then it distinguishes between the types of signs that can be allowed in that district. He thought it best to delete that section in its entirety and just have a straight regulation in regard to time, place and manner of signs in general so as to not allow for exemptions for real estate signs, political signs or even make any distinguishing remarks between those. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that they may have in regard to this. Rita had given it to them in advance so they would have an opportunity to look at it and ask any questions that they might have. I think it's important that you look at 66 -446 which sets forth the legislative purpose and intent. He thought, for the record he would just go through those. To preserve, protect and promote the public health safety and welfare in general. Preserve and enhance the aesthetics and physical appearance of the Town, protect and preserve the image character, style and quality of life that the Town desires. To minimize visual distractions. To safeguard the public views and nature of the Town's streets, etc. etc. He stated that you had it all so it didn't need to be read. But the whereas clauses recited some of the case law relating to signs and the constitutionality of signs and provided that although we are a municipality, may regulate aesthetics that we need to make sure our ordinances are content neutral and are simply time, place and manner restrictions. So that's the purpose of this, he recommended it for first reading today and second reading at a subsequent time. Mayor Morgan asked if there were any questions of Counsel. Commissioner Ganger said he had a very general question which was when this ordinance is eventually approved and becomes law, would E Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 people notice the difference? Just a general question, it seemed to me that ... Mr. Randolph stated that he was not sure if they would notice. Commissioner Ganger continued and said he appreciated and understood and applauded Mr. Randolph for taking the time to think this through, but he read it 2 or 3 times and he had to say that it's just common sense almost. It follows the law and it's... Mr. Randolph stated that he didn't know if they would notice the difference but this would allow a sign to be 4 square feet, they now have a distinction between real estate signs and other signs and their real estate signs are only required to be 2 square feet. In answer to your question, he didn't know how much people would notice the.difference between a 2 square foot real estate sign and a 4 square foot real estate sign. But it was a change and it's one they needed to give consideration to prior to adoption of this ordinance. He said they needed to be aware that there would be some changes. Mayor Morgan stated that he thought there would be some changes, he agreed with Comm. Ganger, he didn't think it was terribly significant, he thought facially our current ordinance is constitutional, however, the Courts do appear to be split on interpreting a number of these provisions and so this ordinance goes a long way to essentially tracking the middle and allowing he thinks a more neutral interpretation of the ordinance which protects us from lawsuits such as the one that's been vowed against us on the current ordinance. So if this goes toward helping protect the Town, then he thinks we should do it. Commissioner Orthwein stated that she agreed. Mayor Morgan asked if there were any other questions or questions from the public? Mr. O'Hare was recognized and thanked the Mayor for allowing him to talk on this law before it was passed. He understand Judge Middlebrooks had told the Town that existing ordinances were constitutionally faulty. Mr. Randolph evidently disagreed with Judge Middlebrooks. The proposed replacement ordinance is confusing to him and so he knew how to properly comply and avoid a code enforcement action, he asked the Commission for some clarification. First, is it correct that a nonconforming sign would be able to remain? Attorney Randolph stated that he did not think that temporary signs would be something that would be able to remain, but nonconforming 10 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 signs that are part of a structure such as a sign that's affixed to a condominium and has been there prior to the adoption of this ordinance, would be grandfathered in, but he doesn't believe that anything that is of a temporary nature would be grandfathered in. Mr. O'Hare thanked Attorney Randolph and stated that he agreed with the Town's purpose and keeping Gulf Stream beautiful. He didn't want to see a whole bunch of signs either, he was concerned about the Gulf Stream Club, the Gulf Stream School and said there were a lot of existing signs that don't conform and if they once conformed and are, therefore, not conforming, that they should be exempt from this kind of regulation. He said Mr. Randolph did a great job summing up the ordinance. The proposed ordinance defined sign as any object manufactured in any manner used for attracting the attention of the public to any subject. That's broad and he can understand why they need it to be broad. The sign can't be any more than 4 feet above the ground, it can't be any bigger than 4 square feet, which is 2 x 2, and can't be more than a cumulative 12 square feet which is 3, 2 x 2 signs or less if you count both sides. The sign must be 10 feet back from the property line, it can't be attached to the house, it can't be on public property or in the right of way. He said he took some pictures around Town, and he wondered if he could give them to the Clerk if the Commissioners are interested in following along with him or he could just show them to the camera. Mr. O'Hare mentioned Lemonade sign, holiday lights, inflatable santa, informational signs, service entrance, beware of dog, no trespassing, ADT, Comcast, Halloween decorations, signs that do not conform to the Town's ordinance, signs on vehicles and asked if they would be exempt and if they would be enforcing this code on AIA. He pointed out that the sign in front of the Gulf Stream School was never permitted so it can't be grandfathered. Mayor Morgan stated that he would defer to counsel on that but he thinks that rights of way that are governed by the State preempting. The Mayor commented that quite a bit of work has been done here and Mr. O'Hare has raised some interesting questions. He asked Mr. O'Hare if it was his intention to file suit against the Town should they pass this ordinance based on these signs in these pictures. Mr. O'Hare stated that he was having trouble hearing. Mayor Morgan repeated the question. Mr. O'Hare stated that it is his understanding that a citizen did not have standing to force a Town to enforce a law. He had no intention, he was trying to protect the Town and do the right thing. You're 11 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 passing an ordinance that's broad and perhaps it needs to be better defined. We've got a lot of ordinances that are broad and it's left to the discretion of Mr. Thrasher if he wants to bring someone to task on it and as a property owner I'd like to comply with the law. It's tough when you don't quite know what the law is so I'm asking what the law really is, Mr. O'Hare said. Mayor Morgan thanked Mr. O'Hare and advised him that he gave them food for thought. Attorney Randolph stated that he didn't know if we had all the answers today and thinks he raised some good points such as the child's lemonade stand. The problem when you try to make an ordinance content neutral, is when you start to make exceptions, even for a child's lemonade stand, that could create problems so those are issues that you may want to give consideration to for a second reading but you raises issues that were very legitimate but the more exceptions you allow, the more opportunity your ordinance becomes subject to attack. Mr. O'Hare stated that he knew Mr. Randolph had a tough job and this is particularly tough when you have federal constitutional issues involved and try to keep the Town beautiful, but for people on this side of the podium who have to follow the law, clear direction is so much better than leaving it up to the discretion of whether one person's lemonade sign is okay for a day, but someone else's sign of Mr. Thrasher dressed as Napoleon is not okay so he's trying to be clear. He thanked them for their comment. Attorney Randolph stated that he thought they could be as definitive as they can with the definition of sign and it's not a definition that they just made up, it's a definition that they've seen in ordinances that have withstood constitutional attack. Mayor Morgan stated that they had to have common sense on this, it's palpably absurd to say that a lemonade stand put up by a child for a couple of hours to sell some lemonade on the street is going to somehow fall afoul of an ordinance and deserves some sort of prosecution. We're all adults, we're all family members, we're all part of a community and he thinks the application of our codes has always been with the best interests of our residents at heart and to try to apply things fairly and reasonably and he would expect that this ordinance would be applied in the exact same way. Mr. Martinez stated to Mr. O'Hare that he appreciated the energy he was putting into trying to make the Town a better place and certainly well meant, but on the other hand when he walked around the Town he thinks when you look at the intent, that lemonade stand and those 12 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 young girls that stand there with their mother or parents, the intent for them is very wholesome. He didn't think anyone ever complained, and that it came from a kind place in the heart so as human beings they had to look at things logically for what the intent of the sign is, is it to defame somebody? Or are those signs just good will, it's just a Norman Rockwell picture as far as he's concerned. He stated that as he has walked around and seen those little girls with the lemonade, they certainly don't bother him and anyone who walked around or he talked to in the neighborhood had never brought it to his attention, not that he's the voice of Gulfstream, but he tries to think about things logically. As far as Santa Clauses and Halloween, they are holidays that are celebrated across America and people put those up with good will. Some people go overboard and do nicer Halloween decorations and those were different signs. So at the end of the day what they have to do is look at things from human nature, what's the intent of the sign, are they trying to defame somebody, do we associate Bill Thrasher or anyone in the Town as somebody more deviant. He said he didn't know if that was wholesome and he didn't want his kids or grandkids walking around and seeing that sign. He stated that he would never mind his kids seeing someone with a lemonade stand or Christmas sign. He thinks that they should look at it as far as the intent. He said he know he's doing a lot of work and would be more than glad to help out and align our visions together. We can all work together to make this a better Town because the one thing he would agree on is there's a lot of talent here and he didn't want to fight against it but be with it. And honestly like he said when he first came over here, you guys are doing a phenomenal job. Attorney Randolph asked if he could address that statement and put on the record that he understands this gentlemen is good at intent. But the point he is trying to make to you is that you can't regulate the intent, it must be neutral so that's what they're trying to do with this ordinance, to make the content neutral so they're not dealing with a sign that's allegedly defaming someone or a sign that's posting a property for sale, that's what they're trying to avoid. Commissioner Ganger stated that the transient nature of some signs, a plumber that pulls into a driveway with a truck that says Joe's Plumber is not a sign as he thinks of it, it's for his commercial property, is doing a job and identifying who he is and off he goes. He thinks to some extent we may want to massage this to make it clearer as to moving or transient signs... Attorney Randolph stated that he didn't think they needed that as this ordinance deals with signs on property. 13 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 Commissioner Ganger said okay, but the photograph shows.. again to get down to common sense, a truck that's parked in your driveway with a sign on it is a transient not a permanent sign, it's not even a sign that's likely to be there overnight, it's just there for a short period of time. To me your proposed language is entirely clear, that it would not be considered a sign as defined. Attorney Randolph added that that was his intent. They can't regulate every vehicle that goes through the Town. Mayor Morgan stated that he thought his reading was correct. Mayor Morgan recognized Christine Dehaseth who stated that it's a shame that we have to get to this point to look beyond what is natural and common nature and intent and good hearted and as part of a community the idea to protect the image and character and quality of life is wonderful. She understood that it has to be content neutral. She said she would just like to say as a parent and many parents over at Gulf Stream School, to drive by and try to explain to your 4 or 5 year old what a douche bag is because of signs in front of the Town Hall is horrible. She understood it has to be content neutral, but cautioned not to be fooled that the decorum has to extend long and well beyond this Commission's chamber. It's gotten to the point where it's ridiculous and she's sad to be at this point she said. Mayor Morgan thanked Ms. Dehaseth and stated that there is only so much that they could do, whether it's upbringing, or attitude or narcissism whatever it is, people want to act in that fashion and if it's something that is constitutionally protected there's little that can be done about it. They appeal to the good nature as she and Mr. Martinez did, to act appropriately with decency for the community in which we live and that's the nature to which you appeal and hopes that behavior will change in the future. Mayor Morgan recognized Mr. O'Boyle who said: Good morning again. The first amendment of the constitution protected freedom of speech. It does not protect the freedom of speech of someone saying hello how are you, it protects the other side that is unpopular speech. Granted there's popular speech and unpopular speech. The unpopular speech is protected by the Constitution of the United States and I would assume that the residents of Gulf Stream, the people in the County of Palm Beach, the State of Florida and United States of America would respect the law of our land. That's all I have to say about them. Mr. Randolph I was writing quickly and I didn't know if what I wrote was correct. So, if I can ask, did you say that the existing ordinance is constitutional? 14 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 Attorney Randolph stated no. He indicated that the Town had an ordinance in place at 66 -327 and 66- 446 -448, that's been in existence for a long time that the Town, until recently, hadn't had problems with. However, because that ordinance is being challenged, he believed that it is right and right for the Council to look at it and consider the content neutrality, and the time, place and manner of restrictions in the way it's been addressed within this ordinance. Mr. O'Boyle stated that he understood but asked if he was correct in saying he heard you say the existing ordinance is constitutional? Attorney Randolph stated that he didn't know that he said it just like that. Mayor Morgan stated that he believed it was, he thought our ordinance was constitutional, but as you know, because you filed the lawsuits involving it, there's case law across the books. Judges interpret things in myriad fashions, there's uncertainly there, particularly when you get into first amendment law, as you know. And so all we're trying to do is clarify that and make it totally content neutral so that we avoid lawsuits such as the one you would bring against the Town. So is something constitutional, is something not constitutional, that's up to the Courts to decide. The Town is trying to prevent lawsuits, trying to get the Town to continue to function as it always had functioned without the distractions and expenses of lawsuits brought by people like him. Mr. O'Boyle stated that he was in full agreement with Mayor Morgan's statement that he made. He stated, just so I'm clear, you believe notwithstanding the order of the Court that the present ordinance is constitutional. Mayor Morgan stated he did, that's his opinion. Mr. O'Boyle asked Mayor Morgan and absent the content neutral provision, you would agree that it's constitutional as well Mr. Randolph? Mayor Morgan stated to Mr. O'Boyle that they did questions and answers here and he would be glad to give his opinion, but he thinks for counsel to give a legal opinion based on an ordinance that is part of a litigation would be inappropriate. He didn't think that he should respond to that sort of question for whatever that's worth. He stated that he is not involved in that suit. He thinks that's probably the extent of it and if he wanted to comment on the ordinance that's being considered right now, then it would be 15 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 appropriate. But to further go into what you have filed a lawsuit on and is subject to Court review would be inappropriate at this time. Mr. O'Boyle stated fair enough and asked Attorney Randolph if he believed the new ordinance is constitutional. Attorney Randolph replied yes. Mr. O'Boyle said and you as well Mr. Morgan? Mayor Morgan replied yes I do. Mr. O'Boyle replied that's fine. He said he did not see what Mr. O'Hare showed the Commission but did get a little glimpse of it, but he didn't get any answers to his questions. He then asked the Mayor if he intended to answer the questions regarding those various inquiries? Mayor Morgan stated that he thought he was raising questions for their consideration that's why he asked him was he intending to pursue legal action based on the differences he found in the ordinance and in the photographs of signs that he had presented to US. He said no, that he was just trying to give the Town essentially food for thought to consider with the passing of this ordinance. Mr. O'Boyle stated right and asked Mr. O'Hare if he was expecting a response to his questions. Mr. O'Hare replied that he just wanted to know what to do, how to act and what use he could put his property to and still be lawful because once the ordinance is passed, he didn't want to break the law. Mayor Morgan replied sure, let's get the ordinance passed and it's pretty much self explanatory, he thought it's clear, Mr. Ganger stated he thought it was clear. Mayor Morgan thought a number of these things didn't even fall under the purview of this ordinance. Attorney Randolph stated that what they're dealing with here is a facial constitutionality question. They're trying to address the facial constitutionally of it. If there's going to be an applied challenge at some time in the future, then they have to deal with that at the time. They're not talking about an as applied challenge, they're talking about a facial constitutionality. We may not have an answer to some of these questions raised today, and we may have to deal with that at some future time, he said. He felt several of the comments that were made were addressed. Commissioner Ganger spoke in regard to the transient nature of the vehicles. He pointed out that 16 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 they had talked about the lemonade stand and that he answered that in a purely legal way, saying that you can't distinguish between a lemonade stand and something else. Those are things from a practical standpoint that you're going to have to look at down the line, but they're dealing with a facial constitutionality of the ordinance at this point. Mayor Morgan stated well said. Mr. O'Hare stepped up and said that it's not just a burden on the homeowners to not be sure that's legal and not be legal, but people like Lt. Allen here, he's driving around and he has to know what to enforce. Now if he decides this sign is okay, this sign no, they're going to throw the book at him. Well that's selective enforcement. It's not fair to him or any of the other officers to have to make a distinction driving around town. Is a big skeleton illegal? I'm not going to bother with that, that's ridiculous but that's the law. The law should be clear so that everyone understands it. That's all, thank you. Mr. O'Boyle stated that he would close with one question directed to the Mayor referring to Commissioner Ganger and what Commissioner Ganger said when dealing with trucks with signage. He asked if he meant that trucks with signage would be permitted in Gulf Stream? Commissioner Ganger replied that commercial trucks identifying who the commerce is...it's a plumber .... it's a baker.... it's whatever, have always been permitted and there's no change as far as he is concerned versus the current ordinance and this. Mr. O'Boyle said if it said Mr. Ganger's a creep that's no good? Commissioner Ganger asked, is that the commercial creep company or what. Mr. O'Boyle said it would not be the creep company. Commissioner Ganger asked so what is it? Mr. O'Boyle stated that it's just a name making a political statement which you're allowed to do in America. Commissioner Ganger asked, for commercial purposes? Mr. O'Boyle answered, no for political purposes. 17 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 Mayor Morgan stated that had nothing to do with this ordinance. He stated that Mr. O'Boyle was just raising questions to talk and pointed out that this ordinance has to do with signs on property, and Mr. O'Boyle is talking about trucks driving down the street. Mr. O'Boyle asked so this does not include trucks driving down the street? Mayor Morgan stated that's not how he read this. Mr. O'Boyle asked, and Mr. Randolph? Attorney Randolph stated that the ordinance speaks for itself, and he didn't think this was the time for Q & A with regard to what might happen. He thinks these are all legitimate questions to be raised. He stated that Mr. O'Boyle heard him loud and clear when he said that the Town cannot look at the content of a sign to determine whether it's legal. If it says Mr. Ganger is a creep and it's otherwise legal under this ordinance, then it's absolutely fine. Whether it says we love Mr. Ganger or we think he's a creep, that's not something we can deal with and he thought that's the intent of the ordinance and that the ordinance speaks for itself. Mr. O'Boyle asked if trucks with Mr. Ganger is a creep would or would not be permitted. Attorney Randolph stated that he would not get into a Q & A with him with regard to that and he might want to address that in Court when he goes to Court. Mr. O'Boyle stated that he didn't want to go to Court, he wanted an answer as Mr.... Mayor Morgan explained that it is not the content, it's the sign. Mr. O'Boyle stated that's good enough, thank you all. Mayor Morgan asked if there were any other comments and recognized Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez stated that he just had the opportunity to work with the Police Dept. and being a reserve in Ocean Ridge, the benefit of the truck signs is for Lt. Allen and Chief Ward to be able to identify who's working in the development or a house and it makes it a little bit easier for them. It also helps them to align their vision to see if they have a decal that says Town of Gulf Stream on the vehicle so it protects us as homeowners. He thinks those are two different 18 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 things. He stated that personally if somebody had a sign that said Bob Ganger's a creep, legal or not, it would be extremely inappropriate. He said if there's anybody he knows on the Town Commission its Bob Ganger and he always thought when he grew up he wanted to be like him. But he believed the intent is that all are trying to work together in making this a better Town. He stated that right now he found this the best Town around, but if anybody could share with him what's a better Town, he would be glad to find out what they're doing and share it. He added that he was just trying to add a little more dimension as a homeowner. Mayor Morgan thanked Mr. Martinez and asked if there was anyone else. If not we have ordinance 15/1 for consideration. Is there a motion to approve on first reading. Mr. Ganger made a motion to approve on first reading Ordinance No. 15/1 and it was seconded by Commissioner Orthwein with all voting AYE at roll call. The Town Clerk advised that we probably needed a Special Meeting to go to second reading on this particular ordinance and we had to have advertising time. She suggested an appropriate time would be during the last week of January. The 29th is not available so they would have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Friday. Mayor Morgan asked Monday is what day? Commissioner Ganger advised that he is free on January 26th but not so the remainder of the week. All Commissioners agreed that the Special Meeting would be held on January 26, 2015 at 9:00 A.M. Commissioner Ganger asked to have stated the single purpose for the meeting and was advised it is to have the second reading of the Ordinance No. 15/1. B. Items by Attorney 1. Reimbursement for Attorney Sweetapple. Attorney Randolph reminded that Mr. Sweetapple had been appointed to represent them in several cases against the Town and advised that his firm has been sued as a result of its being involved in the Citizens Awareness Foundation suit. Attorney Randolph further advised that his insurance company is defending him in these lawsuits but they are having to be out of pocket for these expenses until their deductible, which is a $25,000 deductible, has been met. He said that Mr. Sweetapple has asked that, because this suit results from his activities on behalf of the Town, the Town Commission handle his attorney fees up to the amount of the deductible. He stated that he 19 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 brings this before the Commission because of a request that was made by Mr. Sweetapple that the Commission needs to give consideration to and that's the issue before the Commission. Commissioner Ganger stated that he is unaware as to what the substance of that lawsuit is. Mayor Morgan explained that it is a lawsuit brought against himself and Sweetapple based on defamation of character and various other things. It is a suit brought, in my opinion, to try to undermine Mr. Sweetapples representation of this town and therefore he would not be in the position of getting sued had he not taken on our representation and handled it in the fashion he is handling it. He has a deductible in his policy and it would seem reasonable to me that we help cover that expense since he wouldn't be in that position if we had not asked him to represent the Town. Commissioner Ganger asked if there is a limitation on how much we would be helping with since we are also compensating him for his services as an attorney. The Mayor explained that insurance policy has assigned counsel but there is a $25,000 deductible and that's the obligation he would be responsible for and that's what he is asking for us to cover up to. Commissioner Stanley asked if we have confirmation that his liability carrier is going to or currently is defending him in the suite to which Attorney Randolph replied that his information comes thru Mr. Sweetapple and he has been given the name of the law firm that is representing him. Commissioner Orthwein asked if this is normal and why would we be paying his deductible. Attorney Randolph said we would basically be pa be out of pocket because of the result of being lawsuit. It's not as you are paying his deductible so to compensating him for his out of pocket expenses defending himself in the lawsuit that he became he is representing the Town. ying fees that he will involved in the speak but you are that are involved in involved in because Commissioner Ganger asked that if legal expenses can be recovered would the town get its money back. Attorney Randolph stated that he would think so but he did not know the extent to which legal fees are recoverable because he is not OFE Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 personally that familiar with the lawsuit. He said that could be made a condition or an addition in the event the Commission chooses to reimburse those fees if they are recoverable. Commissioner White asked if this is a common practice to which Mr. Randolph replied that he had not seen it happen. Commissioner Ganger commented that one hates to see one's own attorney being blindsided where in good faith we have asked him to represent us and he didn't think we would have assumed that someone would sue him for representing us. He found this whole thing to be outrageous and disgusting. He felt Mr. Sweetapple's goodwill and his reputation needs to be defended as does ours. Commissioner Ganger moved to approve reimbursement of his legal expenses up to $25,000 with the condition that the Town be reimbursed if those fees are recoverable. Commissioner Orthwein questioned if it is possible to learn more about this and is it a common practice. Attorney Randolph remarked that the matter could be deferred to the Special Meeting on January 26, 2015 at which he would bring back what information he could find with regard to previous situations such as this. Town Manager Thrasher asked to comment at this point and Mayor Morgan agreed to the request. Mr. Thrasher stated that no one should believe that we are not committed to defending this. He reported that the Town has contingencies sufficient for that loss and, from a staff perspective, he recommended that the Commission approve the motion at this meeting if possible. He felt it important that we show strong support as what we have expected from him. Mayor Morgan believed Mr. Sweetapple would not be requesting it unless in good faith he thought it was due and appropriate for the Town to cover that expense. He pointed out that he trusts him, he has supported us and been invaluable in putting together the defense to protect this town and I am in favor of it. The Mayor said if the Commission wants more information and would want to defer the matter, that would be O.K. too. Commissioner Stanley stated that he had not seen a situation like this either but if it is to be deferred, it should be decided at this time exactly what the Commission is looking for in order to make the decision at the Special Meeting. He didn't think a whole lot was going to happen in the span of 14 days. 21 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 Mayor Morgan thought this request should be approved at this meeting but would be in agreement to deferring to the Special Meeting if the Commission would be more comfortable with it. Commissioner Stanley believed if it is to be approved at this meeting then we should have a letter advising the name of the law firm handling the suit on behalf of Mr. Sweetapple's law firm, that they are indeed handling the case on behalf of the carrier and confirming the amount of the deductible and their hourly rate, along with the amount of expense that has been incurred to date. Commissioner Ganger confirmed that his motion stands with the amended language as offered herein by Commissioner Stanley. Commissioner White seconded the motion. Attorney Randolph asked if he is to obtain this additional information that has been verbalized. Mayor Morgan confirmed this adding "from Counsel to you as Counsel to the Town ". Mr. O'Hare asked if he could comment before this is made official action to which Mayor Morgan answered, yes. Mr. O'Hare said: This is the first time I heard about this law suit. It sounds like it's about Mr. Sweetapple doing something wrong. Attorneys represent Towns across the country but they know when to keep their mouth shut. Because Mr. Sweetapple might have said the wrong thing is not the Towns responsibility. Now $25,000, that's sweet. For you also have to know for months I've been trying to disqualify Mr. Sweetapple `cause he used to represent me. And, it's not right, in my opinion, that he is now representing against me. He's already charged the town $20,000 for that. That's not the towns fault. He had an obligation to tell you that I was his client and he didn't. That's Sweetapples fault. For him to charge you $20,000 for that and $25,000 this ... there is a law against that. It's called fiduciary responsibility with the public money. Please think carefully before you continue to spend the public money to defend Mr. Sweetapple. I agree with you. He's a very unusual attorney with unusual methods. Mayor Morgan said: You filed your motion in that case and that will be judicially decided. Any other questions from the public? There was no other comment from the public, the Town Clerk called the role with regard to the motion and the Commission unanimously voted AYE, in favor of the motion. C. Items by Mayor and Commissioners 1. Proposed Legislation - Public Record Law. 22 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 Vice Mayor Ganger explained in detail that the Florida League of Cities and the Palm Beach County League of Cities are mounting an effort to bring forth some amendments to the existing public records law and that he and Town Manager Thrasher have attended four committee meetings in regard to this effort. He further explained that the State Legislature meets for a very short period each year and that for this year there are over 500 pieces of legislation that are being submitted for consideration. As a result, the League has selected a short list of 10 that they will be supporting for legislative action and the bills to amend the public records are one of the 10. He said that the language in the bills is not exactly to the committees satisfaction but is being refined with caution in that there is no movement to remove the public records act entirely (it is a good law) but would make it more difficult for those who are taking advantage of it. He cautioned that it may not make it thru the Legislature this year but with the amount of support around the State, it is expected that this effort will be continued until some success results. Mayor Morgan commended Vice Mayor Ganger and Town Manager Thrasher for their work and the time they have given in this regard as did Commissioner Orthwein. Mr. O'Boyle asked to speak and said the following: Thank you Mayor for this opportunity. I heard what Mr. Ganger said and I think for the most part, what he said was correct. However I have, whatever I have in my hand, a article that came out this morning from The Florida Center of Investigating Reporting. I just want to read you two quick sections. Number one, in this supposedly RICO suit the Town's star witness is a fellow named Joel Chandler as you all know. And Mr. Chandler supposedly filed 200 records requests. And, his statement here is ... the record requests he filed were none the less lawful. Meaning they were in accordance with the law. I also point out Barbara Peterson, for those of you who don't know Barbara Peterson, Barbara is the head of the First Amendment Foundation in Tallahassee. Barbara Peterson was quoted as saying.... Barbara Peterson, President of the Tallahassee based First Amendment Foundation and the FCIR Board Member thinks the proposed legislation limits access too severely. In other words that they are too severe. I don't know a lot about politics but what I do know is when you have a First Amendment Foundation on this side and the legislature on the other side there is usually a compromise or one falls. So, I wouldn't get too confidant on your position as it applies to the public records act. And, I just want to say, it cuts both ways. I agree with you there is some abuse out there, I see it myself. And when you see abuse it's usually from a charlatan. But then again you see the abuse 23 Town Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing 1 -9 -15 from the other side, which is usually from a Thrasher. So, think about it, comes from both sides and I think if we ever get one of these cases to trial, if the Town ever lets us get one to trial then we are going to start getting results. And when we do, someone here is going to be apologizing to the other and I really hope it's not me. Thank you all. Mr. O'Hare asked if he could take advantage of Mayor Morgan's good will since you extended that to Mr. O'Boyle to make a 30 second comment as well. Mayor Morgan said that luckily he is a kind and understanding man and Mr. O'Hare replied that "actually you are" because he knows Robert's Rules of Order and he could boot them right out. Mr. O'Hare said: Mr. Ganger is right and thru records requests I actually read the memorandum from Mr. Randolph to the League of Cities and I agree with a lot of it. Basically what I think might happen is they might pass a law in Tallassee saying the fee shifting is appropriate and if you lose a records request you have to pay the fees of the other attorney. I think that's appropriate. I don't think anybody should file a malicious action in any regard. But, that's got nothing to do with a record request. The fact that I can come here and talk to you with the knowledge I think I have is because of all the records requests I make. I found out so much stuff and some I think helped the Town. The issue is, I just got a response to a request I made 13 months ago. That's just unacceptable. I know Rita, Ms. Taylor, has been working Saturdays and Sundays and I think that's also unacceptable on this because if you've got 9 million to spend on RICO, certainly you could put somebody in there to answer record requests more quickly. I don't think the problem lies with all these phantoms making the mal requests but rather with the inadequacy or you to respond to legitimate requests for records. Thank you. Mayor Morgan asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners and there were none. X. Adjournment. Meeting was adjourned by the Mayor at 10:35 A.M. C arVitVal i. Recording Secy. 24 REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2015 AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order. Mayor Morgan called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by the Mayor. III. Roll Call. Present and Scott W. Morgan Mayor Participating: Robert W. Ganger Vice Mayor Joan K. Orthwein Commissioner Thomas M. Stanley Commissioner Donna S. White Commissioner Also Present & John Randolph Town Attorney Participating: William Thrasher Town Manager Rita Taylor Town Clerk Garrett Ward Police Chief Danny Brannon Engineer Terry Cudmore Contractor Christopher O'Hare G.S. Resident Martin O'Boyle Barbara Sloan Tony Graziano Mrs. Graziano William Boardman IV. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 2015. Vice Mayor Ganger asked that it be made clear that the proposed All Aboard Florida trains would be traveling at a maximum of 79 MPH in Palm Beach County but up to a maximum of 110 MPH in counties to the north of Palm Beach County. Vice Mayor Ganger moved for approval with this added clarity and Commissioner Stanley seconded the motion with all voting AYE. V. Additions, withdrawals, deferrals, arrangement of agenda items. There were no changes to the agenda. VI. Announcements. A. Regular Meetings and Public Hearings 1. April 10, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 2. May 8, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 3. June 12, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 4. July 10, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. 5. August 14, 2015 @ 9:00 A.M. Mayor Morgan asked if any of the Commissioners expected to be absent for the April 10, 2015 meeting and all indicated they expect to be present. Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 VII. Communication from the Public (5 min. maximum) Christopher O'Hare, a Town Resident, was recognized and reminded that near the end of the February meeting, it was announced that a Federal RICO case had been filed and that Attorney Sweetapple had arrived just prior to the announcement and had remained to accept accolades from the public after adjournment, and received credit for the RICO Case. He said he didn't mind that as people have a right to their opinion but he didn't think Mr. Sweetapple did a great job which will be decided in the future. He said that some made comments about doing whatever we could to get rid of the enemy but he didn't think requesting records or taking the Town to court makes anybody an enemy. He thought this might violate the decorum policy and wanted the Mayor to be aware of that, and perhaps to keep things under control in the future. Martin O'Boyle was recognized and reported that he was out of town during the last meeting but did read the minutes and observed that the Town has finally filed their RICO Action. He believed the mayor had said something like he didn't want to be put in a thousand cuts of glass, or something similar. He asked Mayor Morgan if that was correct to which the mayor reminded this is not a question and answer period as he has been reminded of a number of times and to please continue on. Mr. O'Boyle stated that the mayor has put himself in a position where there is going to be 10,000 pieces of glass and he hoped that no one were to be injured, particularly in connection with this outstanding board. He stated that Mr. Boardman spoke, "the epitome of ignorance ", about how this is such a grand idea but "when you pop the hood, he never looked at the engine, never even saw if the engine was there, and I commend you Mayor for getting that kind of support where people don't even look and they support you ". He remarked that Mr. Thrasher says there is abuse of the public records act and he would like to find out what the abuse is. He further remarked that Mr. Thrasher also said there have been several dozens of law suits filed and he believed that is correct. He stated that the Town last month spent $135,000, and up to a million all told, in legal fees rather than give Mr. O'Hare and himself documents they requested which is not sound thinking to him. He said that he observes that the commission has their cheerleaders present but he wondered what the whole town would say. He suggested that the Mayor send out one of his letters explaining how much is being spent and what the win is at the end of the day and how much he intends to donate should the Town lose this RICO Suit, and how much Commissioner Orthwein intends to donate if the Town loses. Should this happen, he believed he would find them outside hiding behind a bush. He didn't believe either of them was willing to put up a nickel and want all of the people to pay. He remarked that none of these dozens of record suits have come to court yet because you have stopped every one of them. He wondered why this would be done if the Town was going to be so successful. He believe this is costing twenty five to fifty thousand dollars a copy which is beyond ludicrous. 2 Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 There were no others that requested to speak. VIII. Reports. A. Utility Undergrounding -Danny Brannon (Engineer) Mr. Brannon reported that the street lighting fixture has been received and they are in the process of receiving bids for the installation that will be an example of the fixtures that would be installed. With regard to the project budget, he advised that about $10,000 in engineering costs had been lumped into Phase I that should have been in Phase II and that number will change in the next report as it was only discovered this past week. He reported that AT &T and Comcast are in the process of preparing their engineering based on the record drawings they were provided with. The FP &L drawings are being reviewed to make certain that the Town is not being charged in the undergrounding project for work that would be considered maintenance work that would be paid for by FP &L. He said there is approximately $150,000 worth that is under review. In reply to questions from Mayor Morgan and Vice Mayor Ganger, Mr. Brannon advised that AT &T and Comcast are preparing their engineering for removing their lines from the poles into our underground pipes. He added they couldn't start on this until we had provided them with the as -built drawings of our installation. He further advised that AT &T does their engineering and then sends it out to be fabricated by other venders while Comcast does their own fabrication. He noted that they have had our as -built drawings about two months and that he has requested that each provide him with a progress report but as yet has not received one. Mayor Morgan said it may become necessary for the Town to step in with some appropriate steps to force the issue. He further said he would like to have some comment from other commissioners that if we don't get a definite resolution from Comcast and AT &T within a month, the Town be authorized to look into taking other steps to force the issue. Mr. Boardman was recognized and asked Mr. Brannon to repeat how long it took to get the poles down in the Jupiter Island project to which Mr. Brannon replied it took between two and three years, from the middle of 2010 to sometime in 2013, and they are still resolving the final billing on that. This period was from the time the power was in until the other utilities were connected. Vice Mayor Ganger said that the Mayor their project would be finished much very high on these types of projects asked. 3 of Jupiter Island had thought that sooner than it was but he is still and speaks with other Towns when Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 Mayor Morgan observed that with this information it appears that Gulf Stream could be looking at another year before these utilities are finished to which Mr. Brannon stated that is not unreasonable. The Mayor stated he just wanted to make sure the Commissioners had no objections to pursuing this aggressively. Barbara Sloan was recognized and asked if there could be a status report on Phase II and that perhaps there could be some thought given to writing into the agreement some timing issues. Mr. Brannon stated that at this time they are in the process of working out those issues with FP &L that he had mentioned, adding that he has had better success working with the officials of AT &T and Comcast in this area than with similar utilities in other areas. He said that he has been in touch with some of the executives in Atlanta and the local manager for Comcast relative to installing their cable for them and they were agreeable to discussing this. He pointed out, however, that it would most likely cost a great deal more for us to do it than for them but if time is a consideration, then it's worth investigating. He said March 2016 is still the goal for having all of the FP &L related work completed. Commissioner Stanley observed that it appears we could expect that Comcast & AT &T would be completed with their work two years after FP &L is completed and Mr. Brannon concurred. Mayor Morgan believed that we would be negotiating Phase II agreements before Phase I is finished and we should have several persons involved with these negotiations when the time comes. Mr. O'Hare was recognized and advised that he seems to recall that he was assessed what seemed like $25,000 or $30,000 for the undergrounding and that was money well spent as it is a great project. He said he has worked with the same bureaucracies Mr. Brannon is working with and he knows it's not his fault. He said that sometime you find out that they have an expedited service if you want to pay a little more money. He suggested that the Commission might want to have Mr. Brannon look into this possibility. There was no further comment from the public or the Commissioners. B. Town Manager The Town Manager had no report. C. Architectural Review & Planning Board 1. Meeting Dates a. March 26, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. b. April 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. c. May 28, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. d. June 25, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. E Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 e. July 23, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. f. There is no August Meeting g. September 24, 2015 @ 8:30 A.M. D. Finance Director 1. Financial Report for February Mr. Thrasher called attention to the report is prepared to answer any questions. There Morgan declared it accepted as submitted. E. Police Chief 2015 he has submitted and said he were no questions and Mayor 1. Activity for February 2015 Chief Ward asked that the report be accepted as submitted. There were no questions and the Mayor declared the report accepted as submitted. IX. Items for Commission Action. A. Related to a Previous Approval Mayor Morgan asked if there has been any ex -parte communication on this item and there was none declared. In reply to a question from the Mayor, Mr. Thrasher stated that Mr. Cudmore had spoken to him in the hall and advised he was withdrawing his request to place a portion of the exfiltration system in the right -of- way and that he would be submitting a letter confirming that promptly. Mayor Morgan asked if he was also withdrawing his request for the second driveway to which Mr. Thrasher replied that he was not. He apologized for telling Mr. Cudmore he could leave. Mayor Morgan directed that an attempt be made to contact Mr. Cudmore by phone to see if he could return to present the application and suggested that items from the Mayor and Commissioners be addressed at this time. 1. Revised Site Plan for 3250 Polo Drive requesting approval to add a second driveway entrance and to revise the previously approved landscape plan - Cudmore Builders In relation to this matter, the Town Clerk administered the Oath to Terry Cudmore, Tony Graziano, Mrs. Graziano, Christopher O'Hare, William Boardman and Barbara Sloan. Mr. Cudmore explained that there has always been a drainage problem in this area and they had added extra drainage structures because of this problem. He noted that the drainage that is planned to be installed on the property meets the requirements that 1 inch of rainfall be retained on the site. The portion of the system that would have been in the right -of -way would be more than is required for the site. Mr. Cudmore said the original plan provided for cars to enter at the front entrance then turn and travel to the north side of the property and turn again, to the west, to be in front of the garage doors. He pointed out that they had positioned the garage so that the doors did not face the street. By adding this second driveway, the driveway through the front yard will be replaced with a stepping stone walkway with the stones being divided with grass strips. 5 Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 Mayor Morgan said he has a problem with the second driveway. He pointed out that the house was approved with a street view that had one entrance in the middle facing the front door with a considerable amount of landscaping screening the front of the building. He further called attention to the size, that being a large, looming building, especially the garage, and that with the one driveway, the landscape material blocked a considerable amount of the building. He felt that by opening the second driveway it changed the aesthetic complexion of the property by giving two views to the building. He said it is also a concern that the second driveway is already under construction without first having received approval. Mr. Graziano was recognized and stated he wanted to once again voice his frustration with regard to this construction that has been going on for nearly 17 months across the street from his property. He questioned if there is a law that prevents the enforcement of the new resolution regulating permitted working hours from applying to this construction site. He suggested that if this request is granted, there be a condition placed on the approval that they will comply with the new resolution, and be subject to fines if they awakened him at 6:45 A.M. again. He acknowledged that the police come by every day between 7:00 and 7:15 A.M. but it doesn't help when the work starts at 6:45 A.M. Mr. William Boardman was recognized and suggested that a summary of the regulations in the new resolution be given to each of the workers as he felt the resolution is excellent. He was concerned that adding the second driveway is adding a vast amount of bricks to the front of the property, pointing out that this area has had a problem with water in the past and he would like to have a commitment that if in the future there is a problem, they will take the necessary steps to fix it. Mr. Thrasher, in reply to a question from Mayor Morgan, stated that the drainage plan that has been provided and reviewed by the Town's engineers does provide that the first 1 inch of run -off is to be stored and can be ex- filtrated on the site and those numbers have been verified. He further stated that the code only says 1 inch of run -off but that in a 3 inch rain event or greater, there will be a pooling of water in many locations in our town. He pointed out that this is what the owners and builders are obligated to do and they have met that obligation. He said that prior to this construction there was a swale area that the town created that worked reasonably well but during the construction and placement of rock for the parking area during construction combined with the sloping of land in this area in relation to the street there has been no ability for any percolation of water. The Town Manager explained that Mr. Cudmore was not bound by some of the requirements in the new resolution on working hours because the document was adopted many months after this job started. However he said it is his understanding that the police department has issued several citations at this site but that he will refer that to the Chief. 2 Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 Chief Ward said there have been citations issued for parking violations but that doesn't affect the new resolution one way or the other. However he said they are still limited in the enforcement of the resolution due to the fact this has not been signed off by the contractor. Mayor Morgan asked what if it is signed -off now and the Chief said if he were to do that voluntarily it should resolve the issue. Mr. Cudmore said he had no problem with that as when he started this job he has known the working hours were 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. and at the beginning he fenced the property, placed a lock on the gate and installed a sign stating no work before 6 A.M. He explained that what is being discussed is those who arrive at work early. He added that he didn't want it to be thought that there were workers arriving at 6:45 regularly, that it was a one -time happening when a truck with a load of palm trees left Clewiston very early and arrived ahead of time. Mrs. Graziano was recognized and stated that the sign, no work before 8 A.M. only appeared a few months previously and was not there for the first year. Some of the workers had keys or the code to the gate lock because she saw them inside the fence prior to the Cudmore supervisor arriving, she said. Mr. O'Hare was recognized and observed that it is a public road and he did not believe someone can be told they can't be on the road before 8 A.M. whether they are working or not. He asked if there is a statute that says you can't have the driveway cut he is requesting. Mayor Morgan stated his objection to it is the neighborhood and the esthetics of the building and garage which is the furthest point out, adding that he will be asking for comments from the public. Mr. O'Hare stated that some years ago Mayor Koch gave him a lady palm, the same kind Commissioner White has in her yard but that he was brought before code enforcement for having that plant because it wasn't listed in the Code. He said that those plants and others not in the Code are in this application and he was wondering if it is now the Town's policy that there are no prohibited plants except invasive species, that any other plant is OK. Mayor Morgan recalled that Mr. O'Hare has raised this a number of times and he understood the landscape plan has been reviewed and is consistent with the Code. The Mayor pointed out that Mr. O'Hare has raised this question with every application that has come up and it is duly noted. Mr. Boardman commented that the parking was handled the best that he has seen but he had one suggestion, that the landscaping in front of the house be the last thing that is done so the front yard can be used for parking right up to the end. 7 Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 Commissioner Stanley asked Mr. Cudmore to point out the drainage areas in question. Mr. Cudmore pointed out the area that has been reduced in size and moved out of the right -of -way on to the private property. Commissioner Orthwein commented that there is considerable landscape material in place and Mr. Cudmore explained that they had to bring the plantings in at this time in order to be able to locate the underground drainage properly. He said they expect to be finished with the job within about 6 weeks. Commissioner White asked the height of the ficus hedge to which Mr. Cudmore replied that it is over 8 feet tall. Mr. Graziano asked that if a vehicle was parked on the site before 8 A.M. with the motor running could a citation be issued under the new resolution. Mayor Morgan stated that there is no reason that the Motor needs to be running. Barbara Sloan said she was in agreement with Mr. Graziano that a truck engine running is very annoying. Commissioner Stanley moved to approve the driveway modification at 3250 Polo Drive as proposed by the applicant by removing the connecting driveway in the front, adding a French drain, additional landscaping and also adding an additional curb cut to the motor court to the north of the property subject to the contractor signing the contractors affidavit to be subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the Town a few months previously. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Orthwein and all voted AYE at roll call. B. Items by Mayor & Commissioners Commissioner White reminded that at the last meeting it was thought there would be a resolution to be considered regarding the All Aboard Florida project. Vice Mayor Ganger reported that he had planned to work with Christine to expand a document that would be relevant to Gulf Stream in that the document to which she had referred was generic to coastal communities. He said that in view of recent events, those being the two crashes at crossings and the failure of a 100 year old railroad bridge causing a backup for miles that lasted for hours, more time should be given to evaluate the impact on our community before a resolution is considered. He further noted that there are some who feel the project is just a way to bring more freight traffic thru and yet there are some very smart individuals who refute some of the concerns voiced by the public. He believed all views should be.evaluated, adding that Boynton Beach favors the project in that all of the crossing in their town will be upgraded at no cost to their taxpayers but there will be operating costs to Boynton Beach which they feel they can handle. K Town Commission Regular Meeting & Public Hearing March 13, 2015 X. Adjournment. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:15 A.M. Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2014 AT 9:00 A.M. IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. II. Call to Order: Mayor Morgan called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Morgan. III. Roll Call: Present and Participating Also Present and Participating Scott W. Morgan Mayor Robert W. Ganger Vice -Mayor Joan K. Orthwein Commissioner Thomas M. Stanley Commissioner Donna S. White Commissioner William H. Thrasher Town Manager Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk John C. Randolph Town Counsel Garrett J. Ward Chief of Police Maria Sachs State Senator Danny Brannon Utility Undergrounding Mark Marsh Architect Christopher O'Hare Resident Martin O'Boyle Resident IV. Minutes: A. Regular Meeting and Public Hearing of 5 -9 -14 Vice -Mayor Ganger moved and Commissioner Stanley seconded the approval of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes of May 9, 2014. All voted AYE. Motion passed. B. Workshop Meeting of May 9, 2014 Vice -Mayor Ganger moved and Commissioner Stanley seconded the approval of the Special Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2014. All voted AYE. Motion passed. V. Additions, Withdrawals, Deferrals, Arrangement of Agenda Items: Attomey John Randolph requested to add Item X.C, Emergency Ordinance 14/2. Martin O'Boyle objected to the addition. He believed this action does not follow Robert's Rules of Order. VI. Announcements: A. Regular Meetings and Public Hearings Mayor Morgan announced the upcoming Regular Meetings and Public Hearings, and inquired if there would be any absenteeism or conflicts, and there were none. 1. July 11, 2014 @ 9:00 A.M. 2. August 8, 2014 @ 9:00 A.M. 3. September 12, 2014 @ 9:00 A.M. 4. October 10, 2014 @ 9:00 A.M. Regular Meeting and Public Bearing June 13, 2014 5. November 14, 2014 @ 9:00 A.M. 6. December 12, 2014 @ 9:00 A.M. VII. Communications: A. Requests 1. Report on 2014 Legislative Session — Senator Sachs Mayor Morgan stated that Senator Sachs was not present at this time and recommended that she speak as soon as she arrives. B. From Residents (5 min. maximum) Christopher O'Hare stated that the recent letter from Mayor Morgan seemed to indicate that the problems facing the Town are being caused by certain residents in Gulf Stream while actually they are due to lack of communication to the Commission and the public and the leadership on the part of the Town Manager and Attorney. He cited an example of an agreement failing to get recorded in a timely manner. Martin O'Boyle explained that he remains seated during the Pledge of Allegiance inside the Town Hall because he does not feel he is in America and the flag salute means nothing in the Town Hall Chambers. He expressed respect for Attorney Randolph and described Attorney Sweetapple as a hot shot lawyer. He pointed out that nearly $300,000 has been spent on legal fees. VIII. Public Hearing: A. Application for Development Approval: 1. An application submitted by Mark Marsh, Bridges, Marsh & Associates, as agent for Robert M. Gardiner owner of property located at 530 Old School Road, Gulf Stream, Florida, legally described as Lot 8, Block 3, Plat No. 1 Polo Fields Subdivision: Mr. Marsh was recognized and first presented a photograph of the existing dwelling. He pointed out that it is a Gulf Stream Bermuda style structure with stucco walls and white, flat tile roof. He then displayed the site plan showing the area of the proposed project, the southwest corner of the home. He explained that the request is to add a bedroom consisting of 253 square feet which is an extension of the west nonconfomling wall of the home. This nonconforming wall encroaches 3.5 feet into the west side setback and will also encroach 5 feet into the rear waterfront setback, matching the existing wing on the southeast comer of the building, he said. He closed his presentation by advising that it will only be necessary to remove one small, nearly dead, tree in the area of the proposed addition and they will be installing foundation plantings around the new addition. The Commission asked a few questions and Mr. Marsh answered their concerns. a. Commissioner Stanley moved and Commissioner Orthwein seconded to approve special exception to permit an encroachment of approximately IT into the west side setback. All voted aye at roll call. Motion passed. Regular Meeting and Public Flearing June 13, 2014 b. Commissioner Stanley moved and Commissioner Orthwein seconded to approve special exception to permit the 253 sq. ft. addition to extend approximately 5' into the rear waterfront setback in the Core Design District. All voted aye at roll call. Motion passed. c. Commissioner Stanley moved and Commissioner Orthwein seconded to approve Level III Architectural /Site Plan based on a finding that the proposed construction of a 253 sq. ft. bedroom addition to an existing non - conforming Bermuda style, one -story, single family dwelling at the location described herein meet the minimum intent of the Design Manual and applicable review standards. All voted aye at roll call. Motion passed. IX. Reports: A. Utility Undergrounding — Danny Brannon (Engineer) Mr. Brannon gave his update on the progress of the Undergrounding project with a submission of a handout for reference. An update on the progress of the Lighting project was included as well. Vice Mayor Ganger had concerns regarding the landscaping. Mr. Brannon responded to his concerns. B. Town Manager Town Manager Thrasher stated that he had no report. C. Architectural Review & Planning Board 1. Meeting Dates a. June 26, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. b. July 24, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. c. There is no meeting in August. d. September 25, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. e. October 23, 2014 @ 8:30 A.M. Vice Mayor Ganger asked if the Ad Hoc report would be at the next meeting. Clerk Taylor assured that it would be on the agenda for the next ARPB meeting. D. Finance Director 1. Financial Report for May 2014 Town Manager Thrasher presented the Financial Report for May 2014. There were no questions. 2. Water Usage as of May 31, 2014 Town Manager Thrasher presented the Water Usage report as of May 31, 2014. Commissioner White had a question regarding the capital outlay for streets line item on the budget report. Town Manager Thrasher explained the line item budget amount. E. Police Chief 1. Activity for May 2014 Police Chief Ward presented the Activity Report for May 2014. He pointed out that there was new software which explains the new format. Mayor Morgan asked for any questions or comments. There were none. X. Items for Commission Action: A. Adjustment of Positions of ARPB 3 Regular Meeting and Public Flearing June 13, 2014 Mayor Morgan explained that there was one too many alternate members and not enough regular members on the ARPB. A promotion of an alternate to the regular member status was needed. There was discussion on who held seniority of the three alternates and it was determined to be Mr. Dockerty. Mayor Morgan suggested putting this subject on hold since Senator Sachs had arrived. Senator Maria Sachs introduced herself and informed everyone that she has been our Senator for the past two years due to redistricting. She mentioned that she would be available to anyone for any concerns they may have and that her office is located in the Delray Beach City Hall. She further mentioned that she will be keeping in touch periodically. Mayor Morgan thanked Senator Sachs for coming by to speak at the meeting. Senator Sachs thanked the Commission for allowing her to speak. Mayor Morgan moved the conversation back to the ARPB members. There was discussion concerning different possibilities of moving people around to reduce the chances of not having quorums. Vice Mayor Ganger suggested that Bob Dockerty be promoted to a regular ARPB member. Commissioner Orthwein moved and Vice Mayor Ganger seconded the approval of moving Bob Dockerty to a regular member position. All voted aye. Motion passed. B. Emergency Ordinance 14/2 -An ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream, Palm Beach County, Florida, providing an amendment to Chapter 66, zoning; Article I, in general, to include a new section, Section 66 -11, providing for reasonable accommodation procedures pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendments Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; providing for severability; providing for repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for codification; providing an effective date. Attorney Randolph explained the ordinance regarding reasonable accommodation procedures. He explained the reasoning why it should be adopted as soon as possible. Commissioner Stanley voiced some concerns and Attorney Randolph addressed those concerns. Mayor Morgan asked if there were any comments from the public. Martin O'Boyle requested the decision be held off and reconsidered because it wasn't in the orders of the day. Mayor Morgan reiterated by asking if he had any comments. Mr. O'Boyle had several questions and concerns that Attorney Randolph addressed. Vice Mayor Ganger moved and Commissioner Orthwein seconded the motion to adopt emergency Ordinance 14/2, an ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Gulf Stream, Palm Beach County, Florida, providing an amendment to Chapter 66, zoning; Article I, in general; to include a new section, Section 66 -11, providing for reasonable accommodation procedures pursuant to the Fair Housing Amendments Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; providing for severability; providing for repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for codification; providing an effective date on fast reading. All voted aye. Motion passed. Attorney Randolph informed the Commission that the Town will advertise the Ordinance to be re- adopted on second reading at the next meeting. C. Items by Mayor & Commissioners Mayor Morgan asked if there was any other items from the Commission. 4 Regular Meeting and Public I fearing June 13, 2014 Vice Mayor Ganger informed the Commission that he had attended the four hour Delray Beach Meeting regarding the consolidation of the Delray Beach Fire and Rescue with the Palm Beach County Fire and Rescue the evening before. He informed the Commission that the City of Delray Beach rejected the one year proposal and will be staying with the Delray Beach Fire and Rescue as it exists. Mayor Morgan thanked Vice Mayor Ganger for the informative update. There were no further comments. XI. Adjournment: Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 10:07 A.M. Kelly Avery Deputy Clerk 5 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 AT 5:01 P.M. IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL, 100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA. I. Call to Order. Mayor Morgan called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. II. Roll Call. Present and Participating Also Present and Participating Scott W. Morgan Robert W. Ganger Joan K. Orthwein Thomas M. Stanley Donna S. White William H. Thrasher John Randolph Rita Taylor Garrett Ward Barbara Sloan Mayor Vice Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Town Manager Town Attorney Town Clerk Police Chief Town Resident III. Presentation of the Proposed Budget and Proposed Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015. A. Explanation and discussion of Proposed Millage Rate as compared to the rolled back rate. Town Manager Thrasher called attention to the document under consideration pointing out this is a balanced budget in the amount of 4,129,691. Included in the expenditures is a line item for contingency or reserves in the amount of $169,550. He reported the proposed millage rate for 2014 -2015 fiscal year is 3.90 mills and last years millage rate is 3.70 mills. The operating taxable value for fiscal year 2014 -2015 is a little over 878 million dollars. The calculated rolled -back rate for the tentative budget for the fiscal year 2014 -2015 is 3.4969 and the proposed millage rate is 11.53% higher than the calculated rolled back rate, he said. Mr. Thrasher reported that some of the highlights of the budget include capital expenditures of $662,000, which primarily includes installation of street lights and illumination of the street signs, a little over 421,000, and some paving and drainage. He further reported that a 3% increase in wages is provided for the employees in accordance with the CPI for 2014. He advised that in April 2014 the CPI was reported to be 2.3 and historically that has been used to calculate any possible increases in wages for public employees. B. Comment from the Commission and the public. Vice Mayor Ganger questioned if the $40,000 that is budgeted for street paving would be enough and Mr. Thrasher stated that this is not an ideal capital budget he would hope for, but at this time he did not see a major failure looming with regard to the streets and that the $40,000 would deal with normal issues with road repairs. Commissioner Stanley noted that in past years, there has been fends added to the contingency but this year shows no such increase. Mr. Thrasher stated that is correct, this is an assumption as it is Town Commission Tentative Budget Hearing September 12, 2014 @ 5:01 P.M. difficult to forecast just exactly what may be happening with some of the challenges the Town is facing. Vice Mayor Ganger commented that in the future it will be difficult to drop below 3.9 mills as the Town does need to build the reserve to provide for emergencies. Commissioner White called attention to a clerical error in the dates at the top of the first column on page 7. The Town Manager agreed that this is an error and will be corrected to read 2013 -2014. Barbara Sloan, 3660 Bermuda Lane, was recognized and asked what percentage of the budget is related to legal fees and the percentage of the budget related to records requests. She questioned if there could be A rough estimate as to how much this nuisance is costing the Town? Mr. Thrasher stated he estimates approximately 20% of the budget is being utilized for this. Ms. Sloan it is unfortunate this meeting is happening at this time of year even though she realizes we have no choice in this matter. In view of this she said she would like to see a letter from the Mayor giving information to the residents to make everyone aware of what is going on. She didn't speculate on what could be done but suggested there might even be a Town revolt. Patsy Randolph asked if this expense could have its own line in the budget. Mr. Thrasher said that he wished that could happen but it is a little more complicated. He pointed that in the past each employee was assigned certain duties and responsibilities associated with operating a town. Now, with this public record responsibility it has become necessary to shift and divide responsibilities, adding overtime etc., all of which needs to be figured into this extra cost. He further advised that the State of Florida mandates that we use certain headings for revenues and expenditures which includes account numbers and name of the accounts and there is no such line item for public records, and he could not create an account that is not on the State's chart of accounts. Chris O'Hare stated that the information Ms. Randolph wants can be obtained by making a public records request for copies of Jones Foster invoices and all of the employee's time spent on these matters. Martin O'Boyle was next recognized and stated it is clear to him that he is the whipping boy and that the audience has not a clue as to what is going on. He stated that the Mayor may want to share that the town has 2 Town Commission Tentative Budget Hearing September 12, 2014 @ 5:01 P.M. hired an investigator to investigate his family at the expense of the town. He stated he has 9 or 12 records request this year that have not yet been adjudicated. He believed in comparing his cost to the towns cost it would show the towns cost to be 3 times higher. He believed the reason is because the town is not defending but is pursuing. He went on to advise there is a rumbling on the street that there is a big charge coming against him and his family. He said, "I don't know if it is true or not but I think it is. And if it is, I can assure everyone in this room that it will cost you one million dollars more, not a hundred thousand, not two hundred thousand, one million dollars. I'm not going to be messed around with by you guys. Let's make that straight and I will spend the money, I have the money, and if you want to fight you are going to get a fight. I told you last time I thought the best thing is for everyone to sit down and see if there's a way to resolve things. You rejected that, you have every right to reject it, I understand that, and so we're moving on. If you pursue something like I think you are going to pursue, you'll be ready for me, or maybe you won't be ready for me, but you will after a while. I've been down this road before and I spent over a million dollars on similar situations. So, I don't really want to spend that money, on the other hand I will. Nobody is going to mess with my family. Nobody. That includes you Mr. Morgan. So the legal cost, the legal costs are absolutely out of control. But one has to ask, why are they out of control? They won't answer questions. We go across the hall, we get stonewalled, they play hide the ball, whatever the case is, we file a law suite and they file motions to dismiss, depositions, production, motions to disqualify, motions for sanctions, motions, motions, motions and I'll bet they're probably in the 20 to 30 thousand dollar range for 3 cents worth of paper. In any event, I think its foolishness, I think the people ought to get together, not to say they are going to settle the differences but you never, never will settle them until you start talking. Thank you." Mr. O'Hare came forward and explained he was not addressing the budget before. He stated he is grateful for living in a country where he can criticize the government and question authority without being arrested. He called attention to the $2,000 budgeted for the library and asked if the library would be moved outside the security zone so anybody can go to the library, or can anybody go the library now. Mayor Morgan answered that the library is open to the public. Mr. O'Hare noted there is a 4.2% increase shown for police, 7.4 increase in benefits. He believed this to be a good thing. He then stated the Town Manager is getting 8.1% increase and an 8.2% benefits increase. He further noted there is $440,000 budgeted for legal for 2015, but it's not enough. He stated the tax collector stated the tax revenue will not be available until March 2015, 6 months from now. Noting the current pace of legal expenditures each month, and because of pending litigation, he believed the towns reserves will be depleted by Christmas. He stated town leaders have blamed the money troubles on him 3 Town Commission Tentative Budget Hearing September 12, 2014 @ 5:01 P.M. and Mr. O'Boyle. He believed the shortfall is because the leaders would rather spend town money than admit the town made a mistake. He stated he recently made an offer to settle for filing fees and the Town did not respond in time. The money the town will spend on the attorney responding is less than the money he asked for and an admission that the record existed and please give it to him. Mayor Morgan asked if that is the offer that was withdrawn yesterday even though you knew today was the Commission meeting at which it would have been presented for consideration. Mr. O'Hare stated an emergency meeting had been called in the past for consideration of the handicapped ordinance. Mayor Morgan asked if Mr. O'Hare felt an emergency meeting should have been called for his settlement case and stated that he just wanted to clarify this for the record. Mr. O'Hare stated the Town has done plumbing repairs and installed the intercom system, all in the town hall. He further stated that the town did not get a permit from Delray for this work and now will have to pay a triple charge. He believed that if a Delray inspector had been involved the intercom bell would have been installed lower to meet the handicapped requirements. With regard to the restricted parking in front of town hall, Mr. O'Hare believed the town violated their Comprehensive Plan by reducing the parking available to those using the beach in order to prevent anyone from parking a message in that area, adding that a hedge was then planted in the back so no one could see a message if it was parked in that area. He stated that the town has 178 acres of recreation and open space but that is only for those belonging to a private club. He thought there should be a mini -park or such pointing out the children can't go to the school because that's private. He believed it to be a misappropriation of public money. Mr. O'Hare believed the regulations set out in the Town Code are vague. He felt this should be taken to court He stated there will be other litigation, mentioning trespassing on Polo Cove that he believes violates all maritime law, constitutional law, right to navigational waters. He believed the town would lose that along with his roof, his solar power and some other big cases that he could not remember at the moment. He suggested it would be better to get this all settled instead of spending more money each time the lawyers write a letter. IV. Adoption of the General Fund Tentative Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015. El Town Commission Tentative Budget Hearing September 12, 2014 0 5:01 P.M. Vice Mayor Ganger moved to adopt a General Fund Tentative Millage Rate of 3.9 mills for fiscal year 2014 -2015 and Commissioner Orthwein seconded the motion. All voted AYE at roll call. V. Adoption of the Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015. A. General Fund Vice Mayor Ganger moved to adopt the General Fund Tentative Budget in the amount of $4,129,691 for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015: Commissioner Orthwein seconded the motion and all voted AYE at roll call. C. Enterprise Fund (Water) The motion to adopt the Enterprise Fund Tentative Budget in the amount of $1,011,000 for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 was made by Vice Mayor Ganger and seconded by Commissioner Orthwein with all voting AYE at roll call. VI. Public Hearing Date for Final Adoption of Millage Rate & Budget. Mayor Morgan announced that the Public Hearing for adoption of the Final Budgets for 2014 -2015 would be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 5:01 P.M. in the Town Hall, 100 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida. VII. Resolutions. A. No. 014 -07; A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE LEVYING OF AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM GENERAL FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OCTOBER 1, 2014 AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2015; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Town Clerk read Resolution No. 014 -07 in its entirety. Commissioner Orthwein moved for adoption of same and Vice Mayor Ganger second the motion with all voting AYE at roll call. B. No. 014 -08; A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE GENERAL FUND TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OCTOBER 1, 2014 AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2015; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Town Clerk Taylor read Resolution No. 014 -08 in its entirety and Commissioner Orthwein moved that it be adopted as presented. Vice Mayor Ganger seconded the motion and all voted AYE at the roll call. C. No. 014 -09; A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE WATER FUND TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OCTOBER 1, 2014 AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2015; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Following the reading of the entire Resolution No. 014 -09 by the Town Clerk, Commissioner Orthwein moved for its adoption. Her motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Ganger and all voted AYE at roll call. VIII. Adjournment. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 5:40 P.M. 5 Town Commission Tentative Budget Hearing September 12, 2014 @ 5:01 P.M. x Ai Z, rj, - - - - Rita L. Taylor Town Clerk Good Morning: I hand this writing to you at the behest of Martin O'Boyle who is out of town. Mr. O'Boyle wishes to address the agenda item titled "Consideration of Filing RICO Action and Retaining Special Counsel to Represent the Town". For those of you who are not familiar with RICO Actions, the costs for such Actions have been known to run into the millions of dollars. Mr. O'Boyle assumes that he along with his associates is the recipients of this proposed RICO Action. 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. 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. Mr. O'Boyle urges Gulf Stream to file their planned RICO Action as soon as possible, provided that they believe it is the proper thing to do, and remembering their fiduciary responsibility.. In closing Mr. O'Boyle wants all to know that he is waiting for the Commissioners to take action; and he wants all to be prepared for the strike which he will inflict, which may include, inter a1ia, a RICO Action against the Town and \or all of is Commissioners and Manager.. The Town of Gulf Stream is pleased to report that it has reached an agreement with Martin O'Boyle to resolve the remaining public records lawsuits and avoid additional drawn out and costly litigation. The defensive approach taken by the Town in 2014 was essential in reaching this conclusion and effecting significant legislative changes to protect municipalities under the Public Records Law. With these changes in the law, we are confident that the Town and public agencies across Florida will no longer be threatened with an overwhelming number of public records requests. Since 2013, Martin O’Boyle and his affiliated entities filed dozens of lawsuits against the Town, involving public records. The cases that are part of this global settlement are all that remain of the 44 public records lawsuits which arose out of more than 2,500 public records requests. As part of this settlement, the Town is admitting that it violated the Public Records Act in four cases and is making a $15,000 payment in exchange for O’Boyle dismissing the remaining five cases. The parties will mediate in an attempt to settle the attorney’s fee element in the cases that were resolved in his favor. This is a business decision, and one that the Commission believes serves the best interests of the Town by capping all legal fees. In fiscal year 17-18, we secured dismissals or victories in seven public records cases with one case decided for O’Boyle. Previously, the Town prevailed or secured dismissals in another 27 cases. These successes and the change in the law provided the leverage we needed to secure this favorable settlement agreement and the Town is pleased to put an end to this protracted litigation. Renee Basel From:Trey Nazzaro Sent:Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:31 AM To:OConnor, Joanne M.; 'Robert Sweetapple' Cc:Scott Morgan Subject:Gulf Stream Press Release final draft Attachments:Gulf Stream Press Release (final draft).docx All, Please review and approve attached final draft for release as soon as we have dismissals on file (per Joanne). Thanks, Trey Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Staff Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 1 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, December 7, 2015 9:39 AM To:Garrett Ward Cc:Bill Thrasher Subject:Incident – Martin E. O’Boyle – Lobby of Town Hall – Evening of September 22, 2015 Attachments:MEO Ltr to Chief Ward Complaint 09.28.15.pdf Dear Chief Ward: On September 28, 2015, I sent you a letter making inquiry as to the Incident which occurred on the evening of September 22, 2015. We now are in our fourth month and you still have not responded. Would you kindly respond to my letter; or, in the alternative, just advise me that you have no intention of responding, whereupon I will take a different approach in gaining responses to my inquiries. I am hopeful that, as a citizen of Gulf Stream; and that your being a public servant, that you will kindly provide me the requested information without further ado. I thank you for your kind cooperation in advance. I look forward to a prompt receipt of this information. P.S. If you have already responded to the September 2, 2015 letter, if you could either re-send your response or advise me as to how and when it was sent, if we received it, I will let you know if the information sent was comprehensively responded to. Again, I thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 COMMERCE GROUP       www.commerce-group.com TEL. 954.360.7713  FAX. 954.360.0807 1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA 33442 moboyle@commerce-group.com Direct Dial Telephone #954-570-3505 gward@gulf-stream.org September 28, 2015 Town of Gulf Stream Police Department 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Attn: Police Chief Garrett Ward RE: Incident – Martin E. O’Boyle – Lobby of Town Hall – Evening of September 22, 2015 Dear Chief Ward: I write you this letter in connection with the captioned. Please accept this letter as a formal complaint against Officer John P. Passeggiata for physical abuse to a senior citizen, physical abuse to a handicapped person, the use of excessive force, violation of my constitutional rights and what is commonly known as, “police brutality.” Please let me know if there are any forms or any additional information you need in connection with the foregoing. Also, please let me know whether Officer Passeggiata will be suspended and/or subject to any other penalties for his conduct (which, I believe, “shocks the conscience.”) As in the past, should you continue to shirk your responsibilities when the conduct of what I consider to be a “bad cop” is brought to your attention, I intend to take this matter “upstairs” to the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Inspector General and/or the State Attorney’s Office. I trust that you will do the right thing and conduct an investigation; and, while doing so, suspend the Officer without pay. I thank you for your kind consideration. Page 2 __________________________________________________ I look forward to hearing from you regarding your intended action regarding the content of this letter. Once again I thank you. Sincerely yours, Martin E. O'Boyle CC: William Thrasher – Town of Gulf Stream via email William Ring, Esquire via email Jonathan O’Boyle, Esquire via email I:\P\NPR\L\AD\Sept 22 15 Incident Ofcr Passeggiata Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:08 PM To:Trey Nazzaro; Jeff Hochman; OConnor, Joanne M.; Robert Sweetapple Cc:Hudson Gill; Graciela LaCava Subject:Mayor's Statement to Coastal Star Attachments:Mayor Statement re O'Boyle.docx \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] Attached is my statement to the Coastal Star regarding the upcoming issue. Please provide your thoughts and comments. From: Trey Nazzaro Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2019 11:33 AM To: Jeff Hochman ; OConnor, Joanne M. ; Robert Sweetapple ; Scott Morgan Cc: Hudson Gill ; Graciela LaCava Subject: RE: DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream; Case No. 17-14177-B; GC2016084868 Jeff, Thank you for your insight. In speaking with the Mayor this morning, he believes it would be best for the statement to come from him. I will be circulating something soon. Thanks, Trey Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Assistant Town Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: Jeff Hochman <hochman@jambg.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:28 AM To: Trey Nazzaro <tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org>; OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; Scott Morgan <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Cc: Hudson Gill <hgill@jambg.com>; Graciela LaCava <Lacava@jambg.com> Subject: DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream; Case No. 17-14177-B; GC2016084868 1 \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] Additionally, I will be directing Mr. Plunkett to the following quote from the opinion. _____________________ The Court stated as follows: "Importantly, prior to filing its RICO action, the Town obtained substantial information that supported a reasonable belief that CAFI, O’Boyle, the O’Boyle Law Firm, and other individuals—including DeMartini—had committed fraud through their participation in an extortionate scheme involving fraudulent public records requests, false settlement demands, and subsequent multiple lawsuits designed to obtain attorney’s fees as opposed to the requested records. Specifically, upon resigning as Executive Director of CAFI, Chandler provided sworn testimony to Sweetapple, the Town’s special counsel, indicating that CAFI, O’Boyle, the O’Boyle Law Firm, and DeMartini were engaged in a fraudulent and unlawful effort to extort money from the Town via a public records litigation “windfall scheme.” As described by Chandler, the scheme involved two steps: (1) pummeling the Town with voluminous and intentionally vague public records requests that were designed to elicit either no response, an incomplete response, or an untimely response, and then (2) demanding that the Town pay an excessive settlement to avoid litigation under Florida’s public records law, including demanding attorney’s fees in excess of the fees and costs the O’Boyle Law Firm actually incurred to settle the case." See Opinion at *18 (citations omitted). Jeff Jeffrey L. Hochman, Esq. Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Office: (954) 463-0100 ext. 2917 Fax: (954) 463-2444 Hochman@jambg.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits just below the United States Supreme Court, recently issued a 73 page decision justifying the Town of Gulf Stream's decision to file a RICO lawsuit against Martin O'Boyle, the O'Boyle Law Firm and others. The Court held that Gulf Stream had "a mountain of fraudulent and extortionate conduct to present", and described an "O'Boyle-led scheme" to file nearly 2,000 public records requests and a dozens of lawsuits, not for the purpose of obtaining actual records, but "to strip the Town of money" by "bleeding the Town's coffers dry, one abusive lawsuit at a time." Gulf Stream will not be cowed by O'Boyle's abusive tactics. There have been 44 public records lawsuits, and the Town has won or forced the dismissal of 39 of them. We have agreed to pay reasonable fees in the remaining five lawsuits simply to avoid the increasing costs of litigation. But O'Boyle has tried to get what the 11th Circuit described as "excessive attorney's fees." Fortunately, our courts will not permit it. In the StopDirtyGovernment case, the judge reduced the O'Boyle Law Firm's fees by 70%, while another case settled for $6,000, an 83% reduction of fees. Misconduct like this must be confronted because it is not limited to O'Boyle's public records abuse. Over Thanksgiving, having been denied a permit to build an impermissibly large dock, O'Boyle brought in a barge and drove 20 concrete pilings into the water behind his home. He ignored orders from the police to stop so the Town was forced to secure an emergency court injunction against further work. We have always treated Mr. O'Boyle fairly and in the same manner as any other resident, but whenever his wrongful actions impact our town or affect his neighbors, we will take appropriate steps to protect Gulf Stream. Renee Basel From:Jeff Hochman <hochman@jambg.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 7:44 PM To:Jonathan O'Boyle Cc:Kristen Blackwell; Hudson Gill; Blanca Benlevy; Graciela LaCava; OConnor, Joanne M.; Trey Nazzaro Subject:O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream; Case No. 19-CA-006817 \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] Jonathan: This is a privileged and confidential settlement communication. A reasonable conclusion is that the Passeggiata case is simply "abusive litigation" and part of the "orchestrated" scheme discussed in the Eleventh Circuit's DeMartini opinion. To paraphrase: "\[Martin O'Boyle\], through the O'Boyle Law Firm, would demand unreasonable settlements, which included excessive amounts of attorney's fees and costs. The demands were based on threats that \[Mr. O'Boyle\] would initiate expensive and burdensome litigation or make pending litigation more expensive and burdensome. The end game of the scheme was not to have the Town's public records actually released, but to obtain attorney's fees for the O'Boyle Law Firm." See DeMartini v. Gulf Stream, (alterations added; citations omitted). To respond to your email, the Town would need more information. For example, is the O'Boyle Law Firm offering to waive its purported fees and costs? Given that no public records ever needed to be released in this matter (because the O'Boyle Law Firm already had the items before filing suit), it's hard to see how this case differs from the "windfall scheme" cases discussed in DeMartini -- a "whole scheme \[ \] designed solely to extort monies from the public coffers." Id. (alteration added). Jeff Jeffrey L. Hochman, Esq. Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Office: (954) 463-0100 ext. 2917 Fax: (954) 463-2444 Hochman@jambg.com On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:48 PM Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> wrote: Hudson, does the Town have any interest in consenting to judgment or resolving this matter. I figured I would as since we coming upon the closing of the year when people to wrap things up. We would be interested in an order to the effect that the Town has unlawfully withheld records by destroying or discarding records outside of the General Records Schedule Guidelines. Any word on filing an answer? 1 From: Kristen Blackwell <kblackwell@oboylelawfirm.com> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 2:24 PM To: Hudson Gill <hgill@jambg.com>; hochman@jambg.com; Blanca Benlevy <blanca@jambg.com>; Graciela LaCava <Lacava@jambg.com> Cc: Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> Subject: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream / 2019-CA-006817 Good Afternoon Mr. Gill, th Please provide dates for the depositions of William Thrasher and Serge Delaville for after the December 30 hearing. Thank You, Kristen The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Kristen Blackwell |Legal Assistant to Jonathan O’Boyle T: 754-212-4201 | F: 754-212-2444 |D: 754-212-4215 |kblackwell@oboylelawfirm.com Florida Office - Headquarters 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Office: 754-212-4201 Fax: 754-212-2444 Pennsylvania Office 2 1001 Broad St. Johnstown, PA 15906 Tel: 754-212-4201 Fax: 215-893-3641 New Jersey Office 525 Route 73 North, Suite 104 Marlton, NJ 08053 Tel: 856-619-8558 Fax: 856-619-8559 The O’Boyle Law Firm 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida, 33442 754-212-4215 | www.oboylelawfirm.com This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for damage arising in any way from its use. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. 3 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, October 30, 2015 9:35 AM To:Rita Taylor Cc:William Ring; Bill Thrasher Subject:PRR 2012 ; Our # 1155 Dean Madam Custodian of Records I noticed this am that the PRR as above was placed on the Town’s website by you or other staff, however, removed from the request were the two Exhibits. Consequently, in looking at several other posted PRR’s, I could find none that have been altered or manipulated. If the Town is posting the PRR’s, they shouldn’t “pick and choose” which ones (or which portions) to post. The Town should post them all or none. I know you understand and agree with that. Further to the above, to manipulate what you post solely to hide the subject matter is an absolute disgrace, particularly when the person you seem to be trying to protect is none other than the Town Manager. I view your actions as despicable and deceitful; and based on such actions, please give serious thought to resigning your position as, in my opinion, you have lost all credibility. When you start hiding record (or portions of record) requests, you are acting wrongfully and, as I see it, deceitful. With the above as a backdrop, I will have the captioned Request resent to you this am and if it is not posted consistent with the others, the Requestor plans on taking action against you and your staff to the extent that they are part of this “foul odored” cover up. I hope I made myself clear and I hope you will do the right thing. nd Kathleen – please resend 1155. Copy me and Attorney Ring. Note in the caption “2 request” Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Monday, April 15, 2019 9:51 AM To:Robert Sweetapple; Trey Nazzaro; Joanne O'Connor Subject:Re: Asset Enhancement v. Town of Gulf Stream I would not agree to this. It appears to be another intentional delay by O’Boyle. He has done this on the criminal case and on previous efforts to advance the civil cases. Friday afternoon around 2:00, O’Boyle had someone call me (someone on speaking terms with both O’Boyle and me) to forward O’Boyle’s desire to settle the Asset case and ask why did it have to go to trial. Even though the commission had met that morning and rejected the demand, O’Boyle obviously was still angling to negotiate a number and stop the case from moving forward through discovery and trial. I told this person that the commission unanimously rejected O’Boyle’s settlement number and had directed the attorneys to proceed toward trial. Now, suddenly, there is an “insurance adjuster meeting” and an “expert witness” preparation meeting that prevent the O’Boyles from sitting for depositions this week. The Commission was emphatic on Friday. Do not agree to delay this case. From: Robert Sweetapple Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 6:32 PM To: Elaine Cc: OConnor, Joanne M. ; Macfarlane, Mary T. ; Edward . Nazzaro (Trey) ; Scott Morgan Subject: Re: Asset Enhancement v. Town of Gulf Stream This is going to interference with Judge Small preparation as well since I am in California Wednesday till Saturday and have a 10 day trial starting the second week of May. Since you are leaving us no choice I presume we will work around this difficulty. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Apr 14, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Elaine <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> wrote: Joanne and Bob: Further to my conversation with Joanne yesterday, the principals of Asset Enhancement are embroiled in a million dollar insurance dispute concerning Martin O’Boyle’s house. They learned on Friday April 12, 2019 that an appointment with an insurance adjuster was scheduled for Tuesday, April 16, 2019. Marty, Bill and Jonathan need to prepare with their construction expert on Monday April 15 for the meeting with the adjuster on April 16. I have been instructed (i) to seek a brief continuance of the April 23 hearing on attorneys’ fees and (ii) to advise you that Jonathan cannot appear for deposition tomorrow and that we will reschedule your depositions (currently set for April 15) at a mutually convenient time. 1 I will call Joanne in the morning to ascertain when she can appear for UMC before Artau on Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance. Best regards, Elaine 2 Renee Basel From:Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 2:26 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M. Cc:scottmorgan75@gmail.com; Trey Nazzaro Subject:Re: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD LICENSE CBC017124 Marty didn’t sign the form we asked for and reneged on terms we agreed to. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Dec 7, 2018, at 9:06 AM, OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> wrote: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com> Date: December 7, 2018 at 8:59:57 AM EST To: "Ms. Joanne Marie O'Connor Esq." <joconnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: Elaine Johnson James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com>, Fred Hazouri <fred@matrixmediation.com>, Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com>, William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com> Subject: FW: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD LICENSE CBC017124 This message originated from outside your organization JoAnne, An email from the Town Manager’s executive assistant which was forwarded to me yesterday indicated that the Town Manager had rejected Mary O’Boyle’s offer to meet with the Town to go over the plans for completing the house project. The email indicated that one reason for this rejection was the Town’s concern that Marty had not yet hired a contractor to do the work. Marty is a Florida licensed building contractor and is acting as owner/builder on this project. Marty has been so licensed in Florida and elsewhere for 42 years, during which time he and has built hundreds of buildings. I’m attaching copies of his current Florida license as verification. Please share this information with the Town Manager and anyone else at the Town who you believe may be 1 operating under a misimpression about Marty’s professional qualifications to complete the project. As you know, the plan discussed at mediation Monday night was that Marty would sign and deliver the proposed Settlement Agreement on Wednesday (which he did), that a special meeting of the Town Council would be called for Thursday (yesterday) with the requisite 12 hours notice, and that the Council would vote to approve or reject the Agreement. You then advised us yesterday that the Council would not be meeting yesterday or today to consider whether to approve the Agreement, but that it will do so sometime before next Wednesday when the Ganger trial is scheduled to resume. From my perspective, the Town Council’s failure to meet yesterday and its rejection of Marty’s offer to meet with the Town to discuss and try to satisfy any concerns the Town has about the house project do not bode well for the prospects of the global settlement that appeared to be within reach Monday night. Accordingly, although Marty prefers to settle, the signals Marty is getting from the Town have caused our side to resume preparing for trial. If paragraph 18 of the proposed Agreement (dealing with the house project) is a significant obstacle to settlement from the Town’s viewpoint, please be assured that Marty and his counsel remain willing to discuss the house project, to go over the approved/stamped plans for the remaining exterior renovations, and to address any concerns. Based on my discussions with Marty and Bill Ring, the only material generator of noise will be the use of a concrete pump to pour the back deck, but this will be an activity of quite limited duration and the three immediate neighbors, including the only two neighbors on Marty’s street, do not object. Please let me and Elaine know if your client would like any further information on the house project, if the Town changes its mind about a meeting to discuss it, or if the Town has any other ideas on what can be done to resolve this point of contention. Best, Martin Reeder 2 <license.pdf> <walletlicense.pdf> 3 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:46 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:William Ring Subject:RE: Construction Site Management Handbook Renee – your statements below are incorrect. I am a licensed contractor. The project is underway. The permit is on site. It sounds like the Town wants to “run up another $1mm in legal fees”. If that is their wish, I will oblige. Now, with these “recent discoveries”, please advise if the Town’s position remains the same. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:42 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: Construction Site Management Handbook Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: Believing construction on your site was imminent, the Town tried to meet with you on three occasions to review the Construction Site Management Handbook prior to the commencement of your work. However, the Town Manager confirmed that your permit has not been issued and today you told the Town Clerk that you have not yet hired anyone to perform the work. Based on these recent discoveries, the Town Manager believes a construction meeting is premature at this time and is postponing your meeting scheduled for December 7 at 8:00 AM. Once your permit is issued by the City of Delray Beach, please contact us and we will promptly reschedule this meeting. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant 1 Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 Renee Basel From:Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com> Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 5:04 PM To:Elaine James; Trey Nazzaro; Ms. Joanne Marie O'Connor Esq.; MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com Cc:William Ring; Martin E. O'Boyle Subject:RE: Construction Site Management Meeting - Gulf Stream A copy of the building permit is attached. Martin Reeder Counsel for Marty E. O’Boyle. From: Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 4:58 PM To: Mr. Edward C Nazzaro <TNAZZARO@GULF-STREAM.ORG>; Ms. Joanne Marie O'Connor Esq. <joconnor@jonesfoster.com>; MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com Cc: William Ring <wring@oboylelawfirm.com>; Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com>; Martin E. O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: Construction Site Management Meeting - Gulf Stream Joanne and Trey: Renee Basel cancelled Marty O’Boyle’s plan review meeting tomorrow at 8 am, contending that he does not have a building permit or a builder. Please see below. To the contrary, Marty is a licensed general contractor and has a building permit. In fact work is underway at his house. PLEASE intervene and cause the meeting to go forward. The meeting is an important precursor to the Commission’s consideration of the settlement proposal and should occur ASAP. Many thanks, Elaine From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:42 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: Construction Site Management Handbook Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: 1 Believing construction on your site was imminent, the Town tried to meet with you on three occasions to review the Construction Site Management Handbook prior to the commencement of your work. However, the Town Manager confirmed that your permit has not been issued and today you told the Town Clerk that you have not yet hired anyone to perform the work. Based on these recent discoveries, the Town Manager believes a construction meeting is premature at this time and is postponing your meeting scheduled for December 7 at 8:00 AM. Once your permit is issued by the City of Delray Beach, please contact us and we will promptly reschedule this meeting. Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e- mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:46 PM To:Trey Nazzaro Subject:Re: Draft Press Release Please review. From: Trey Nazzaro Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:43 PM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Subject: Settlement Statement (rough) Mayor, In the event the settlement proposal is approved and you wanted to say something at the conclusion of the meeting, or send out something to the Coastal Star, I prepared the following rough statement for your review and comment: _____________________ The Town of Gulf Stream joins hundreds of municipalities, public agencies, and contractors subject to the public records act in its decision to limit attorneys fees in the face of additional drawn out and costly litigation. The initial defensive approach taken by the Town in 2014 was essential in reaching this conclusion and effecting significant changes in the law. With these changes in the law, we are confident that the Town and public agencies across Florida will no longer be taken hostage by unscrupulous public records requestors. Since 2013, Martin O’Boyle and his affiliated entities filed dozens of lawsuits against the Town, most of which were over public records. The cases that are part of this global settlement are all that remain of approximately 40 public records lawsuits which arose out of more than 2,500 public records requests made over less than four years. As part of this settlement, the Town is admitting that it violated the Public Records Act in four cases in exchange for O’Boyle dismissing the remaining five cases. This is a business decision, and one that the Commission believes serves the best interests of the Town. Fiscal year 17-18 was outstanding for the Town, having secured dismissals or victories in seven public records cases with no losses. These successes and the change in the law provided the leverage we needed to secure a favorable settlement agreement. ___________________ Thanks, Trey Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Staff Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 1 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 2 Renee Basel From:Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Sent:Sunday, December 9, 2018 10:55 AM To:Scott Morgan; Trey Nazzaro Cc:Joanne O'Connor; Jeff Hochman; Gregory Dunham Subject:Re: email to Joanne - settlement gulf stream - signed agreement I agree. This document is not what we discussed or represented we would recommend. If it is signed by him, my recommendation is that it be rejected and the commission’s proposed agreement or alternate agreements be countered. ________________________________________ ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE, ESQ. Board Certified Civil Trial Board Certified Business Litigation Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. rd 20 SE 3 Street Boca Raton, FL 33432 (561) 392-1230 (t) (561) 394-6102 (f) rsweetapple@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. From: Scott Morgan <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 10:46 AM To: Edward Nazzaro <TNAZZARO@GULF-STREAM.ORG> Cc: Joanne O'Connor <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>, Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>, Jeff Hochman <hochman@jambg.com>, Greg Dunham <gdunham@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Re: email to Joanne - settlement gulf stream - signed agreement The proposed release is unacceptable to me. Paragraph 3 now requires admission of fault, which is objectionable. The Town specifically addressed this point during last week's mediation and O'Boyle agreed to it. Paragraph 4 allows for future claims "arising from any matters other than" the dismissed and stipulated cases. This language practically invites further lawsuits. Paragraph 6 requires us to grant a general release in exchange for a very limited and specific release (see paragraph 4). Paragraph 17 permits ongoing residential code violations and paragraph 18 allows his home construction regardless of the Code. Paragraph 18 also employs non-legal terminology (carte blanche) which is vague and encourages litigation to resolve the dispute. This type of release is likely to embroil the Town in future litigation. That mistake was made in 2013 and should not occur again. 1 Last week's settlement negotiation was a classic O'Boyle ploy. Negotiate the settlement of existing cases. Once both sides agree, then he inserts new terms in the written agreement that grant him additional rights. During settlement negotiations, we never discussed his home or the ongoing violations with his residential construction project. Now, it becomes the centerpiece of his "release." Joanne, I appreciate what you have been doing since last week and especially over the weekend. Trying to nail down the terms of settlement with O'Boyle is truly a Sisyphean task. But at this point, I think it best if you just tell them to send over their proposed terms of settlement in a signed document, and the Commission can decide after full discussion regarding pros and cons, whether to accept that settlement or to respond to O'Boyle by setting forth the acceptable terms of settlement to the Commission, which terms will be identified in a written agreement along with assurances that no additional terms will be entertained. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:37 AM Trey Nazzaro <TNazzaro@gulf-stream.org> wrote: All, The issue I’m having is that when I left mediation at 8:30 Monday night, there was an agreement in principle to pay $200,000 and to resolve all the cases by either dismissal by Plaintiff or consent by Defendant. Now the Town is in a positon to consider that agreement but also a one-sided release and issues concerning the O’Boyle property/construction. Upon additional review of the SA, the end of paragraph 2 indicates the Town will be waiving attorneys fees under 119.12 in any future litigation. It reads: “to the extent that there is any Order or Judgment of any Court after the date of this Settlement Agreement issued or favoring the Gulf Stream Parties, the Gulf Stream Parties hereby waive payment of same.” If my interpretation is correct, that is not acceptable. In speaking to Joanne and Jeff this past week, the thought was to have the shade meeting wherein there would be consideration of the best SA the Town could get from O’Boyle, signed, and an alternative SA that would be more acceptable to the Town’s lawyers while keeping the same terms agreed upon at mediation (monetary payment and cases resolved in the same fashion). This increases the chance that a SA will be approved by the Commission at the meeting tomorrow. I think we need to turn in that direction and let Martin Reeder finalize what O’Boyle will sign while Joanne and Jeff can work on a SA to present to the Town for their consideration and approval. 2 I think that is the best way to navigate this moving forward with our limited time, as Joanne has spent countless hours this past week but the positon of O’Boyle, Ring, James, and Reeder continues to be a moving target. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns at 561-221-9008; Mayor Morgan should be consulted when crafting the Town’s version of an acceptable SA. Thanks, Trey Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Staff Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2018 7:44 AM To: Trey Nazzaro <TNazzaro@gulf-stream.org>; Robert A. Sweetapple (pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com) <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; scottmorgan75@gmail.com; hochman@jambg.com; Greg Dunham <GDunham@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Fwd: email to Joanne - settlement gulf stream - signed agreement Please review below and attached Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: 3 From: William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com> Date: December 8, 2018 at 7:06:36 PM EST To: "OConnor, Joanne M." <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: 'Martin Reeder' <Martin@athertonlg.com>, Elaine Johnson James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com>, Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com>, William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com>, "Jonathan O'Boyle" <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> Subject: RE: email to Joanne - settlement gulf stream - signed agreement This message originated from outside your organization Joanne: Following our conversation of moments ago, attached please find a redraft of the agreement, which has been marked by computer to show the changes from your draft (cleaned) of 6:30 PM yesterday. Utilizing the same numerical system as in the attachment, I asked that you kindly note the following: 4. We have added the marked language per your request. Martin Reeder can sign off on this. 7. We have rewritten this paragraph consistent with that which we understood that you wanted to achieve; which is for the town to preserve their rights in the event that there is a new claim asserted in that matter. If this language needs tweaking – please resolve with Martin Reeder. 18. We have added supplemental language at the end, which we would ask the Town to consider. I think the issue here is that when you look at the plans, the equipment, activities and materials (necessary in connection with the scope), that which we are asking for should not be problematic. Nonetheless, we ask you to look at the supplemental language, and give us your comments. 19. In connection with 1737. I understand your reticence to agree to the language as drafted, since it may cause a "blowup" of the settlement. I can assure you that that is not our position. Our position is that we agreed to dismiss this Case based upon Judge Hazouri telling us that there were no additional documents responsive and that the Mayor would sign an Affidavit to that effect. I understand from our conversation this evening that the Town is agreeable to that, but they do not want this provision to "blowup" the settlement. Considering the foregoing, we will leave it up to you and Martin Reeder to figure out how to resolve the memorialization so that the spirit will be consistent with Judge Hazouri’s presentation. Marty O'Boyle has confirmed to me that he will rely on Martin in this regard. 4 Logistically, we need to figure out how to get this done. Marty and I are both scheduled to be North Jersey on Monday. It would be in everyone's best interest to get done, by having everyone on board; and having the agreement signed by Marty no later than tomorrow, so that Monday at noon, the meeting will go smoothly and everything will be resolved. I am copying Martin Reeder on this transmittal. I am asking Martin if he has any questions in connection #4, #7 and #19 above, to contact me or Marty O’Boyle. Otherwise I would request that you and Martin resolve those items. As to the house, we are hopeful the Town can agree to the language. If not, speak to Martin about this as well. William F. Ring Real Estate & Development Commerce Group 1280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 954-570-3510 (ph) 954-360-0807 (fax) 954-328-4383 (cell) From: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 6:30 PM To: William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com> Cc: 'Martin Reeder' <Martin@athertonlg.com>; Elaine Johnson James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> Subject: RE: email to Joanne - settlement gulf stream - signed agreement 5 See attached redline and clean per our discussions this evening. I did broaden the concrete- pumping language a bit. I have forwarded to my side and asked for comments/concerns by tomorrow afternoon. Thanks, Joanne 6 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 25, 2019 4:13 PM To:Rita Taylor; Renee Basel; Gregory Dunham Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:RE: GS #2730 - Accounting - Various Records Requests - martin O'Boyle Rita – thank you or your note. When calculating the billings, the town calculated the time down to seconds. I do not understand the basis or such a finite advance time calculation. Plainly stated, I need to understand the basis for the calculation of time; and where and how the time was spent and by whom. Rita, I am convinced that I have been overbilled; and I know that I have been “stone walled” in connection with my multiple requests for an accounting over the last months . Further to the above, it is good to hear from you, as I’m thinking that you appreciate and desire to avoid litigation. Assuming I’m correct, you ne to know that I share that appreciation and desire. On the other hand, unless I get a clear understanding of the charges, I will be left with no choice but to litigate. Let’s work together and avoid that. Please call me if you need further clarification Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 4:00 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com>; Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org>; Greg Dunham <GDunham@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: GS #2730 - Accounting - Various Records Requests - martin O'Boyle Mr. O’Boyle: Please clarify what you seek that constitutes “an accounting” and the Town will supplement the information previously provided to you, if necessary. 1 Rita Taylor Town Clerk From: Marty O'Boyle \[mailto:meo@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 8:08 AM To: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org>; Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org>; Greg Dunham <GDunham@gulf- stream.org> Cc: Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: FW: GS #2730 - Accounting - Various Records Requests - martin O'Boyle Dear ladies and gentlemen: I write you in regard to my email (below); and Ms. Basel's letter attached. Firstly, the request made in my below email, of Thursday, June 20, 2019 6:55 AM, was not a request for records made pursuant to Chapter 119. Based upon Ms. Basel’s letter (attached) the Town's position is otherwise. Please provide the Town's legal position, citing its basis that a request for an accounting of monies in connection with a specific Chapter 119 request requires a new Chapter 119 request. Upon receipt, we will provide you with a prompt response. In the meantime, my position is that I have not been provided with a detailed accounting, explaining her the Town's basis for the imposition of its unexplained or costs. Consequently, unless I hear from the Town by the close of business on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 with either: (a) a legal position as to why our request would constitute the need to file under Chapter 119 (which our counsel agrees with); or (b) an invitation to promptly meet with the Town to obtain a proper accounting; or (c) unless an alternate agreement is reached, we will immediately institute suit and ask the Court to provide that which we are looking for. As always, I urge you to work with us and avoid litigation. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 4:21 PM To: Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: GS #2730 Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: See attached correspondence. 2 Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: Marty O'Boyle Sent:'s To: 'gdunham@gulf-stream.org' <gdunham@gulf-stream.org>; 'rtaylor@gulf-stream.org' <rtaylor@gulf-stream.org> Cc: 'Renee Basel' <rbasel@gulf-stream.org>; 'Michelle Melicia (mmelicia@commerce-group.com)' <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> Subject: Accounting - Chapter 119 Records Requests - Martin O'Boyle Dear Custodian of Records (Ms. Taylor) and the Town manager (Greg Dunham): I write this email to request an accounting of the substantial sums of money that I have paid to the Town in connection with the various requests made by me pursuant to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. In that connection, I have asked Renee Basel innumerable times to provide me with an accounting for the $$$ paid to the Town. I would ask you kindly confirm or the veracity of the preceding sentence with Ms. Basel. To be clear, each request for an accounting was greeted with a refusal to respond. I am now at the point where I insist on receiving the accounting, as requested. In that connection, if you feel you need any clarification as to what I am asking for, please contact me. I am making this one last request. If the Town does not provide the requested accounting; or provide me with a response that you will (within a reasonable period of time) provide the accounting by the close of business tomorrow, I will (with great reluctance) proceed to file suit and ask the Court to order the Town to do so. In closing, I urge the Town to not make me pursue such an unnecessary path, when either of the two of you could easily provide me with that which is requested without fuss. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. 3 Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 4 Renee Basel From:Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Sent:Sunday, September 22, 2019 8:43 AM To:Trey Nazzaro; Cynthia Miller Cc:OConnor, Joanne M. Subject:Re: Gulf Stream O'Boyle Litigation History and Martin O'Boyle Statements at Public Meetings Attachments:image002.jpg Thanks this is helpful. Cynthia please print this and attachments for impeachment if necessary. Regards, Bob Sweetapple > On Sep 20, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Trey Nazzaro <tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org> wrote: > > Bob and Joanne, > > Below are some notes regarding litigation history. Attached with summary immediately below are meeting minutes with statements by O’Boyle highlighted. He once posted a banner that said “Mayor Morgan is Destroying Gulf Stream. BANKRUPTCY IS COMING!” The truck was towed at one point; I believe his wife is the owner. However, I did not see anything attributable to him saying “I will bankrupt the town.” He always blamed the commission/ elected officials. > > Attached highlighted: > 101014 Budget Hearing: > Note read into the record from O’Boyle agent, in response to RICO O’Boyle “wants all to be prepared for the strike which he will inflict” > 61314 Meeting: > O’Boyle stays seated during pledge of allegiance inside Town Hall > because he does not feel he is in America and the flag salute means > nothing in the Town Hall Chambers > 31315 Meeting: > O’Boyle states that he hopes that no one would be injured (veiled > threat?) discussing the RICO action and the Mayor’s previous comment > about death by 1,000 cuts > 91214 Budget Hearing: > O’Boyle speaks and states “I' m not going to be messed around with by you guys. Let' s make that straight and I will spend the money, I have the money, and if you want to fight you are going to get a fight. I told you last time I thought the best thing is for everyone to sit down and see if there' s a way to resolve things.… I' ve been down this road before and I spent over a million dollars on similar situations.” > 1915 Meeting: > O’Boyle is not afraid of the Mayor, Commission, or RICO action. > > > > > > Public Records Litigation 1 > The Town has gone to trial in public records cases seven times, winning six of seven cases (three won against Oboyle, one lost). The one time the Town lost resulted in O’Boyle claiming ridiculously high attorney’s fees for work unrelated to his efforts to obtain records. In that case, O’Boyle initially sought more than $500,000, but has since reduced his request by more than 30% before the issue of fees has even submitted to the court. > > Since the fall of 2013, the Town has defended 44 public records lawsuits. This does not include approximately 16 public records cases brought by O’Boyle that were settled in early 2013, when the Town paid O’Boyle $180,000 and made certain concessions related to improvements to O’Boyle’s home not allowed under the Town code; these concessions were wholly unrelated to public records. > > O’Boyle (and entities) public records lawsuits against the Town by year: > 2013: 16 (settled, $180,000 paid and concessions regarding his home) > 2014: 17 > 2016: 1 > 2019: 1 > > Litigation history: > > Martin O’Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 2014CA000834 in the > Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach > County, Florida. (Sign-in sheet) Town prevails at trial The Town prevailed at trial in a written order dated January 31, 2017, in a case that serves as the perfect example of what the Town has called frivolous conduct. In that case, O’Boyle made the public records request on January 21, 2014. It was the last of nine public records requests O’Boyle sent to the Town by fax over a 15-minute period. The previous week the Town had received 90 public records requests, but was still able to acknowledge this request the same day. > The request was for the sign in sheet on the desk in the front lobby of Town Hall. When the Town did not respond immediately, O’Boyle filed suit the very next day, on January 22, 2014. The Town followed its normal procedures and produced the sign in sheet on January 23, 2014, before it was even aware of the lawsuit. > Four months later, O’Boyle filed an affidavit with the court stating for the first time that he made the request verbally and was denied the record at that time. The Judge found that O’Boyle did not demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that he made the verbal request, and found that the Town’s response was reasonable under the circumstances. > > Martin O’Boyle and Asset Enhancement Inc. v Town of Gulf Stream, Case > No. 2014CC015050 in the County Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in > and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Chandler docs and Legal bill) Town prevails at trial The Town prevailed at trial in an order dated December 7, 2017 against O’Boyle and his entity Asset Enhancement (“AEI”). One public records request was made by each Plaintiff in 2014, three years before the 2017 trial. Three days before trial, O’Boyle withdrew his count that alleged a 5-month delay in responding to a request was unlawful. O’Boyle’s public records request sought public records from Robert Sweetapple and others, including the former director of CAFI, Joel Chandler. Chandler had recently resigned from CAFI and provided Sweetapple with records from his time at CAFI. The O’Boyle Law Firm claimed in other litigation that the records from Chandler were stolen and should be returned. > > The remaining public records request from AEI and the sole focus of the trial were redactions to an attorney bill that the Town provided, redacting only 15 words on a 4-page bill with 45 billing entries. The O’Boyle Law Firm argued that attorney invoices could not as a matter of law contain attorney work product under the public records act, and in doing so advocated for a change in Florida law that has been accepted for 30 years. No authority or support was provided to change the law. AEI’s argument was for outside attorneys to not put anything usable in an attorney bill because the bills are public records. It is unclear to the Town how vague attorney bills would increase government transparency and accountability. > > The court reserved jurisdiction to determine whether the Town was entitled to attorneys fees, costs, and/or sanctions. 2 > > > > Martin O’Boyle v. Jones Foster Service LLC and Town of Gulf Stream, > Case No. 14-14780 73 in the County Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit > in and for Broward County, Florida. (attorney bill) Case Dismissed by Plaintiff In late 2017, in response to a case brought by Martin O’Boyle in his pro se capacity, the Town filed a motion for sanctions and a motion to dismiss after the case lay mostly dormant for three years. The public records request sued over was an attorney bill, which was provided after charging a fee of $117.50 for an attorney to review the invoice for attorney work product. The lawsuit seemed to imply that the Town could not charge attorney time for review of the invoices for exempt attorney work product. The request was made on September 22, 2014, and the Town responded by producing the records seven days later, on September 29, 2014. The Town securing a dismissal was the result of strong advocacy in the face of what it called in these motions a frivolous and harassing lawsuit, before laying out similar conduct by O’Boyle over the recent years in other litigation. > > > Additional Litigation handled by the Town’s insurance carrier > initiated by O’Boyle Martin O’Boyle v. Robert Sweetapple and Mayor Scott Morgan (individually and in his capacity as the Mayor of the Town of Gulfstream), Case No. 9:14-cv-81250-KAM, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. > The Plaintiff asserted claims against Mayor Morgan for (1) retaliation in response to speech protected by the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count II), (2) civil conspiracy (Count III), (3) conspiracy to commit slander (Count IV), and (4) conspiracy to commit retaliation (Count V). In essence, the Plaintiff claimed that Mayor Morgan engaged in “retaliation” by making various unfavorable public statements about the Plaintiff in response to the Plaintiff’s various litigation efforts. > During the discovery phase Magistrate Judge William Matthewman repeatedly found that O'Boyle had engaged in improper conduct while taking depositions as a pro se plaintiff. O'Boyle asked improper, vague, and irrelevant questions, and O'Boyle conducted his questioning in a manner designed to harass the deponent and waste time. See DE 177 at 4 (“This exchange displays Plaintiffs lack of professionalism and cavalier attitude and serves as an example of the time that was wasted during Defendant's deposition due to Plaintiffs conduct.”); DE 177 at 6 (“Such a procedure is wholly unprofessional, discourteous, and designed to delay and prevent the witness from properly and honestly answering the questions.”); DE at 8 (“All of these excerpts show how Plaintiff unprofessionally and improperly conducted Defendant’s deposition. Plaintiff’s actions caused the deposition to be unnecessarily long and contentious.”); DE at 9 (“In sum, Plaintiffs deposition of Defendant was unnecessarily long and contentious due to Plaintiffs improper manner of conducting the deposition.”). > O'Boyle's conduct during discovery in the Federal Litigation resulted in him being sanctioned multiple times. See DE 90; DE 157; and DE 231. > After protracted litigation, the Plaintiff stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit on August 18, 2016. The Plaintiff then filed a similar lawsuit in state court in Case No. 2017 CA 005226. While the Plaintiff threatened to join the Town and Mayor Morgan, no such joinder ever occurred. The new lawsuit was then dismissed on November 6, 2017. > > Martin O’Boyle v. William H. Thrasher, Jr. (individually), Garret Ward (individually), and Town of Guflstream, Case No. 9:14-cv-81248-DTKH, In the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. > The Plaintiff asserted claims against then-Gulf Stream Police Chief Garret Ward for battery (Count I), assault (Count II), unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s papers under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count III), and unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s person under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count IV). The Plaintiff also asserted claims against the Town of Gulfstream for unlawful seizure of his papers under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V) and unlawful seizure of the Plaintiff’s person under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count VI). Finally, the Plaintiff asserted claims against William H. Thrasher, Jr., for assault (Counts VII and VIII) and battery (Count IX). 3 > The Town, Thrasher, and Ward filed a motion seeking to dismiss of the Amended Complaint. On February 5, 2015, the Court granted the motion dismissing the case with prejudice and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s determination and a $10,304 fee award in favor of the Town. The Plaintiff paid the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust $10,331.49 as the result of an award entered by the trial court. > > Martin O’Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream, Case No. 2015 CA 001498 AI, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Trespass Case). > The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Town of Gulfstream for (1) inverse condemnation (Count I), ejectment (Count II), and trespass (Count III). The dispute involves whether certain underground improvements (buried electrical undergrounding conduit) installed in an easement near the Plaintiff’s residence encroaches onto the Plaintiff’s property. > The case was initiated in 2015, is not yet set for trial, and the Town continues to defend. > > Public records requests to the Town by year > 2013 650 public records requests > (18 lawsuits concluded as part of 2013 settlement agreement with O’Boyle; 10 lawsuits initiated by O’Hare) > 2014 1230 public records requests > (resulted in approx. 33 lawsuits by O’Hare and O’Boyle \[and related entities\]) > 2015 396 public records requests > 2016 405 public records requests > 2017 160 public records requests (65 since new public records bill passed May 23, 2017) > > \[https://st4.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2541653574?profile=or > iginal\] > > > Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro > Staff Attorney > Town of Gulf Stream > 100 Sea Road > Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 > (561) 276-5116 > > Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. > > > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. > <image002.jpg> > <06 13 14 Meeting.pdf> > <09 12 14 Budget Hearing.pdf> 4 > <10 10 14 Meeting.pdf> > <01 09 15 Meeting.pdf> > <03 13 15 Meeting.pdf> 5 Renee Basel From:Trey Nazzaro Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 3:31 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M.; Robert Sweetapple; scottmorgan75@gmail.com Subject:RE: Gulf Stream Press Release final draft All, We had a public meeting with the press in attendance, so the Mayor read the press release. The Coastal Star then contacted O’Boyle, because an article was published digitally about 30 minutes ago that quoted him: Gulf Stream and Martin O'Boyle have resolved nine lawsuits between them, with the town admitting that it violated the state's Public Records Act in four cases and paying its litigious resident $15,000 to drop five others. Both sides will go to a mediator in hopes of deciding how much Gulf Stream will pay O'Boyle's attorneys in the four cases settled in his favor. "This is a business decision, and one that the \[Town\] Commission believes serves the best interests of the town by capping all legal fees," Mayor Scott Morgan said as he announced the settlement Dec. 14. The nine cases in the settlement were all that remained of 44 lawsuits that arose from more than 2,500 requests for public records by O'Boyle and resident Chris O'Hare, Morgan said. The town and O'Hare signed a settlement in June 2017. "In fiscal year' 17-18, we secured dismissals or victories in seven public records cases with one case decided adversely to the town," the mayor said. "Previously, the town prevailed or secured dismissals in another 27 cases." Morgan credited Gulf Stream's aggressive posture in the cases as essential to reaching the settlement with O'Boyle and also in changing state law on public records requests. Now judges have discretion on whether to award attorney’s fees when someone successfully sues a government agency for improperly withholding records. Before, legal fees were automatic. O'Boyle said what he considers biased news coverage of his lawsuits led to it taking more time to settle the disputes. "They would have been \[resolved\] a long time ago if The Coastal Star hadn't written all those hit pieces which emboldened the town," O'Boyle said. link here: https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/gulf-stream-town-o-boyle-signal-end-to-public-records-war Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Staff Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida 1 law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 3:28 PM To: Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; scottmorgan75@gmail.com Cc: Trey Nazzaro <TNazzaro@gulf-stream.org> Subject: RE: Gulf Stream Press Release final draft All – Our stipulations of dismissal were filed last night and Jeff’s will be today. I would love to have consensus with them on the language of our consent judgments – and am waiting to hear back from Elaine James today -- before we send out the press release but will defer to you if you feel strongly it should go out today. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 3:19 PM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Cc: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; Trey Nazzaro <TNazzaro@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Re: Gulf Stream Press Release final draft This message originated from outside your organization Let it fly. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Dec 13, 2018, at 2:26 PM, "scottmorgan75@gmail.com" <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> wrote: Yes, I agree with your changes, Joanne. If anyone else has another comment, let us know today. Otherwise, I think we can put the press release out tomorrow. Thank you. 2 From: OConnor, Joanne M. Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 2:10 PM To: Trey Nazzaro ; 'Robert Sweetapple' Cc: Scott Morgan Subject: RE: Gulf Stream Press Release final draft A few final comments, including to make sure to use “Mr.” O’Boyle and to remove the sentence, “Since 2013, Martin O’Boyle and his entities filed dozens of lawsuits against the Town, involving public records.” I think that fact is made clear when we say these cases are all that remain of 44 public records lawsuits and don’t see a lot of value with repeated references to his name when we want him to work with us on the fees that remain outstanding. <image002.jpg> Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Trey Nazzaro <TNazzaro@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:31 AM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; 'Robert Sweetapple' <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Cc: Scott Morgan <scott@humidifirst.com> Subject: Gulf Stream Press Release final draft This message originated from outside your organization All, Please review and approve attached final draft for release as soon as we have dismissals on file (per Joanne). Thanks, Trey Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Staff Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road 3 Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 4 Renee Basel From:scottmorgan75@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 10:27 AM To:OConnor, Joanne M.; Robert Sweetapple; Trey Nazzaro; Jeff Hochman; Hudson Gill Cc:Macfarlane, Mary T. Subject:Re: Gulfstream-Settlement-mediation; First Amendment retaliation suit-Ovelmen Thank you, Joanne. My inclination is to cancel the mediation on March 4. Since O’Boyle is not operating in good faith to resolve the litigation with the Town, mediation over fees is unlikely to be productive. Instead, we should begin discovery in the various cases to establish that the legal fees were generated as part of a scheme not to obtain records, but to obtain unreasonable amounts of fees. This has been the Town’s position since the beginning of these cases and so it should be our defense to fee claims just as it was to the liability claims. From: OConnor, Joanne M. Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:45 AM To: Scott Morgan ; Robert Sweetapple ; Trey Nazzaro ; Jeff Hochman ; Hudson Gill Cc: Macfarlane, Mary T. Subject: RE: Gulfstream-Settlement-mediation; First Amendment retaliation suit-Ovelmen Please see the attached First Amended Complaint filed against the Town on February 11, 2019. Plaintiffs are Martin and Jonathan O’Boyle, Bill Ring, Commerce Group, Inc. and Commerce GP, Inc. versus the Town and Wantman Group, Inc. Plaintiffs are represented by Richard Ovelmen and others at Carlton Fields (understand he did the oral argument in the DeMartini suit). The suit brings four counts: Count I – First Amendment Retaliation against the Town Count II – Malicious Prosecution of RICO Suit against Wantman Count III – Abuse of Process (Town and Wantman) Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against Wantman. The suit has been assigned to Judge Beth Bloom and Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. The Court has entered its standard order requiring scheduling report (to be prepared and filed within 21 days of an appearance by a defendant) and certificates of interested parties. Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 1 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com Flagler Center Tower 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Scott Morgan <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 6:21 PM To: Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; Trey Nazzaro <TNAZZARO@gulf-stream.org>; Jeff Hochman <hochman@jambg.com> Subject: Fwd: Gulfstream-Settlement-mediation; First Amendment retaliation suit-Ovelmen This Message originated outside your organization. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Subject: RE: Gulfstream-Settlement-mediation; First Amendment retaliation suit-Ovelmen To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Scott-although I do not yet have a copy, I understand that we have filed suit against the Town and Wantman in connection with the RICO Action. I am alerting you to this event, since I don't want you to think that the filing was any type of ambush. Consequently, I wanted to get ahead of it. th; My hope is that this will not affect the up-and-coming settlement conference of lawyers on the 25or, if they can't reach a settlement at that time, the subsequent Mediation on March 4th. The above aside, if you are interested, it may be worthwhile for just you and I to sit and talk before then. I leave that decision up to you. If you wish for that to occur, you will let me know. Martin E. O'Boyle, 2 Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 3 Renee Basel From:Gregory Dunham Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 3:11 PM To:Friis, Candace; elizabethsorg17@gmail.com Subject:RE: HIDDEN HARBOUR LOT # 7 Candace: Thank you for your email. The Gulf Stream Police Department has warned those trespassing on the property in question and these individuals have said they will not be parking on the property tomorrow. Under the law, people must be warned before trespassing becomes a criminal offense. In the event someone decides to return to the property in question, we can issue the party a notice to appear reference a trespassing violation; however accompanying that notice to appear must be a sworn affidavit from the property owner or their representative stating your name, that you are the authorized representative of the owners, and that nobody has been given permission to enter or remain on the property. If you contact the Gulf Stream Police Department you can arrange a time to fill out the form. It can be notarized by a Police Officer. Very best regards, Greg Dunham Town Manager From: Friis, Candace <Candace.Friis@corcoran.com> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:55 AM To: scott@humidifirst.com; Gregory Dunham <gdunham@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Fw: HIDDEN HARBOUR LOT # 7 \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] Greg, I received the message below from a Hidden Harbor client. They are quite upset with Mr. O'boyle as you can read in their message below. Please let me know the town's response so that I can also let them know. You could also copy us both as their email is below. 1 Best, Candace Friis Candace Friis Corcoran Group 561.573.9966 candace.friis@corcoran.com www.candacefriis.com WSJ Top 75 USA ________________________________________ From: Elizabeth Sorg <elizabethsorg17@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:45 PM To: Friis, Candace Subject: HIDDEN HARBOUR LOT # 7 Dear Sirs, We have recently been informed that Mr.Oboyle is using our property as a parking lot for his construction vehicles. He has ruined our lawn and is in violation of our privacy. He is trespassing onto our property without permission and I would like to ask that you involve the Gulf Stream Police in supervising that he and his construction crew remain off of our property. Also, we would like him to take financial responsibility for the damage he has created. Sincerely, Karl-Heinz and Elizabeth Sorg *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 2 Renee Basel From:Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 3, 2018 2:37 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M. Cc:Trey Nazzaro; Robert Sweetapple; Macfarlane, Mary Subject:Re: Invoice 118714 from Matrix Mediation, LLC I’m boarding a flight from NYC to Florida and will respond as soon as I have spoken to my clients. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 3, 2018, at 11:59 AM, OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> wrote: Elaine – Please let me hear from you today regarding mediation next week as we have received another request for the overdue mediation payment. You indicated just recently that Martin O’Boyle is not able to attend mediation of this fee dispute, which presently seeks several hundred thousand dollars in recovery, and that you would be filing the appropriate papers for a representative to attend on his behalf. However, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize a “representative” to appear at mediation on behalf of an individual party. In fact, the only Florida appellate court that appears to have squarely addressed the issue has held that an individual party is required to personally attend court- ordered mediation. The reference in Rule 1.720(b)(1) to “\[t\]he party or its representative” being physically present at mediation “relates to a party such as a corporation, partnership, incapacitated person, or minor which must appear through a duly authorized representative.” Carbino v. Ward, th 801 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 5 DCA 2001) (emphasis added) (holding failure of failure of insured motorist to personally attend mediation without good cause required trial court to impose sanctions against him, including both mediator costs and attorney’s fees). The Town is not willing to waive the requirement that Martin O’Boyle personally attend the mediation without an explanation of the good cause that justifies his absence and who will attend in his place. Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 1 From: Kirielys Mora <km@matrixmediation.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 10:08 AM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: Widboom, Daniel R. <DWidboom@jonesfoster.com> Subject: Invoice 118714 from Matrix Mediation, LLC This message originated from outside your organization Matrix Mediation, LLC Invoice Due:10/10/2018 Amount Due: $849.00 118714 Dear Customer : Your invoice is attached. Payment was due October 1, 2018. Payment is expected prior to mediation taking place. Please find our credit card form attached. I look forward to assisting you. Thank you for doing business with Matrix Mediation! Sincerely, Kirielys Mora Matrix Mediation LLC 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd #700 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Direct: 561.340.3500 e-mail: KM@matrixmediation.com <Inv_118714_from_Matrix_Mediation_LLC_8552.pdf> <CREDIT CARD FORM 2018.pdf> 2 Renee Basel From:Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:51 AM To: Martin E. O’Boyle Cc:Michelle Melicia; Rita Taylor; OConnor, Joanne M.; scottmorgan75@gmail.com Subject:Re: Letter to Mayor Morgan, Town Clerk and Commissioners re: Proposal 4.23.2019 We believe the bill is completely overstated as does our expert. We will let the Judge decide which of us is correct. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Apr 23, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> wrote: Bob - the reason we made this offer is because we believe it is in the best interest of the taxpayers. Unlike you, I don’t believe that the taxpayers are overly interested in your personal cash flow. Please try to understand that! :-) Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com On Apr 23, 2019, at 9:04 PM, Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> wrote: Thank you. Mr. O’Boyle’s prior offer to settle for even less was rejected by the Commission. We are proceeding to hearing on this matter. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Apr 23, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Michelle Melicia <mmelicia@commerce-group.com> wrote: Hello, Please see the attached letter sent from Mr. Martin O'Boyle. He emailed to all listed on the letter, but apparently he may be blocked, as it came back with an error message unable to send. Please see that error message below. I am resending to ensure you received 1 this. Please note this letter was faxed down to Town of Gulf Stream today as well. Thank you, Michelle Melicia Commerce Group 1280 West Newport Center Dr. Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Direct: 954-834-2203 Main: 954-360-7713 Fax: 954-360-0807 Email: mmelicia@commerce-group.com From: Microsoft Outlook <MicrosoftExchange329e71ec88ae4615bbc36ab6ce41109e@commerce groupinc.onmicrosoft.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 1:29 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle Subject: Undeliverable: Letter to Mayor Morgan, Town Clerk and Commissioners re: Proposal 4.23.2019 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Your message couldn't be delivered to the recipients shown below. The recipients weren't found at the destination domains specified, or the mailboxes were unavailable. meo Office 365 Multiple recipients Action Required Recipients Unknown To address Couldn't deliver the message to the following recipients: smorgan@gulf-stream.org, rtaylor@gulf-stream.org, plyons@gulf-stream.org, jorthwein@gulf-stream.org, tstanley@gulf-stream.org, dwhite@gulf-stream.org, rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com, JOConnor@jonesfoster.com, ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com, joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com, Martin@athertonlg.com How to Fix It The email address might be misspelled or it might not exist. Try one or more of the following: 2 �� Retype the recipient's address, then resend the message - If you're using Outlook, open this non-delivery report message and click Send Again from the menu or ribbon. In Outlook on the web, select this message, and then click the "To send this message again, click here." link located just above the message preview window. In the To or Cc line, delete and then retype the entire recipient's address (ignore any address suggestions). After typing the complete address, click Send to resend the message. If you're using an email program other than Outlook or Outlook on the web, follow its standard way for resending a message. Just be sure to delete and retype the recipient's entire address before resending it. �� Remove the recipient from the recipient Auto-Complete List, then resend the message - If you're using Outlook or Outlook on the web, follow the steps in the "Remove the recipient from the recipient Auto-Complete List" section of this article. Then resend the message. Be sure to delete and retype the recipient's entire address before clicking Send. �� Contact the recipient by some other means, (by phone, for example) to confirm you're using the right address. Ask them if they've set up an email forwarding rule that could be forwarding your message to an incorrect address. If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. If you're an email admin, refer to the More Info for Email Admins section below. Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft. More Info for Email Admins Status code: 550 5.1.351 When Office 365 tried to send the message, the external email server returned an error stating that the recipient is unknown or the mailbox is unavailable. This error was reported by an email server outside Office 365. If you or the sender can't fix the problem, contact the responsible party's email admin - Give them the error code and error message from this non-delivery report (NDR) to help them troubleshoot the issue. To determine who the responsible party might be, check the error for information about where the problem is happening. For example, look for a domain name like contoso.com. A domain name in the error might suggest who is responsible for the error. It could be the recipient's email server, or it could be a third-party service that your organization or the recipient's organization is using to process or filter email messages. 3 Although the sender might be able to fix the issue by correcting the recipient address, it's likely that only the recipient's email admin can fix the problem. Unfortunately, it's unlikely Office 365 Support will be able to help with these kinds of externally reported errors. Original Message Details Created Date: 4/23/2019 5:12:13 PM Sender Address: meo@commerce-group.com Recipient Address: smorgan@gulf-stream.org, rtaylor@gulf-stream.org, . . . Letter to Mayor Morgan, Town Clerk and Commissioners re: Subject: Proposal 4.23.2019 Error Details Reported error: 550 5.1.351 Remote server returned unknown recipient or mailbox unavailable -> 550 permanent failure for one or more recipients (dwhite@gulf-stream.org:550 5.1.1 User unknown,tstanley@gulf- stream.org:550 5.1.1 User unknown,jorthwein@gulf-stream.o...) Retry count: 2 DSN generated by: MN2PR16MB3007.namprd16.prod.outlook.com Remote server: mx1.us-east-2a.ess.aws.cudaops.com Message Hops HOP TIME (UTC) FROM TO WITH RELAY TIME 4/23/2019 1 MN2PR16MB2815.namprd16.prod.outlook.com MN2PR16MB2815.namprd16.prod.outlook.com mapi * 5:12:13 PM 4/23/2019 Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, 2 MN2PR16MB2815.namprd16.prod.outlook.com MN2PR16MB3007.namprd16.prod.outlook.com * 5:12:13 PM cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) Original Message Headers DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=commercegroupinc.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1- commercegroup-com02b; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME- Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=0yyD0oxN+ECyxRE6wdkvSGJLecDw93lG0ajEuWhtBTI=; b=KhUW56gxlEqp3hPlwYAEKprkSq6DU7tL67Gg+R+tjTj5VuhWWp5 x8YqiMlxRegdWLt7QMQfnoC1JUSiKX1UzshfYEy1s/jbqlUGt8SJa 55bago+BkL4FXAvDWmKLNV3gBGpDmmQRI643PfgXuz+xotAaYnyAA WuV3VX++znKVWs= Received: from MN2PR16MB2815.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (20.178.246.225) by MN2PR16MB3007.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (20.178.248.153) with Microsoft SMTP 4 Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1813.16; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:12:13 +0000 Received: from MN2PR16MB2815.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (\[fe80::6d32:f2a8:5c66:3c44\]) by MN2PR16MB2815.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (\[fe80::6d32:f2a8:5c66:3c44%4\]) with mapi id 15.20.1813.017; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:12:13 +0000 From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Martin_E=2E_O=92Boyle?= <meo@commerce-group.com> To: "smorgan@gulf-stream.org" <smorgan@gulf- stream.org>, "rtaylor@gulf-stream.org" <rtaylor@gulf- stream.org>, "plyons@gulf-stream.org" <plyons@gulf-stream.org>, "jorthwein@gulf- stream.org" <jorthwein@gulf-stream.org>, "tstanley@gulf- stream.org" <tstanley@gulf-stream.org>, "dwhite@gulf- stream.org" <dwhite@gulf-stream.org> CC: "rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com" <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>, "OConnor, Joanne M." <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>, Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com>, Jon O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com>, Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com>, William Ring <wring@commerce-group.com> Subject: Letter to Mayor Morgan, Town Clerk and Commissioners re: Proposal 4.23.2019 Thread-Topic: Letter to Mayor Morgan, Town Clerk and Commissioners re: Proposal 4.23.2019 Thread-Index: AdT59v8H8BfIQ/cWRiKkkiJmOXNs1Q== Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:12:13 +0000 Message-ID: <MN2PR16MB2815755515CAED8A147AB5CAF1230@MN2PR16MB2815 .namprd16.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=meo@commerce-group.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: \[50.192.185.157\] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email 5 x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a63147aa- 279c-4e16-4060-08d6c80ed411 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(702114 5)(8989299)(4534185)(7022145)(4603075)(4627221)(20170 2281549075)(8990200)(7048125)(7024125)(7027125)(70231 25)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(49563074 )(7193020);SRVR:MN2PR16MB3007; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR16MB3007:|MN2PR16MB3007: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 10 x-ld-processed: a655d93f-58c9-490b-9d75- 21df458f2ff2,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR16MB3007C1577CE19BFB76DD1EEC9D230@MN2PR16MB3007 .namprd16.prod.outlook.com> x-forefront-prvs: 0016DEFF96 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(346002)(366004)(39840400004)( 136003)(376002)(396003)(189003)(199004)(66066001)(650 6007)(8676002)(316002)(81156014)(4744005)(102836004)( 26005)(81166006)(110136005)(186003)(74316002)(5086000 01)(68736007)(97736004)(52536014)(99936001)(8936002)( 66556008)(66446008)(790700001)(6116002)(5660300002)(4 5776006)(54906003)(7416002)(2501003)(7736002)(3846002 )(66616009)(66476007)(64756008)(33656002)(73956011)(6 6946007)(76116006)(6436002)(53936002)(7696005)(711904 00001)(55016002)(71200400001)(476003)(2906002)(502400 4)(14454004)(25786009)(99286004)(4326008)(2201001)(23 6005)(486006)(6306002)(54896002)(86362001)(107886003) (53386004)(14444005)(606006)(4743002)(256004)(9686003 );DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:MN2PR16MB3007;H:MN2PR16 MB2815.namprd16.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:e n;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: commerce- group.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: cS2FivzPlWxKuIyFfQx9QKBf7HONb+Tj1eIs0JBZ5fF/xHlXfV3Fg 3MaoKS97X8OZqEEaxAz5LPYtAEN4qLEiERAWHaVlu1gxXe7HubPaA nJ99FuFZEMAiPRSYF/8sryOlNw+sK6/CJMGCGcmsQZwFP4DH+g3tW I0nflDVp0U8ny1X7K0/7rjzpZWZNrbRc2euo2t+Imth//4sv99egr QHGmsB6qtwjgxeSah+6/F8ahQW+TlksRuaDO29janLAXyHhKN6Kql gp5cT5BSG+JAeR3Ub9/11rzyhpPpJe0QTdgS0c2uREmEYHJf0gXWd q21DUGCy2reJ5mLzp5+ksO8/TCeiG0etxNGylVLy4BaPiOipu6hpe 8ar2aMzrejLN5MW3BUpaOZrpa+7zmLzNKwwRGJUQTJT2ukXwTylBn Q8Q= Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_MN2PR16MB2815755515CAED8A147AB 5CAF1230MN2PR16MB2815namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: commerce-group.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a63147aa-279c-4e16-4060-08d6c80ed411 6 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Apr 2019 17:12:13.1070 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: a655d93f-58c9-490b- 9d75-21df458f2ff2 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR16MB3007 <Letter to Mayor Morgan Clerk Commissioners re Proposal 4.23.2019 Final as Sent.pdf> 7 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, May 31, 2019 12:16 PM To:Jeff Hochman Cc:Jon O'Boyle; Nicole Fox; Hudson Gill; Trey Nazzaro; OConnor, Joanne M.; Robert Sweetapple (rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com) Subject:RE: O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream (Passeggiata); Case No. 19-CA-6817 - 2704 Jeff – thank you for your note below. You are more than welcome to copy Jon on our communications. Plainly stated, I will not wait until late July. It is May. Nobody is that busy. To say you do not have any time for the next several weeks strains credulity; and makes clear your thinly veiled motive. This is a new matter. You have a large firm. Hudson handles most Gulf Stream matters. What is his schedule? Also, the Town has Jones Foster, Bob Sweetapple and Trey Nazzarro (a highly capable and highly regarded lawyer by the Commission). I will not tolerate manufactured delays. I’m sure you would agree that Trey, who seems to always be available at the Town Hall, is certainly capable of representing Ms. Basel at a deposition if none of the other plethora of lawyers representing the Town assert that they are tied up for months. If I do not hear from you or Hudson (or Trey) by 4pm today, with a date in the next week or so, I will proceed to set the deposition of Ms. Basel on June 18, 2019 at 9am at Daughters Reporting in Boca Raton. Incidentally, as a courtesy, I was going to set them at the Town Hall. If I do not hear from you in this connection, I will set them at the office of the Court Reporter. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Jeff Hochman <hochman@jambg.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 10:36 AM To: Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com>; Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Cc: Jon O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com>; Nicole Fox <Fox@jambg.com>; Hudson Gill <hgill@jambg.com> Subject: O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream (Passeggiata); Case No. 19-CA-6817 Mr. O'Boyle: My office will be representing the Town of Gulf Stream in this matter. 1 I have been advised that the summons and complaint were served yesterday, May 30, 2019. I have also been advised that you would like to set the depositions of certain Town representatives. If so, in accordance with Rule 1.310 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, please provide proposed dates beginning the third week of July. My schedule during the first two weeks of July poses a number of professional and personal conflicts. While I am aware that you are proceeding in a pro se capacity in this matter, I have copied your son, Jonathan O'Boyle, Esq., on this e-mail as courtesy. If future communications should be directed to you exclusively, please let me know. Jeff Jeffrey L. Hochman, Esq. Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Office: (954) 463-0100 ext. 2917 Fax: (954) 463-2444 Hochman@jambg.com 2 Renee Basel From:Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:59 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M.; Martin@athertonlg.com Cc:Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> (ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com); Trey Nazzaro; Fred Hazouri Subject:Re: O'Boyle - Mediation Procedures Martin 5 years of Marty O have been more challenging than any hike. You are not the problem. When the lawyers meet we could probably settle. But will anyone on your side have real influence over your client?That remains to be seen. We will work in good faith despite past experiences too ridiculous to chronicle here. Then again hiking to Machu Picchu was more fun than answering emails now that you mention it. Be well. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Jan 31, 2019, at 4:21 PM, OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> wrote: Martin – The Town is agreeable to mediate on March 4 and to the following: (1) Entry of agreed orders setting mediation on March 4 in each case. (2) O’Boyle’s counsel shall provide the Town’s counsel with a draft settlement agreement on or before February 7. The parties’ counsel shall negotiate the form of said agreement in good faith with the objective of agreeing on the form so as to limit the issues to be mediated to the amounts of fees and costs to be paid by the Town for each case. (3) Lawyers to meet in advance of mediation for the purpose of trying to narrow the issues th in each case on or about February 25. (4) Town to submit to O’Boyle’s counsel its work product review of the fee petitions in t h advance of the lawyer-meeting (no later than Monday, Feb. 20). This work product will be subject to the mediation privilege and will in no way bind the Town or constitute a waiver of any arguments the Town may present to any Court should the fee disputes not settle. (5) Mediation before Judge Hazouri on March 4, with an entire day reserved and the Town and the O’Boyle parties to split the mediator’s fee 50/50 as before. (6) Should any of the cases not settle, entry of agreed orders similar to that used by Judge Small in the Stopdirtygovernment case, including in all cases but Case 4474. Should Case 4474 not settle, the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a form of order for use in Case 4474, the purpose of which will be to require the Town to respond specifically to Plaintiff’s fee requests, except as to any fees sought that the Town believes are outside the scope of the Court’s prior rulings/orders. As we discussed, I agree that it would seem to makes sense to mediate the cases from smaller to Stopdirty to 4474. But I don’t think either of us should formally commit to that order now, particularly where the lawyers are intending to sit down and go through these cases in detail later in February. 1 With regard to when the Town Council will meet either before or after mediation and in shade or in the sunshine, we will address that with our client. It will not be a condition of mediation. As I already indicated, the Town has a regularly set Council meeting already scheduled for Friday, th March 8 and can consider any agreement at that time if not sooner. I trust this is satisfactory. Feel free to call me to discuss. Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com <image001.png> Flagler Center Tower 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:03 PM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Cc: Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> (ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com) <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com>; Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; 'TNAZZARO@GULF-STREAM.ORG' <TNAZZARO@GULF-STREAM.ORG>; Fred Hazouri <fred@matrixmediation.com> Subject: RE: O'Boyle - Mediation Procedures This message originated from outside your organization Joanne, Thank you for your email. Please see my comments/responses below in red. I agree that the goal here is to reach agreement on these items today so that we may confirm the March 4 mediation date with Judge Hazouri without delay. From: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 5:49 PM To: Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com> Cc: Elaine James <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com> (ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com) <ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com>; Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; 2 'TNAZZARO@GULF-STREAM.ORG' <TNAZZARO@GULF-STREAM.ORG> Subject: O'Boyle - Mediation Procedures Martin – Thanks for your call this afternoon. The Town is agreeable to the following procedures that we discussed surrounding mediation of the remaining disputes between the Town and Martin O’Boyle: (1) Entry of agreed orders setting mediation in each case. March 4 is the date which should be specified in each of the agreed orders. (2) Lawyers to meet in advance of mediation for the purpose of trying to narrow the issues in each case. (preferably the week before subject to everyone’s schedule—I suggest 10:00 a.m. Feb. 27 or 28—if anyone has a conflict with either of those dates, please reply to this email) (3) Town to submit to O’Boyle’s counsel its work product review of the fee petitions in th advance of the lawyer-meeting (no later than Monday, Feb. 25). This work product will be subject to the mediation privilege and will in no way bind the Town or constitute a waiver of any arguments the Town may present to any Court should the fee disputes not settle. (4) Mediation on March 4. The mediation will be before Judge Hazouri. We will reserve the entire day. The Town and the O’Boyle parties shall split the mediator’s fee 50/50 as before. (5) Should any of the cases not settle, entry of agreed orders similar to that used by Judge Small in the Stopdirtygovernment case (see attached December 2018 email from her chambers), including in all cases but Case 4474. The Town will propose a form of pre fee hearing order for 4474 on or before February 7 and the parties will attempt in good faith to agree to a form of order, the purpose of which will be to require the Town to respond specifically to Plaintiff’s fee requests, identifying those fees entries that the Town agrees to and those that it objects to and the reasons for its objections. To the extent that the Town believes that any of the fee invoices on which fees are sought are outside the scope of the Court’s prior rulings/orders, the Town may assert that objection generally to the affected invoices. th Please let me know if I missed anything. If not, please confirm March 4 with Judge Hazouri. We also discussed the following: (6) At the mediation, the parties will work through the fee requests on a case by case basis, starting with the smaller cases, then StopDirty and ending with 4474. The parties will attempt to reach agreements on a case by case basis until, hopefully, agreement is reached on all cases. (7) The Town will properly notice and conduct a “shade meeting” in advance of the mediation at which the Council will receive legal advice and give the Town Manager settlement authority. This meeting will occur after the lawyers’ meeting described in paragraph 2 above. The Town will properly notice another meeting for 7:00 p.m. on March 4 and hold another shade meeting to receive legal advice. The Town Council will then hold an open meeting immediately thereafter to further discuss and vote on any settlement if a settlement is reached at the mediation. 3 (8) O’Boyle’s counsel shall provide the Town’s counsel with a draft settlement agreement on or before February 7. The parties’ counsel shall negotiate the form of said agreement in good faith with the objective of agreeing on the form so as to limit the issues to be mediated to the amounts of fees and costs to be paid by the Town for each case. Joanne, I know I’ve spilled a lot of red ink on your email, but I hope you and Bob will agree that the structure proposed above will give the parties the best chance of settling all cases. Please let me hear from you today so, if we are in agreement, we can confirm the March 4 date with Judge Hazouri today. Martin 561-307-9903 Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com <image004.png> Flagler Center Tower 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 4 Renee Basel From:Scott Morgan <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:57 AM To:Marty O'Boyle Cc:OConnor, Joanne M.; hochman@jambg.com; William Ring; Hudson Gill; Bob Sweetapple; Trey Nazzaro Subject:Re: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Marty, like you, I want to resolve these things with both sides dismissing its claims and signing releases against future lawsuits. I appreciate your difficult schedule but ,frankly, the terms of our agreement have really not changed, and the current set of documents reflects our agreement. At our last meeting, Jeff Hochman and I even agreed to use your proposed format for the releases instead of our forms. Marty—today is the day to end this. There is nothing more to negotiate or terms to change. There is nothing to mediate. The releases say what they should say---and everyone just walks away. I hope you and your lawyers will agree to bring this all to a conclusion. In the meantime, as I have reiterated in every conversation, there is no stay. I again ask you to sign the documents, Marty. Sign them and let me take them to the Town to add my signature. From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:05 AM To: scottmorgan75@gmail.com Cc: William Ring ; OConnor, Joanne M. ; hochman@jambg.com ; William Ring Subject: FW: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Scott – I was sent the attached on Sunday afternoon by Bill Ring. As you know, I came back from my trip on Saturday night; and Sunday was Father’s day. Although I am not looking for sympathy (but I am looking to instill reality), I started this am at 4am; and I will work until 7:30am, then I will leave at 10 to 8am for an 8am meeting, then on to a 9:15am Mediation in Ft. Lauderdale; then to a flight to North Carolina, where I will than drive 150 miles to Knoxville, then on to WV, Pitt, Greensburg, Pa., Uniontown, Pa., Indiana, Pa. Clarion, Pa., Beaver Falls, Pa., Johnstown, Pa. King of Prussia, Pa., Philadelphia, Pa. and to Atlantic City th for my youngest daughter’s 29 ‘surprise” Birthday Party followed by a short spell in Atlantic City with my family, where I also intend to relax and catch up on my work. I apologize that things have not taken the course of expediency that you have plotted, but I remind you that when Scott went away (whether it be on R&R or on a working trip), we leave you alone. I only ask that you respect me in that regard. I work hard; and I want to get done, but I could only address so much while traveling and with such a rigorous schedule…I know you understand. 1 Scott, you know the deal that we made; that we shook on; and that we looked each other on the eye on. I fully intend to continue on the course to conclude that deal, but, as I see it (no – as it has become clear), there are many misunderstandings; and I am virtually certain that they emanate from your end. The “line in the sand’ that I “sign an unseen and unreviewed” agreement by yesterday was far from reasonable; and was, frankly an absurd request (no demand); and was certainly far from conducive to reaching resolution! th So I now come to “what do you want to do”? Starting in a couple of hours, I am away until July 10. I am more than happy to work on the Settlement (while traveling – but only when I have time – and time to focus). If you really want to get done, my suggestion is that we now schedule a Mediation with Fred Hazouri (you know who he is) on the earliest possible date after my return; and “bring the deal into the end zone”, as we should. (Of course – if that’s what you want to do – it’s a “no lose” proposition, which I think should bring finality – we both need to cooperate – no standing on form – no standing on ceremony – ego’s left wat the door – and a “goal” to get done); but if you want to fight (which I don’t and which I find silly), then that’s what you want to do. Your response here will be a clear signal. If you want to move forward with your threats, which start (according to your lawyers) this am, we are ready for you. Please “back off”, as such a course is not conducive to a Settlement; and will likely inflame an “almost done” settlement, which doesn’t happen will punish the taxpayers of the Town.. Scott – if you have had a change of heart and wish to renege on our agreement, I understand; and I know what to do. I hope you haven’t. I await hearing from you and only you. I will be checking my email, today. Please let me hear from you by noon if at all possible. If you call (which would be better), I will make every effort to take your call (or call you back promptly). You just need to tell me your intentions; and you just need to tell me that “Marty and Scott” are going to work together to get done. Right now, based on the threats, your side has put the Settlement on hold and have us gearing up to accommodate the threats that your lawyers say will commence this am. I will hold up taking any action until noon. I hope you could see your way clear to relaxing and I hope you could convince your lawyers to stop trying to push me around, as “that just ain’t gonna happen”! As I told you before: “I’m not Chris O’Hare”. So let’s get done! It’s up to you. I await your prompt response. Thank you; and “I can’t say it enough, embrace my desire and “let’s get done”! Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 From: William Ring \[mailto:wring@oboylelawfirm.com\] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 5:38 PM To: Marty O'Boyle; Jonathan O'Boyle; Giovani Mesa Subject: FW: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases William F. Ring O'Boyle Law Firm 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 954-570-3510 (ph) 954-328-4383 (cell) From: OConnor, Joanne M. \[mailto:JOConnor@jonesfoster.com\] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 12:00 PM To: William Ring Cc: Hudson Gill; Randolph, John C.; Robert Sweetapple Subject: O'Boyle - settlement agreement and releases Bill – My understanding is that all parties, including the attorneys for those parties, seek a full and final resolution of the disputes between them. There are pending suits by Marty against me, Bob and our firms. And I would think the attorneys on your side would seek comfort that you will not be subject to any future claims based on past conduct. To that end, the Town has agreed to write to the Florida Bar regarding those lawyers. To confirm an end to any litigation, I have revised the settlement agreement to include a release by Marty of the Town’s contractors (there is a pending suit against Brannon & Gillespie by Mr. O’Boyle) and the its attorneys. I have changed the Town’s release of the attorneys on your side to exclude the carve-out for future litigation. I have drafted two separate releases: (1) O’Boyle Attorneys releasing Town, its agents, and attorneys and (2) Town Attorneys releasing O’Boyle, O’Boyle Entities and O’Boyle Attorneys. In Jeff’s absence, please contact me with comments, questions or concerns. I am in this afternoon and tomorrow 2pm or later (on a CLE panel in the morning) Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 3 4 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, July 21, 2017 1:25 PM To:Gregory Dunham Subject:Re: O'Boyle letter regarding 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - real estate signs Greg - I read what I believe you referred to as the "Sign Ordinance" from the Town's website. Although I did not read it closely, I thought I read that all signs must be 10 feet inside the property line. In no way is that the case on A1A. Please let me know "what the deal" is there? It seems to me that if you have a law you should enforce it or throw it in the trash. Please let me hear from you regarding this important matter. In that connection, a quick look at the Ordinance and a quick drive down A1A should be all that is needed to respond. I look forward to your prompt response. Thank you. ???? Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-213-3486 Email: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com ------ Original message------ From: Greg Dunham Date: Thu, Jul 20, 2017 12:52 PM To: Marty O'Boyle; Cc: Subject:RE: O'Boyle letter regarding 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - real estate signs Mr. O’Boyle, Yes, that is correct. Regards, Greg Dunham From: Marty O'Boyle \[mailto:moboyle@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:45 PM To: Greg Dunham <GDunham@gulf-stream.org> Subject: RE: O'Boyle letter regarding 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - real estate signs Greg – is that the current Sign Ordinance, meaning is that what you point me to the Ordinance that I could rely on is the one currently in effect? 1 I appreciate your helping me get to the bottom of this.  Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Greg Dunham \[mailto:GDunham@gulf-stream.org\] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:41 PM To: Marty O'Boyle Subject: RE: O'Boyle letter regarding 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - Our Project #1201 Dear Mr. O’Boyle, Thank you for your letter to the Town, dated July 18, 2017 regarding the Town’s policy on signs. The Town’s sign ordinance is in Chapter 66, Article VIII, Division 7 of the Town Code and is available online. Please provide this information to your real estate broker so they are aware of the Town’s current policy regarding signs. If they have any specific questions, they can feel free to contact the Town. Regards, Greg Dunham From: Marty O'Boyle \[mailto:moboyle@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:11 AM To: Greg Dunham <GDunham@gulf-stream.org> Subject: FW: O'Boyle letter regarding 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - Our Project #1201 Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:40 PM To: tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org Cc: 'rtaylor@gulf-stream.org'; 'gdunham@gulf-stream.org'; Brenda Russell; Marty O'Boyle Subject: O'Boyle letter regarding 16 South Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, FL 33483 - Our Project #1201 2 Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc. 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com Confidentiality Notice : This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law e-mail addresses are public record. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead contact this office by phone or in writing. 3 Renee Basel From:Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> Sent:Monday, December 9, 2019 8:01 PM To:Jeff Hochman; Jonathan O'Boyle Cc:Kristen Blackwell; Hudson Gill; Blanca Benlevy; Graciela LaCava; OConnor, Joanne M.; Trey Nazzaro Subject:RE: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream; Case No. 19-CA-006817 \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] Mr. Hochman, I certainly did not see that response coming. Assuming the Town is going to consent to judgment, are you saying they will need a waiver of the OLF fees? What about Martin Reeder’s fees in this matter? Can I just ask informally if we can get the police index file that Officer Passagiatta identified in his deposition prior to settling this matter? I know I sought it in an RFP but I thought I would give it a shot here since we are going to need that record as part of a settlement. From: Jeff Hochman <hochman@jambg.com> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 7:44 PM To: Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> Cc: Kristen Blackwell <kblackwell@oboylelawfirm.com>; Hudson Gill <hgill@jambg.com>; Blanca Benlevy <blanca@jambg.com>; Graciela LaCava <Lacava@jambg.com>; OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; Trey Nazzaro <TNazzaro@gulf-stream.org> Subject: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream; Case No. 19-CA-006817 Jonathan: This is a privileged and confidential settlement communication. A reasonable conclusion is that the Passeggiata case is simply "abusive litigation" and part of the "orchestrated" scheme discussed in the Eleventh Circuit's DeMartini opinion. To paraphrase: "\[Martin O'Boyle\], through the O'Boyle Law Firm, would demand unreasonable settlements, which included excessive amounts of attorney's fees and costs. The demands were based on threats that \[Mr. O'Boyle\] would initiate expensive and burdensome litigation or make pending litigation more expensive and burdensome. The end game of the scheme was not to have the Town's public records actually released, but to obtain attorney's fees for the O'Boyle Law Firm." See DeMartini v. Gulf Stream, (alterations added; citations omitted). To respond to your email, the Town would need more information. For example, is the O'Boyle Law Firm offering to waive its purported fees and costs? Given that no public records ever needed to be released in this matter (because the O'Boyle Law Firm already had the items before filing suit), it's hard to see how this case differs from the "windfall scheme" cases discussed in DeMartini -- a "whole scheme \[ \] designed solely to extort monies from the public coffers." Id. (alteration added). Jeff Jeffrey L. Hochman, Esq. Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 1 2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 Office: (954) 463-0100 ext. 2917 Fax: (954) 463-2444 Hochman@jambg.com On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:48 PM Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> wrote: Hudson, does the Town have any interest in consenting to judgment or resolving this matter. I figured I would as since we coming upon the closing of the year when people to wrap things up. We would be interested in an order to the effect that the Town has unlawfully withheld records by destroying or discarding records outside of the General Records Schedule Guidelines. Any word on filing an answer? From: Kristen Blackwell <kblackwell@oboylelawfirm.com> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 2:24 PM To: Hudson Gill <hgill@jambg.com>; hochman@jambg.com; Blanca Benlevy <blanca@jambg.com>; Graciela LaCava <Lacava@jambg.com> Cc: Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> Subject: O'Boyle v. Town of Gulf Stream / 2019-CA-006817 Good Afternoon Mr. Gill, th Please provide dates for the depositions of William Thrasher and Serge Delaville for after the December 30 hearing. Thank You, Kristen The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Kristen Blackwell |Legal Assistant to Jonathan O’Boyle 2 T: 754-212-4201 | F: 754-212-2444 |D: 754-212-4215 |kblackwell@oboylelawfirm.com Florida Office - Headquarters 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Office: 754-212-4201 Fax: 754-212-2444 Pennsylvania Office 1001 Broad St. Johnstown, PA 15906 Tel: 754-212-4201 Fax: 215-893-3641 New Jersey Office 525 Route 73 North, Suite 104 Marlton, NJ 08053 Tel: 856-619-8558 Fax: 856-619-8559 The O’Boyle Law Firm 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida, 33442 754-212-4215 | www.oboylelawfirm.com This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for damage arising in any way from its use. 3 IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. 4 Renee Basel From:Hudson Gill <hgill@jambg.com> Sent:Friday, June 5, 2020 2:33 PM To:Jonathan O'Boyle Cc:Martin Reeder; Kristen Blackwell; Jeff Hochman Subject:Re: Passagiatta Case. \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] Gentlemen: I cannot stop you from wasting resources. I see no point -- other than running up attorney's fees -- to be scheduling depositions (or filing motions) at this point. All of this could be accomplished after June 12 with no prejudice to your client. That being said, if you want to set a deposition, please provide several proposed dates, and I will advise of my availability on those dates. This is how scheduling matters generally works. You will need to subpoena anyone you want to depose. Hudson Hudson C. Gill, Esquire Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A. 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 PH: 954-463-0100 FAX: 954-463-2444 hgill@jambg.com The information transmitted is privileged and confidential. It is intended solely for the review and use of the named recipient. Any other review or distribution of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal in error, please (1) notify the sender immediately by telephone (954) 463-0100, (2) delete this information from all databases, and, (3) if printed, return all pages to the sender by U.S. mail. You will be reimbursed for any long distance charges and mailing costs. On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:54 PM Jonathan O'Boyle <joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com> wrote: Hudson, out of an abundance of caution Martin and I wanted to reach out regarding the IT people mentioned in the Passagiatta case answer and Motion for Consent Judgment. Hopefully, this is all much-ado-about nothing come June 12. We need a deposition of the IT person from Calvin Giordano and Ass. Inc. who I understand was the IT person pursuant to your Motion for Consent Judgment. The Town can produce them or we can subpoena them. We propose a deposition date after June 12, 2020 to promote efficiency. Let us know your thoughts. 1 http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial &searchNameOrder=CALVINGIORDANOASSOCIATES%20M173731&aggregateId=domp-m17373-f8bc44b0-1b4f-43c1- aea3- b2cfd969045a&searchTerm=calvin%20giodorno%20and%20associates&listNameOrder=CALVINGIORDANOASSOCIATES %20M173731 Jonathan O’Boyle, Esq., LLM. Licensed In Pennsylvania* Licensed In New Jersey* Licensed in Florida* The O’Boyle Law Firm, P.C. www.oboylelawfirm.com Pennsylvania Office 1001 Broad St. Johnstown, PA 15906 Tel: 754-212-4201 Fax: 215-893-3641 joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com New Jersey Office 525 Route 73 North, Suite 104 Marlton, NJ 08053 2 Tel: 856-619-8558 Fax: 856-619-8559 joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com Florida Office 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Office: 754-212-4201 Direct: 954-570-3533 Fax: 754-212-2444 joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. =========================================================== NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E- MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 3 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 5:19 PM To:scottmorgan75@gmail.com; Lisa Wills; Trey Nazzaro Cc:Robert Sweetapple; Macfarlane, Mary T. Subject:RE: Press Release - O'Boyle v Town Attachments:1WJ0222-release press settlement oboyle.DOCX I think you need to walk a line between letting the residents now that this is a favorable settlement and expressing optimism that the remaining fee issues will be cooperatively resolved with O’Boyle. Your residents are smart enough to read between the lines. My thoughts are reflected in the attached. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: scottmorgan75@gmail.com <scottmorgan75@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:23 PM To: Lisa Wills <lwills@sweetapplelaw.com>; OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com>; TNazzaro@gulf- stream.org Cc: Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com>; Macfarlane, Mary T. <MMacfarlane@jonesfoster.com> Subject: Re: Press Release - O'Boyle v Town This message originated from outside your organization I would prefer to put out a somewhat stronger statement. See attached. Let me know your thoughts. From: Lisa Wills Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:59 PM To: JOConnor@jonesfoster.com ; TNazzaro@gulf-stream.org ; Scott Morgan Cc: Robert Sweetapple ; Macfarlane, Mary T. Subject: Press Release - O'Boyle v Town 1 Good afternoon, Attached is Bob’s revised proposed Press Release for your review. Thank you. As The Holiday Season Approaches We Want Our Valued Clients To Be Aware Of Our Holiday Schedule. Our Office Will Be Closed On The Following Dates: Christmas through New Year’s Day thst December 24- January 1 Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah & Happy New Year from Our Family To Yours! Kind regards, LISA B. WILLS Legal Assistant Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. 4800 N. Federal Highway, Suite 105B Boca Raton, FL 33431 (561) 392-1230(t) (561) 394-6102(f) lwills@sweetapplelaw.com www.sweetapplebroeker.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. 2 The Town of Gulf Stream is pleased to report that it has reached an agreement with Martin O'Boyle to resolve the 10 remaining public records lawsuits and avoid additional drawn out and costly litigation. From 2013 to 2016The defensive approach taken by the Town in 2014 was essential in reaching this conclusion and effecting significant legislative changes to protect municipalities under the Public Records Law. With these changes in the law, we are confident that the Town and public agencies across Florida will no longer be threatened with an overwhelming number of public records requests. Since 2013, Martin O’Boyle and his affiliated entities filed dozens of lawsuits lawsuits arising out of more than 2,500 public records requests made to the Town during this same time period were filed against the Town, involving public records. The nine cases that are part ofincluded in this global settlement are all that remain of the 44 public records lawsuits which arose out of more than 2,500 public records requests. The Town previously secured dismissals, or prevailed on the merits, in 27 of those lawsuits and reached a final settlement with Town resident Christopher O’Hare. In fiscal year 2017-2018, seven public records cases were dismissed or decided in favor of the Town. One case was decided in favor of Mr. O’Boyle. As part of this settlement, the Town is admitting that it violated the Public Records Act in four cases and making a payment of $15,000, in exchange for O’Boyle dismissing with prejudice (and with no right to fees) five other cases. The parties will mediate with Mr. O’Boyle and his entities in an attempt to settle attorney fee entitlement in the cases resolved in his favor. This is a business decision, and one the is is a business decision, and one that the Commission believes serves the best best interests of the Town. The strong defense defensive approach taken by the Town to the public records lawsuits by the Town in 2014 was essential in reaching this conclusionconcluding these cases and its efforts instrumental in effecting significant legislative changes that now to provide greater protections for protect the Town and other municipalities under theFlorida’s Public Records LawAct. In the past few years, the Town has received only a nominal number of public records requests. No new public records suits have been filed against it. The Town is pleased to put an end to this protracted litigation and optimistic about working with With these changes in the law, we are confident that the Town and public agencies across Florida will no longer be threatened with an overwhelming number of public records requests. Mr. O’Boyle and his entities to promptly resolve the remaining fee issues between them. . Fiscal year 17-18 was outstanding for the Town, having secured dismissals or victories in seven public records cases with no losses. Previously, the Town prevailed or secured dismissals in another 27 cases. These successes and the change in the law provided the leverage we needed to secure this favorable settlement agreement and the Town is pleased to put an end to this protracted litigation. Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Friday, June 14, 2019 2:32 PM To:Rita Taylor Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:RE: Record request pursuing to chapter 119 of the Florida statue - notes from Commissioners-commission meeting-zoning matter-Martin O'Boyle-June 14, 2019 Rita – may I come over now and pick up the records? I will bring the $250 and you could hand it right back to me, since the records were readily available when inquiry was made. I recognize the Town’s punitive nature (which will no longer be tolerated). Please advise. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Marty O'Boyle Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 12:18 PM To: Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Fwd: Record request pursuing to chapter 119 of the Florida statue Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com 1 Web Page: www.commerce-group.com Begin forwarded message: From: meo@commerce-group.com Date: June 14, 2019 at 12:16:25 PM EDT To: Renee Basel <rbasel@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Record request pursuing to chapter 119 of the Florida statue Please provide a copy of all writings of the Commissioners and the Town Manager made are created during the Commission meeting on June 14, 2019 regarding the application of Martin O’Boyle Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Thursday, April 18, 2019 5:00 PM To:Renee Basel Cc:Michelle Melicia Subject:RE: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. - 2689 Renee – thank you for your email below. Unfortunately, I was not aware that you had taken part of the $250. I am curious as to your basis for the deduction of the amount from the $250. Kindly substantiate. Also, I was not aware that you had returned the residual. Absent a clear explanation, which based upon the amount withdrawn from the $250, I demand that such retained funds taken be refunded. Lastly, I understand that the funds were recently returned, in April of this year. February, March & April seem a bit long for you to hold my money. Please realize your conduct in withholding the return of the funds according to paragraph #5 of the Settlement Agreement constitutes a breach of its terms. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:56 PM To: Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Subject: RE: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. Good afternoon, Mr. O’Boyle: The Town is not holding a $250 facilitation fee in connection with a prior request. In February 2019, you provided a facilitation fee for public records request GS #2689, the remainder of which was returned to you in accordance with the Settlement Agreement after production of responsive records. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, please provide a facilitation fee. Once the facilitation fee is received, the Town will process your public records request. 1 Sincerely, Reneé Rowan Basel Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream FL 33483 561.276.5116 561.737.0188-fax www.gulf-stream.org Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: Martin E. O’Boyle \[mailto:meo@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:56 AM To: Renee Basel <RBasel@gulf-stream.org>; Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org> Subject: Records Request - Gulf Stream - Dock - Promenade - 23 N Hidden HarbourPlease provide promptly to fulfill this request. Dear Madam Custodian of Records & Ms. Renee Basel – please see the below records request. Please promptly advise if you need any clarifications; otherwise, I would appreciate it if the records could be produced promptly. In connection with this request, it is my understanding that the Town is holding a $250 deposit in connection with a prior request. In connection with this request, pursuant to the attached Settlement Agreement; and, more particularly Paragraph #5 thereof, the $250 which the Town is holding fulfills the obligation of the Requestor. Please provide all records pursuant to (and as defined in) Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes which refer to 23 N Hidden harbor Dr. Gulf Stream, Fl.; and, more particularly, the Dock and \\or Promenade for the period beginning January 1, 2017 thru the date of this request. The requested records shall include, without limitation, all E-Mails, phone records, messages, letters, memos and other communications sent by, received by or created by the “Town of Gulf Stream”. The term “Town of Gulf Stream” shall mean each of the following: the Town of Gulf Stream, its Commissioners, its Manager, its employees, its officers, its staff, its Police Department, its Police Officers its counsel and the following law firms: Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas; Richman Greer, PA; Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.; and Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A. (including, without limitation, the attorneys, employees and partners of each such law firm.) As to any records which you choose not to produce on the basis of claim that the record is privileged, kindly provide a Privilege Log or an explanation (pursuant to Chapter 119) as to your basis for withholding any such records. Also, to the extent that there are any redactions in any of the records, we ask that you provide the basis consistent with the request in the prior sentence. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 2 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 3 Renee Basel From:Robert Sweetapple <rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 18, 2019 5:59 PM To:OConnor, Joanne M. Cc:Trey Nazzaro; scottmorgan75@gmail.com; Macfarlane, Mary T. Subject:Re: Rivas He still seeks to extort extra benefit from his PRR litigation. Regards, Bob Sweetapple On Sep 18, 2019, at 7:46 PM, OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> wrote: Fyi, see the last paragraph of Martin Reeder’s email below. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com <image003.png> Flagler Center Tower 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. From: Martin Reeder <Martin@athertonlg.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:38 PM To: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Subject: Rivas This Message originated outside your organization. Joanne, I or my assistant, Tracey Dube, will be sending you this afternoon copies of the exhibits I plan to use tomorrow for the Rivas depositions. There are only 4 and all are familiar to you: 1 1. Cost of Enforcement Motion in Asset Enhancement with attached Rivas declaration and schedule of time entries. 2. Mandel analysis of proposed fee reductions for Rivas in Asset Enhancement 3. Cost of Enforcement Motion in Stop Dirty Gov’t. with attached Rivas declaration and schedule of time entries. 4. Mandel analysis of proposed fee reductions for Rivas in Stop Dirty Gov’t. There are, of course, other documents I might decide to use based on Robert’s answers and your cross. Yesterday my client asked me to attend the Rivas depositions in person and I have reluctantly agreed to do so. I am driving up this evening and can be reached on my cell if you wish to talk. 561-307-9903. My client has asked me to tell you that he is motivated to settle all of these public records cases on reasonable terms to avoid the need for both sides to continue incurring fees to attorneys and experts. It seems that resolving the deck issue ASAP is an essential component of any such settlement. In short, my client would like to be able to move back into his home soon and to put all of this behind him. If the Town is similarly motivated, the parties should get together soon (next week would work) and try to work this out. Martin L. Martin Reeder, Jr. Atherton McAuliffe & Reeder PA 224 Datura Street, Suite 815 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 293-2530 x1007 Cell: (561) 307-9903 Email: martin@athertonlg.com Web: www.athertonlg.com <image001.jpg> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment. 2 3 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2019 4:29 AM To:Renee Basel; Rita Taylor Subject:Records Requests - 2701>2703 Dear Madam Custodian Of Records and Ms. Basel: This am, I reviewed the Records Log as posted on the Town’s Website, much to my surprise, the Town has (frivolously, as I see it; and, perhaps, with “vicious” intent) and, as I see it, to mislead readers, installed “never made” Records Requests on the Log (as captioned). Why? An explanation would sure be appreciated. In that connection, I authorize you to publish this inquiry on the Log. Let’s see if the Town is willing to do so; and show the readers “How they operate”. Hmmmm! Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 1 Renee Basel From:Marty O'Boyle <moboyle@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, October 5, 2015 1:50 PM To:Rita Taylor Cc:Bill Thrasher; Records; Brenda Russell Subject:Records Requests (1109 thru 1112) - Records Attachments:img20151005132900.pdf Dear Custodian - the attached requests were sent to you on 9/17/15. The Mayor, on 9-22-15, stated that all records requests have been filled. Obviously, that was a false statement, unless I heard it wrong. Since you have the tape, please let me know if "I got it right". Please fulfill these long past due requests asap. Although we feel that the requests should be fulfilled immediately, we are willing to wait until the close of business on Friday October 9, 2015 for a response. Absent obtaining the responsive documents on or before that date and time, you will force us to take action. Thank you Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group, Inc 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: moboyle@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com -----Original Message----- From: scanner@commerce-group.com \[mailto:scanner@commerce-group.com\] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 1:29 PM To: Marty O'Boyle Subject: Kyocera TASKalfa 5501i <scanner@commerce-group.com> Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using a Kyocera TASKalfa 5501i. Attachment File Type: PDF Device Name: Kyocera TASKalfa 5501i 1 RECORDS REQUEST (the "Request") Date of Request: 9/17/15 Requestor's Request ID#: 1111 REQUESTEE: Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream REQUESTOR: Commerce Group, Inc. REQUESTOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION: E-Mail: records@commerce-group.com Fax: 954-360-0807 or Contact Records Custodian at records a commerce-group.com; Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 REQUEST: Provide a copy of all billings and payments from and to the law firm of Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs (including John C. Randolph singularly) for the billing period beginning on June 1, 2015 through the date of this Request. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST: THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED. SEE &119.01(2)(F). FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM. IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS RECORDS REQUEST BE FULFILLED ON 11 X 17 PAPER NOTE: IN ALL CASES (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2) ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §119.07(1)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "IF A CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 30-DAY PERIOD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES:' ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY. PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE. It will be required that the Requestor approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01 (Definitions)), in advance of any costs imposed to the Requestor by the Agency. "BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES". I/P/NP/FLRR 07.28.2015 REQUESTEE: RECORDS REQUEST (the "Request") Date of Request: 9/17/15 Requestor's Request ID#: 1112 Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream REQUESTOR: Commerce Group, Inc. REQUESTOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION: E-Mail: records@commerce-group.com Fax: 954-360-0807 or Contact Records Custodian at records(@ commerce-group.com; Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 REQUEST: Provide a copy of all billings and payments from and to the law firm of Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkus (including Robert Sweetapple singularly) for the billing period beginning on June 1, 2015 through the date of this Request. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST: THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED. SEE 4119.01(2)(F), FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS RECORDS REQUEST BE FULFILLED ON 11 X 17 PAPER NOTE: IN ALL CASES (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2) ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §119 07(i)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "IF A CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 30-DAY PERIOD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES." ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY. PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE. It will be required that the Requestor approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01 (Definitions)), in advance of any costs imposed to the Requestor by the Agency. "BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES". I/P/NP/FLRR 07.28.2015 REQUESTEE: RECORDS REQUEST (the "Request") Date of Request: 9/17/15 Requestor's Request ID#: 1109 Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream REQUESTOR: Commerce Group, Inc. REQUESTOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION: E-Mail: records@commerce-group.com Fax: 954-360-0807 or Contact Records Custodian at recordsaa,commerce-group.com; Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 REQUEST: Please provide copies of all records (excluding invoices and payments) where Gerald F. Richman, Esquire (or anyone from the law firm of Richman Greer, P.A.) were the creator, preparer, the sender, the receiver or were, at any time, in possession of any such records for the period begnning January 1, 2015. The records referred to shall relate only to the Town of Gulf Stream and the Racketeering Suit (which was filed in Federal Court in Palm Beach County) wherein the Town of Gulf Stream was the Plaintiff and Martin O'Boyle, et al. was the Defendant. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST: THIS REQUEST 1S MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN.WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED. SEE 4119.01(2)(F), FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS RECORDS REQUEST BE FULFILLED ON 11 X 17 PAPER. NOTE: IN ALL CASES (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2) ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §119.07(1)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "IF A CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 30-DAY PERIOD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES." ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY. PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE. It ,vvill be required that the Requester approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01 (Definitions)), in advance of any costs imposed to the Requestor by the Agency. "BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES". UP/NP/FLRR 07.28.2015 RECORDS REQUEST (the "Request") Date of Request: 9/17/15 Requestor's Request ID#: 1110 REQUESTEE: Custodian of Records Town of Gulf Stream REQUESTOR: Commerce Group, Inc. REQUESTOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION: E-Mail: records@commerce-group.com Fax: 954-360-0807 or Contact Records Custodian at records( ,commerce-group.com; Phone: 954-360-7713; Address: 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 REQUEST: Provide a copy of all billings made to Gulf Stream and payments received from Gulf Stream applicable to the law firm of Richman Greer, P.A. (including Gerald F. Richman, singularly) from June 1, 2015 through the date of this Request. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING REQUEST: THIS REQUEST IS MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 24 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES IF THE PUBLIC RECORDS BEING SOUGHT ARE MAINTAINED BY YOUR AGENCY IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT PLEASE PRODUCE THE RECORDS IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC FORMAT IN WHICH THEY WERE CREATED OR RECEIVED. SEE 4119.01(2)(F), FLORIDA STATUTES. IF NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THIS RECORDS REQUEST BE FULFILLED ON 11 X 17 PAPER NOTE: IN ALL CASES (UNLESS IMPOSSIBLE) THE COPIES SHOULD BE TWO SIDED AND SHOULD BE BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Section 119.07(4) (a) (2) ALSO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF §119.07(1)(H) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "1F A CIVIL ACTION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THE 30-DAY PERIOD TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED RECORD, THE CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS MAY NOT DISPOSE OF THE RECORD EXCEPT BY ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AFTER NOTICE TO ALL AFFECTED PARTIES." ALL ELECTRONIC COPIES ARE REQUESTED TO BE SENT BY E-MAIL DELIVERY. PLEASE PROVIDE THE APPROXIMATE COSTS (IF ANY) TO FULFILL THIS PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST IN ADVANCE. It will be required that the Requestor approve of any costs, asserted by the Agency (as defined in Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01 (Definitions)), in advance of any costs imposed to the Requestor by the Agency. "BY FULFILLING THIS RECORDS REQUEST, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA STATUTES". I/P/NP/FLRR 07.28.2015 Renee Basel From:John Haseley Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 2:09 PM To:GulfStreamOfficers Subject:Reference parking on the vacant lot, #7 Hidden Harbour Attachments:#7 HH.pub See attached, any vehicles parked on this lot, locate driver and ask them to be move. This is private property and no one has permission to park on this lot. Lieutenant John Haseley Gulf Stream Police 246 Sea Road, Gulf Stream Fl 33483 P.D. 561-278-8611 Dispatch 561-243-7800 Fax 561-276-2528 Confidentiality Notice : This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law e-mail addresses are public record. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead contact this office by phone or in writing. 1 -Administration (561) 278 246 Sea Road, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 Chief of Police Edward K. Allen 5/1/20 Lt. J. Haseley Information received from G.S. Town Hall. have not given permission for anyone to park there.s who ’Advise anyone parked on this lot to move their vehicle. This lot is private property owned by the Sorg Heinz and Elizabeth Sorg- Sincerely, Also, we would like him to take financial responsibility for the damage he has created. Police in supervising that he and his construction crew remain off of our property.Stream He is trespassing onto our property without permission and I would like to ask that you involve the Gulf He has ruined our lawn and is in violation of our privacy. We have recently been informed that Mr.Oboyle is using our property as a parking lot for his construction vehicles. Dear Sirs, Subject: HIDDEN HARBOUR LOT # 7 Letter received from a representative of the property, Lot #7 on 4/29/20 Department Gulf Stream Police Renee Basel From:Trey Nazzaro Sent:Tuesday, December 3, 2019 2:51 PM To:Steve Plunkett Subject:Statement from Gulf Stream Mayor Morgan Attachments:Mayor Statement re O'Boyle.docx Steve, Mayor Morgan asked that I send you the attached statement. Thanks, Trey Edward (Trey) C. Nazzaro Assistant Town Attorney Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Fl 33483 (561) 276-5116 Notice: Florida has a very broad public records law. Written communications regarding Town of Gulf Stream business are public records available to the public upon request. Your e-mail communications are therefore subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. 1 The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits just below the United States Supreme Court, recently issued a 73 page decision justifying the Town of Gulf Stream's decision to file a RICO lawsuit against Martin O'Boyle, the O'Boyle Law Firm and others. The Court held that Gulf Stream had "a mountain of fraudulent and extortionate conduct to present", and described an "O'Boyle-led scheme" to file nearly 2,000 public records requests and a dozens of lawsuits, not for the purpose of obtaining actual records, but "to strip the Town of money" by "bleeding the Town's coffers dry, one abusive lawsuit at a time." Gulf Stream will not be cowed by O'Boyle's abusive tactics. There have been 44 public records lawsuits, and the Town has won or forced the dismissal of 39 of them. We have agreed to pay reasonable fees in the remaining five lawsuits simply to avoid the increasing costs of litigation. But O'Boyle has tried to get what the 11th Circuit described as "excessive attorney's fees." Fortunately, our courts will not permit it. In the StopDirtyGovernment case, the judge reduced the O'Boyle Law Firm's fees by 70%, while another case settled for $6,000, an 83% reduction of fees. Misconduct like this must be confronted because it is not limited to O'Boyle's public records abuse. Over Thanksgiving, having been denied a permit to build an impermissibly large dock, O'Boyle brought in a barge and drove 20 concrete pilings into the water behind his home. He ignored orders from the police to stop so the Town was forced to secure an emergency court injunction against further work. We have always treated Mr. O'Boyle fairly and in the same manner as any other resident, but whenever his wrongful actions impact our town or affect his neighbors, we will take appropriate steps to protect Gulf Stream. Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Friday, March 9, 2018 2:29 PM To:'Robert Rivas' Cc:Trey Nazzaro; Robert Sweetapple (rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com); Macfarlane, Mary Subject:Stopdirtygovernment v. Gulf Stream Attachments:1UA8616-witness subpoena trial jonathan oboyle.PDF; 1UA8613-witness subpoena trial martin oboyle.PDF Robert – My client has decided not to pursue any further deposition testimony from Jonathan O’Boyle or to depose th Martin O’Boyle or Joel Chandler in this matter and to proceed with the March 28 trial setting. If you agree that a continuance is not necessary given the need for no further discovery, please advise and I will prepare a joint notice of withdrawal of the pending motion. Further, we are concerned that your clients Jonathan and Martin O’Boyle are improperly attempting to avoid th service of the attached trial subpoenas for March 28. We represented to the court that we would call them in th our case and when the trial was reset to March 28, you indicated that that date worked for your clients. Please advise if you are willing to accept service of the attached subpoenas on their behalf. I will be out next week and would appreciate it hearing from you this afternoon if possible. Thanks, Joanne Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Telephone: 561.650.0498 | Fax: 561.650.5300 | joconnor@jonesfoster.com Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Flagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 561-659-3000 | www.jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502014CA003721XXXXMB AH STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC Plaintiff, vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. WITNESS SUBPOENA FOR TRIAL TO: Martin E. O'Boyle 1280 West Newport Center Road Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear before the Honorable Lisa S. Small, Judge of the Circuit Court, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Courtroom 11C, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, during the trial period commencing on March 28, 2018 beginning at 10:00 a.m. to testify in this action. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED'S OFFICE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS SUBPOENA TO OBTAIN THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR TESTIMONY. You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorneys and unless excused from this subpoena by these attorneys or the Court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed. If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of court. WITNESS my hand and seal of said Court on this 27t' day of February, 2018. By: /s/ Joanne M. O'Connor Joanne M. O'Connor Florida Bar No. 0498807 j oconnor&j onesfoster. com For the Court JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 659-3000 [Telephone] (561) 650-5300 [Facsimile] 2 This notice is provided pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2.207-1/15 "If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact Tammy Anton, Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telephone number (561) 355-4380 at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 71 L" "Si usted es una persona minusvalida que necesita algun acomodamiento para poder participar en este procedimiento, usted tiene derecho, sin tener gastos propios, a que se le provea cierta ayuda. Tenga la amabilidad de ponerse en contacto con Tammy Anton, 205 N. Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telefono numero (561) 355-4380, por to menos 7 dias antes de la cita fijada para su comparecencia en los tribunales, o inmediatamente despues de recibir esta notificacion si el tiempo antes de la comparecencia que se ha programado es menos de 7 dias; si usted tiene discapacitacion del oido o de la voz, Harne al 71 L" "Si ou se you moun ki enfim ki bezwen akomodasyon you w ka patisipe nan pwosedi sa, ou kalifye san ou pa gen okenn lajan you w peye, gen pwovizyon you jwen kek ed. Tanpri kontakte Tammy Anton, koodonate pwogram Lwa you ameriken ki Enfim yo nan Tribinal Konte Palm Beach la ki nan 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telefon Ii se (561) 355-4380 nan 7 jou anvan dat ou gen randevou you paret nan tribinal la, oubyen imedyatman apre ou fin resevwa konvokasyon an si le ou gen you w paret nan tribinal la mwens ke 7 jou; si ou gen pwoblem you w tande oubyen pale, rele 71 L" P:\DOCS\13147\00059\PLD\IU90613.DOCX 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502014CA003721XXXXMB AH STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC Plaintiff, vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. WITNESS SUBPOENA FOR TRIAL TO: Jonathan O'Boyle 1286 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear before the Honorable Lisa S. Small, Judge of the Circuit Court, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Courtroom 11C, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, during the trial period commencing on March 28, 2018 beginning at 10:00 a.m. to testify in this action. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED'S OFFICE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS SUBPOENA TO OBTAIN THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR TESTIMONY. You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorneys and unless excused from this subpoena by these attorneys or the Court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed. If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of court. WITNESS my hand and seal of said Court on this 28t' day of February, 2018. By: /s/ Joanne M. O'Connor Joanne M. O'Connor Florida Bar No. 0498807 j oconnor&j onesfoster. com For the Court JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 659-3000 [Telephone] (561) 650-5300 [Facsimile] 2 This notice is provided pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2.207-1/15 "If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact Tammy Anton, Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telephone number (561) 355-4380 at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 71 L" "Si usted es una persona minusvalida que necesita algun acomodamiento para poder participar en este procedimiento, usted tiene derecho, sin tener gastos propios, a que se le provea cierta ayuda. Tenga la amabilidad de ponerse en contacto con Tammy Anton, 205 N. Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telefono numero (561) 355-4380, por to menos 7 dias antes de la cita fijada para su comparecencia en los tribunales, o inmediatamente despues de recibir esta notificacion si el tiempo antes de la comparecencia que se ha programado es menos de 7 dias; si usted tiene discapacitacion del oido o de la voz, Harne al 71 L" "Si ou se you moun ki enfim ki bezwen akomodasyon you w ka patisipe nan pwosedi sa, ou kalifye san ou pa gen okenn lajan you w peye, gen pwovizyon you jwen kek ed. Tanpri kontakte Tammy Anton, koodonate pwogram Lwa you ameriken ki Enfim yo nan Tribinal Konte Palm Beach la ki nan 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; telefon Ii se (561) 355-4380 nan 7 jou anvan dat ou gen randevou you paret nan tribinal la, oubyen imedyatman apre ou fin resevwa konvokasyon an si le ou gen you w paret nan tribinal la mwens ke 7 jou; si ou gen pwoblem you w tande oubyen pale, rele 71 L" P:\DOCS\13147\00059\PLD\IU90642.DOCX 3 Renee Basel From:OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor@jonesfoster.com> Sent:Thursday, October 24, 2019 5:57 PM To:Trey Nazzaro; Robert Sweetapple Cc:Cynthia Miller Subject:Stopdirtygovt - proposed order Attachments:1YS9447-order proposed reasonable costs enforcement attorney fees.DOCX; 1YQ7028-trial memorandum revised.DOCX; 1YT3300-pettis analysis jonathan oboyle fees.xlsx Importance:High \[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the Town of Gulfstream -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.\] This is a bear and still needs a day’s worth of work, particularly in the introduction. I intend to add some fact findings from Barkdull and Small Final Judgments to counteract what they will claim relative to the futility of a good faith defense. We also need to consider how to handle what I have styled as the alternative approach re OBLF fees if she doesn’t buy the cutoff when they were discharged. And whether we want to give her an alternative to $0 for Reeder. I am reluctant to muck it up too much with all O’Boyle’s prior bad acts. The judge has the benefit of our trial memo, also attached, and it may upset her to see us repeating all of that especially where she sustained a number of their objections at trial. A point that can be made better than I have is that they are the ones saying that the fees in this case were so high because of all sorts of other things swirling out there. Yet they failed to present any evidence that Plaintiff was precluded from diligently moving its case forward here. If we put in a lot about all of his other bad acts, we negate the argument that this was a straightforward one-count PRA case that should have been over and done in a couple weeks if not months. We also have to insert tables for the OBLF timekeepers and Rivas – I think she is required to make findings as to the number of hours for each timekeeper, which is not how our experts analyzed things. We could consider providing her as a proposed exhibit the attached excerpt of Jonathan O’Boyle’s time. It shows Pettis’ reduction of his hours from 196.6 to 101.89, that his time is $20k of the $50k they seek per Pettis. Alternatively some of the entries look like he was Rivas’ diligent associate. Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney Jones Foster P.A. 561 650 0498 – D 561 650 5300 – F 561 659 3000 – O joconnor@jonesfoster.com Flagler Center Tower 1 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 jonesfoster.com Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipient(s) and may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you received this in error. If so, any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is prohibited. Please immediately notify us by email and delete the original message. 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502014CA003721XXXXMB AH STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC Plaintiff, vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. / DEFENDANT TOWN OF GULF STREAMS’ MEMORANDUM ON PLAINTIFF’S REASONABLE COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM (“Town”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Memorandum in connection with the October 17, 2017, hearing on Plaintiff, STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) request for reasonable costs of enforcement under Section 119.12 of the Public Records Act and states: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff’s request for more than $225,000 in fees, comprising more than 600 hours of time, for this one-count simple Public Records Act suit is nothing more than an “opening bid” in the quest for an award that courts have rejected as pure gaming. In submitting the invoices of four separate law firms and more than a dozen timekeepers in support of its Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel made absolutely no effort to make a threshold determination even of those costs that are taxable under Florida law. It is thus not surprising that Plaintiff’s own fee expert has testified that he cannot support the amount sought as reasonable and has instead testified that an initial 20% reduction is necessary. But the reductions made by Plaintiff’s expert to this fee claim remain entirely insufficient in light of the clearly inflated fee records, overwhelming duplication of effort by a revolving door of attorneys at Plaintiff’s own choosing. Plaintiff incredulously even seeks to recover a windfall after one of those attorneys sued him for unpaid fees in this case -- Plaintiff resolved the dispute for $.40 on the dollar yet seeks 100% of the amount billed. Mindful of Plaintiff’s gamesmanship throughout, the Town respectfully submits that this Court should enter a nominal fee award in the amount to be supported at the hearing by the Town’s expert Matthew Mandel, Esq. 1 2. Beginning in 2013, Martin O’Boyle (“O’Boyle”) has, both personally and through the use of his agents and entities controlled by him including the Plaintiff, carried out a vendetta, to inundate the tiny Town of Gulf Stream with thousands of public records requests. The Town, with a population of approximately 1,000 people and only four (4) employees working at Town Hall, began to receive approximately over 100 public record requests per month. 3. O’Boyle manipulated the Florida Public Records Act into a money-making “gotcha” scheme to make it impossible for the Town staff to be in compliance with the public records request due to the onslaught of public records requests. O’Boyle then “referred” the public records cases he had generated to The O’Boyle Law Firm (the 2 “Firm”), a law firm funded by O’Boyle for the benefit of his son Jonathan O’Boyle, a recent law school graduate. The purpose was not to obtain any of the records sought by, for example, pursuing the notice of immediate hearing available to plaintiffs under the Public 1 Publicly available records of the Florida Department of State, available at https://dos.myflorida.com/sunbiz/, reflect that Martin O’Boyle is the manager of Plaintiff, Stopdirtygovernment, LLC. 2 The Firm operated out of the same location as O’Boyle and his corporate entities and was formed prior to Jonathan O’Boyle being a member of the Florida Bar. Records Act, but to delay any ultimate resolution and maximize attorney fees for the Firm’s benefit. 4. Ultimately, the Firm filed some thirty (30) public records suits and an additional five (5) state and federal lawsuits against the Town on behalf of O’Boyle and his entities and other Town resident. 5. Prior to initiating this litigation scheme against the Town by manipulating the intended purpose of section 119.07, O’Boyle already had an extensive history filing thousands of public requests against governmental entities in New Jersey, Florida and elsewhere, abusing public records laws with vexatious and frivolous lawsuits aimed at crippling local governments and forcing them to concede to his demands. 6. O’Boyle used these same tactics in Longport, New Jersey as is evidenced 3 in the case of Martin E. O’Boyle v. Peter Isen, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.), where the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, noted: From September 2007 through early July 2008, plaintiff \[Martin O’Boyle\] 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. 3 In the Isen case, Martin O’Boyle sued a resident of Longport for claiming Martin O’Boyle was “the enemy of Longport”. The suit for defamation was dismissed by summary judgment and affirmed by the appellate court. 7. Determined to wipe out a misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) conviction for which his daughter served community service, paid a fine and lost her license, Martin O’Boyle (individually and through his entities) inundated the Palm Beach th County State Attorney’s Office and the office of the 19 Judicial Circuit State Attorney, whose office was handling an appeal of the conviction with over 1,300 requests for public records. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/article/20130325/NEWS/812058743 8. United States District Judge Donald Middlebrooks described O’Boyle’s disputes with the Town as a “war.” See DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream, No. 16-81371- CIV, 2017 WL 6366763, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2017). 9. T HE F LORIDA B AR N EWS also addressed O’Boyle’s “predatory practice” in its article titled A New Scam: Public Records Shakedown on February 1, 2015, available at https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/a-new-scam-public-records-shakedown/. The article notes “over 140 lawsuits filed in 27 counties” by two of O’Boyle’s entities and that the Florida Bar was investigating members of the \[O’Boyle\] law firm in connection with the lawsuits. 10. The alliance formed between O’Boyle, his son Jonathan, and the Firm allowed O’Boyle to convert Florida’s Public Records Act from a law creating access to public records into an improper funding source for his son’s law firm. 11. In fact, although claiming that the records sought were urgently needed for a March 2014 political campaign, the Firm would drag this litigation on for years as a way to churn up attorneys’ fees due to the Firm. As will be shown in Court, throughout the cases brought against the Town, boilerplate complaints, motions and discovery were used to create fraudulent and inflated billing. Plaintiff’s Abject Failure to Diligently Prosecute This Case. 12. Plaintiff filed this one-count public records suit in 2014, claiming that the Town had failed to produce all responsive communications “sent by or received by” its former Commissioner Robert Ganger, including text messages and e-mails “from private accounts. Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff proffered testimony at trial that these records were critical because Commissioner Ganger was running for Town Commission opposite Martin O’Boyle in an election set for March 2014. Trial Tr. 11/14/17 at 130:5-14, 135:12-19. 13. The Public Records Act entitles a requestor to seek an “immediate hearing” under Section 119.11(1) (“Whenever an action is filed to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the court shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases.”). 14. Yet aside from a passing reference to such a hearing in the “Wherefore” clause of its complaint, Plaintiff never took any action to set an immediate hearing in order to obtain the records requested. Indeed, for over one year, the docket and the Firm’s billing records reflect that it did nothing in this case but respond to a single request to produce issued by the Town. 15. In light of Plaintiff’s complete lack of prosecution, this Court twice issued notices of dismissal for Plaintiff’s complete lack of prosecution. The first notice issued April 14, 2015. Plaintiff then filed a form motion for summary judgment on June 11, 2015 yet failed to even notice that motion for hearing. 16. The Court was forced to issue another notice of dismissal for lack of prosecution on February 23, 2017. Again, in another transparent effort to avoid dismissal, Plaintiff filed 10 form requests for admissions in February 2017 – three years after suit was filed. 17. Notwithstanding the Court’s repeated efforts to get Plaintiff to move the case along, Plaintiff never even noticed it for trial, let alone sought an immediate hearing. On May 9, 2017, this Court ultimately set the case for trial. 18. Recognizing that the Town was not simply going to pay the fraudulent attorney’s fees sought by the O’Boyle Law Firm and that the Firm would actually have to have this simple public records suit heard by this Court, the Firm was discharged in the summer of 2017. On August 2, 2017, this Court “discharged \[Nickalaus Taylor and the Firm\] as attorneys for plaintiff” and substituted attorney Robert Rivas and the law firm of Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L.. See Order Granting Substitution of Counsel for Plaintiff dated 8/2/19. Martin O’Boyle gave his written consent for the Firm’s withdrawal. 19. The suit was tried for one day on November 14, 2017, followed by a two- hour hearing on legal argument on November 20, 2017. Attorney Rivas handled the hearing for Plaintiff, with Jonathan O’Boyle testifying as Plaintiff’s corporate representative. The latter is significant because, as noted below, Plaintiff seeks to recover fees from the Town for Jonathan O’Boyle serving as its client representative. 20. Claims by Plaintiff’s counsel that Attorney Rivas’ counsel was necessary because this suit had become something more than a simple one-count public records action in 2017 lack any merit. Among other things, the federal RICO suit the Town had filed against O’Boyle had long since been dismissed back in 2015. 21. Instead, by 2017, the Town had obtained a number of meaningful wins in this ongoing assault from O’Boyle and the O’Boyle Law Firm. Among others, on January 31, 2017, this Court ruled for the Town in a “gotcha” type suit where the Town produced its “sign in sheet” just two days after the last of nine (9) detailed records requests made by Mr. O’Boyle by fax during a single 15-minute period. See Final Judgment dated 1/31/17, O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA000834. On December 7, 2017, Final Judgment was entered in favor of the Town in connection with an alleged improper redaction case in Asset Enhancement, Inc. and Martin E. O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CC15050. 22. Furthermore, at the time of trial in November 2017:  The Town had no affirmative defenses on file;  The Town had no counterclaim on file;  No depositions had been taken by any party. 23. Nor did the Town’s post-hearing addition of a single affirmative defense of good faith, done at this Court’s direction, dramatically expand the contours of this lawsuit. Indeed, the Court continued the trial at Plaintiff’s request to avoid any claimed surprise. 24. Plaintiff thereafter took two extremely brief depositions – a 65 minute deposition of the Town’s Administrative Assistant Freda Defosse and a 35 minute deposition of former commissioner Ganger. The Town deposed Plaintiff’s corporate representative Jonathan O’Boyle, which deposition was terminated by Plaintiff’s counsel after just 2 hours and 15 minutes. 25. The Town is not the only target of Plaintiff’s bad faith conduct relative to fees in this case. Notably, Attorney Rivas sued Martin O’Boyle when Mr. O’Boyle “never paid a dime for any services performed or costs advanced” after November 30, 2017. A copy of the Complaint in Sachs Sax Caplan P.L. v. Martin E. O’Boyle, Case No. 2018CA012296 (“Rivas Compl.”), is attached as Exhibit “A”; see Rivas Compl. at ¶ 9. 26. Most notably, Attorney Rivas alleged that during the very same time he represented Plaintiff in this matter, Martin O’Boyle “attempted to persuade \[his\] Law Firm to use its good offices to represent him in a course of conduct that would have been dishonest, repugnant, and imprudent.” Rivas Compl. at ¶13. 27. While Plaintiff’s counsel refused to allow Rivas to testify about the facts underlying these allegations or his resultant settlement with Mr. O’Boyle, Rivas testified that the suit was resolved for approximately $.40 on the dollar. In other words, although Plaintiff seeks thousands of dollars for time billed him by Rivas after November 30, 2017, Plaintiff only ultimately payed Rivas for 40% of those fees. Rivas Dep. 9/19/19 at 86:1-13 (testifying that no amount of O’Boyle’s $50,000 payment on the approximately $120,000 in total unpaid fees was “directed to one particular case or another”). 28. On March 22, 2018, pursuant to another Stipulation executed by Martin O’Boyle dated March 21, 2018, Plaintiff brought in yet another attorney to represent it in this matter. Elaine Johnson James was substituted for Attorney Rivas. 29. While Bill Ring testified in another matter that Attorney James was brought in to replace Mr. Rivas because he was “too professorial,” Attorney Rivas believes “that is a false pretense.” Dep. Robert Rivas 9/19/19 at 113:16-19. The Complaint filed by Attorney Rivas details pretextual attempts by Mr. O’Boyle to get Attorney Rivas to withdraw so Mr. O’Boyle could avoid terminating him. Rivas Compl. at ¶¶ 10-12. 30. Attorney James then represented Plaintiff through the Consent Final Judgment in December 2018. 31. On December 3, 2018, this case was mediated as part of a global mediation involving 10 remaining public records cases brought by Mr. O’Boyle or his entities against the Town. This case was resolved by a Consent Final Judgment dated December 14, 2018. II. MEMORANDUM OF LAW The Town asks the Court to scrutinize the details associated with relationship between O’Boyle, his entities, and the Firm and to apply Florida law in rejecting Plaintiff’s claim for more than 600 hours of time and a fee award of over $225,000 in this simple public records matter. Instead, as set forth below and in the conclusions of the Town’s fee expert Matthew Mandel, Esq., the Town asks the Court to consider the entire record and enter a nominal fee award as contemplated by the “reasonable costs of enforcement, including reasonable attorneys’ fees” language codified in section 119.12 of the Act. The following are among the legal principles applicable to the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s fee claim in this case: A. Reasonableness of Hours Expended Relative to Services Rendered. In determining the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded, the court must consider whether the number of hours expended in the representation is reasonable. See In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 333 (Fla. 1991) (stating that in determining the number of hours that have been reasonably expended, a court must consider the time that would ordinarily have been spent by lawyers in the community to resolve this particular type of dispute, which is not necessarily the number of hours actually expended by counsel in the case at issue); Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowner's Ass‘n at the Vineyards. Inc., 928 So. 2d 495, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (in applying Platt, a determination of hours “reasonably expended,” considered in light of hours ordinarily spent by lawyers in such a dispute, does not require an award of hours actually expended by counsel in the case); Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass‘n v. Carreras, 633 So. 2d 1103,1110-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (stating that under the “hour setting” portion of a fee award, it is important to distinguish between the “hours actually worked” and the “hours reasonably expended,” because the hours actually worked is not the issue). “The court should review the nature of the services rendered and the necessity for their performance.” Baratta, 928 So. 2d at 498-99, citing Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Johnson, 431 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Where an attorney devotes more hours than necessary to a case, “inflating the level of attorney's fees...for prosecuting a case that Plaintiff's counsel knew would involve no more than a modest sum,” he cannot recover for such time. Goss v. Killian Oaks House of Learning, 248 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1168-69 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “In addition, work that is necessitated by the client’s own behavior should more properly be paid by the client than the opposing party.” See Baratta, 928 So. 2d at 499, citing Guthrie v. Guthrie, 357 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). B. Request that is Excessive and Unreasonable on its Face Plaintiff incredulously seeks more than 600 hours of time for this one-count public records suit, including more than 400 hours for the O’Boyle Law Firm which substituted out three (3) years into the case and after doing nothing to move the case along, and more than 200 hours for the duplicative and transitional efforts of Attorney Rivas. The fee request is so unreasonable that it can and should be denied in its entirety. See Andrews v. United States, 122 F.3d 1367, 1375 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting that “\[a\]lthough the Eleventh Circuit has not decided the issue . . . several other circuits hold\[\] that district courts do not abuse their discretion by denying in their entirety fee applications that are grossly inflated”). See also Brown v. Stackler, 612 F.2d 1057, 1059 (11th Cir. 1980) (denying outright a claim for over 800 hours of billable time spent on a “plain and simple case” and finding that “(s)uch denial is an entirely appropriate, and hopefully effective, means of encouraging counsel to maintain adequate records and submit reasonable, carefully calculated, and conscientiously measured claims when seeking statutory counsel fees”). Otherwise, “claimants feel free to make unreasonable demands, knowing that the only unfavorable consequence of such misconduct would be the reduction of their fee to what they should have asked for in the first place.” Envt’l Defense Fund, Inc. v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (denying fee request of attorney in its entirety because “even a perfunctory examination of Engel’s time entries would show that she billed on a Brobdingnabian scale”); see also ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999) (“\[I\]t is as much the duty of courts to see that excessive fees and expenses are not awarded as it is to see that an adequate amount is awarded”). In Goss v. Killian Oaks House of Learning, 248 F.Supp.2d 1162, 168 (S.D. Fla. 2003), the court noted that “an entitlement to attorney’s fees cannot be a carte blanche license for Plaintiffs to outrageously and in bad faith run up attorney fees without any threat of sanction.” Id. at 1168. The court found that where plaintiff spent 38.8 hours pursuing a claim for $316, “it would be unreasonable and indeed, unjust, to force Defendants to pay any of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, since the suit was frivolous in the first instance and Plaintiff’s counsel grossly exaggerated the amount of hours expended.” Id. at 1169. In Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington v. Landow, 999 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1993), the court denied an attorney fee award entirely where the plaintiff sought over $500,000 in fees for a simple breach of contract dispute. The court found that district courts have the discretion to deny a fee request in its entirety “when the amount requested is so excessive it shocks the conscience of the court.” Id. at 97. The court noted that a plaintiff “may not submit a fee request which is merely an opening bid in the quest for an award” and that allowing courts to deny an excessive fee application outright “telegraphs a signal to attorneys . . . to act responsibly when submitting petitions for attorneys’ fees.” Id. The court determined that to hold otherwise would encourage impermissible “gaming” on the part of the litigants and “fee requests which are nothing more than an opening bid in negotiations to reach an ultimate result.” Id. at 98. C. Plaintiff’s Revolving Door of Attorneys. For this one-count Public Records Act case, Plaintiff seeks to recover attorney’s fees for at least one dozen separate attorneys and multiple other timekeepers at four separate law firms. In addition to the law firms mentioned above, Plaintiff seeks to recover for fees incurred by Atherton McAuliffe & Reeder, P.A., which never entered any appearance in this case. Instead, Martin Reeder simply participated, along with several other attorneys representing O’Boyle, in a conference mediating 10 separate lawsuits and began charging time in this matter in December 2018, just a few weeks before the case resolved. As Judge Kastrenakes observed in a recent fee hearing involving these same costs, at least 12 hours of time for which Plaintiff’s seek to recover for Attorney Reeder reflect block billing for issues that have nothing to do with any public records case but concern negotiations with the Town regarding renovations to Mr. O’Boyle’s house, Town noise ordinances, etc. In fact, Attorney Reeder conceded that only 50% of this time was related to attempting to resolve any public records case. A claimant is entitled to recover for at least one good lawyer, but not all lawyers, associates and paralegals that may have worked on the case. See Brake v. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Moreover, although a party has the right to hire as many attorneys as it desires, “\[t\]he opposing party is not required to compensate for overlapping efforts should they result.” Id. Florida courts are extremely sensitive to the duplication of fees in cases involving multiple attorneys. See id. at 748; see also Brevard Cnty. v. Canaveral Props., Inc., 696 So. 2d 1244, 1245-46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding court must consider possibility of duplicative effort arising from multiple attorneys in determining a proper fee award). To reflect duplication of services, fees should be adjusted and hours reduced or eliminated. See Brevard Cnty, 696 So. 2d at 1245-46. See also United Food Mart, Inc. v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, 2006 WL 3068820, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2006) (noting that six attorneys, three paralegals, one investigator and four staffers working on the file inevitably led to the duplication of efforts); Steffen v. Senterfitt, 2007 WL 1601750, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 1, 2007) (reducing defendants’ fee request by 25% for excessive hours due to overstaffing; eight attorneys, seven paralegals and two law clerks billed time on the file). To recover for tasks performed by more than one attorney, the burden is on the fee applicant to show the time spent by each attorney “reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and \[is\] the customary practice of multiple lawyer litigation.” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 432 (citations omitted). In Barnes, where multiple attorneys were involved in the drafting of the briefs, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not carry that burden where the billing records failed to include “any indication of the distinct contribution each attorney made to the task of drafting the briefs. Nor do any of the attorneys’ affidavits clarify the billing records by describing what each attorney contributed.” Id. at 433. D. Attorney’s Fees for Plaintiff’s Officer William Ring and its Corporate Representative/In-house Counsel Jonathan O’Boyle Are Not Recoverable Plaintiff improperly seeks to recover as attorney’s fees time spent by its officer, William Ring, in appearing as the client at mediation in August 2017 (Plaintiff was represented at that mediation by Attorney Rivas, for which it also seeks fees) and for its corporate representative and general counsel, Jonathan O’Boyle, to prepare for and testify at the hearing in November 2017 and again at the Rule 1.310(b)(6) deposition in the spring of 2018. This is entirely inappropriate. th In Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1983), the 11 Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to include in-house counsel fees as part of the attorney’s fees award. The court stated: “Attorney’s fees for the services of in-house counsel are not recoverable. There is no precedent in Florida law for an award of attorney’s fees for the services of in-house counsel.” Id. at 1499. See also Dictiomatic, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 2000 WL 33115333 at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2000) (“Attorney’s fees for services of in-house counsel who act primarily as liaisons between the client and outside counsel are not recoverable . . .”). E. Travel Costs are Not Recoverable. Plaintiff chose to replace the O’Boyle Law Firm with Attorney Rivas, who is based in Tallahassee and now asks the Town to pay for Attorney Rivas’ travel time to Palm Beach County. This is inappropriate. Attorney’s fees for travel time are not recoverable absent a showing that a competent local attorney could not be obtained. Mandel v. Decorator’s Mart, Inc. of Deerfield Beach, 965 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 132 So.3d 858, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (noting that “travel time is generally not compensable”). Competent local counsel could clearly have handled this case, as evidenced by the fact that Plaintiff replaced Attorney Rivas with Palm Beach County counsel, Elaine James, Esq. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to fees for travel time. F. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to “Fees for Fees.” This Court should reject any argument by Plaintiff that it is entitled to fees for prosecuting its fee application after the Consent Final Judgment was entered on December 14, 2018. In fact, the Honorable Glenn D. Kelley just rejected a similar argument did at a hearing October 11, 2019 on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification in O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA008076. Time spent litigating the amount of attorney’s fees (“fees for fees”) is not compensable under Florida law and certainly not here where Plaintiff’s claim does not even arise under a “prevailing party” provision but is expressly limited by the narrow “costs of enforcement” language of the Public Records Act under Fla. Stat. § 119.12. The Town submits that any enforcement of the Act concluded with the production of the responsive record in April 2015; at a minimum, enforcement concluded on December 14, 2018 when this Court entered a Consent Final Judgment that determined Plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under section 119.12, Florida Statutes. The rule in Florida is that a party generally may not recover attorney’s fees for the time expended in determining the amount of attorney’s fees. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993). In Palma, the claim for attorney fees was asserted under section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1991). Id. at 833. That statute provided that an insured who prevailed against an insurer in a particular type of dispute was entitled to an award of reasonable fees. Palma held that only the time spent establishing the entitlement to a fee was compensable. Id. In denying “fees for fees,” the Florida Supreme Court reasoned that work performed by an attorney concerning the amount of the fee to be awarded “inures solely to the attorney’s benefit and cannot be considered services rendered in procuring full payment of the judgment.” Id. at 833. Since Palma, Florida courts have consistently applied its holding to bar fee awards under attorney’s fees statutes for time spent litigating the amount (as opposed to entitlement) of the fee to be awarded. For example, in Mediplex Construction of Florida, Inc. v. Schaub, 856 So. 2d 13, 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District, relying on Palma, affirmed the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees for time spent litigating the amount of fees to which the plaintiffs were entitled under a contract and section 57.105, Florida Statutes. See also Yakavonis v. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc., 934 So. 2d 615, 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Attorney’s fees are only available for time spent litigating the issue of entitlement, not for the time spent litigating the amount of fees to be awarded.”); Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (barring fees for fees under section 768.79(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)); Dep’t of Transp., State of Fla. v. Robbins and Robbins, Inc., 700 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (barring fees for fees under sections 73.091 and 73.092, Florida Statutes (1993), in eminent domain proceeding). That a party is not entitled to “fees for fees” has been extended to Public Records Act cases. Thus, in Downs v. Austin, the appellate court made clear that “\[n\]o fee is authorized for efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee” under Section 119.12 of the Act. 559 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (emphasis added). Noting that the stated purpose of the Act is to promote open access to public records, Downs concluded that the fee provision in Section 119.12 was simply intended to serve as disincentive to an agency to delay access. See id. at 247. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to cite a single case permitting fees for fees in a Public Records Act Case. The rule announced by Palma is designed to keep fees down. As explained by the Second District, “\[t\]he rule limiting fees for fees has the advantage of encouraging parties to litigate fees in an efficient manner. If litigants are able to obtain fees for litigating the amount of fees, then the party who expects to win lacks an incentive not to excessively litigate the issue. The opposing party is left with little choice but to do the same.” Wight v. Wight, 880 So. 2d 692, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The Court can avoid this kind of excessive fee litigation simply by following Palma. In light of the clear Florida law disallowing recovery of fees for fees, Plaintiff is not entitled to any fees or costs incurred after December 14, 2018, when the Court entered its Consent Final Judgment entitling Plaintiff to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees. III. CONCLUSION The Town asks that the Court see though the games and manipulation and determine a reasonable fee in response to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees filed by the Plaintiff, reduce the fees requested in accordance with the arguments set forth in this Memorandum and the opinions of the Town’s expert Matthew Mandel, Esq., and provide such further relief the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Jones Foster P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3475 Telephone: (561) 659-3000 Facsimile: (561) 650-5300 joconnor@jonesfoster.com By /s/ Joanne M. O’Connor Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar No: 0498807 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Gulf Stream CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been th furnished via the E-Filing Portal this 14 day of October, 2019 to all counsel listed on the attached Service List. Jones Foster P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3475 Telephone: (561) 659-3000 Facsimile: (561) 650-5300 joconnor@jonesfoster.com By /s/ Joanne M. O’Connor Joanne M. O’Connor Florida Bar No: 0498807 Attorneys for Defendant Town of Gulf Stream ASSET ENHANCEMENT v TOWN OF GULF STREAM CASE NO: CASE NO. 502014CA010216XXXXMB AF SERVICE LIST Elaine Johnson James, Esquire Elaine Johnson James, PA Post Office Box 31512 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420 ejames@elainejohnsonjames.com Jonathan R. O’Boyle The O’Boyle Law Firm 1280 West Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 joboyle@oboylelawfirm.com L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Atherton McAuliffe & Reeder PA 224 Datura Street, Suite 815 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 martin@athertonlg.com e-service@athertonlg.com tracey@athertonlg.com Robert Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple Broeker & Varkas, PL 4800 North Federal Highway Building B105 Boca Raton, FL 33432 pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com Joanne M. O’Connor, Esquire Jones Foster P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 joconnor@jonesfoster.com Edward C. Nazzaro, Esquire Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, Florida 33483 tnazzaro@gulf-stream.org P:\\DOCS\\13147\\00059\\PLD\\1YQ7028.DOCX IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 502014CA003721XXXXMB AH STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC Plaintiff, vs. TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Defendant. / ORDER AWARDING COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Amended Motion to Assess and Award Reasonable Costs of Enforcement, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Costs of Plaintiff, STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC (the “Fee Motion”). The Court having held an evidentiary hearing on the matter on October 17 and 18, 2019, having received evidence, 1 testimony of both fact and expert witnesses and proposed detailed orders submitted by counsel of record after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, taken judicial notice of 2 various public records, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court hereby finds as follows: BACKGROUND 1 The Court heard testimony from Plaintiff’s fact witnesses Jonathan O’Boyle and William Ring at the hearing and Robert Rivas by deposition (Pl.’s Ex. ___), from Plaintiff’s expert witness Eugene Pettis and from the Town’s expert witness, Matthew Mandel. Plaintiff’s counsel Elaine James and Martin Reeder did not testify in support of Plaintiff’s Fee Motion. 2 The Court took judicial notice of Final Judgments entered in two other Public Records Act cases, both involving the OBLF and one involving Martin O’Boyle. See Final Judgment dated Jan. 31, 2017 in O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA000834XXXXMB AH and Final Judgment dated May 8, 2017 in O’Hare v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA008142XXXXMB AB. 1. This one-count public records suit was filed in March 2014 by the O’Boyle Law Firm (“OBLF”) on behalf of Stopdirtygovernment, LLC. The principal of SDG is Martin O’Boyle, a resident of the Town. The OBLF was founded by Martin O’Boyle’s son, Jonathan O’Boyle, and authorized to do business in Florida just a few months before this suit was filed. 2. The single count for relief asserted that the Town had failed to produce all responsive communications “sent by or received by” its former Commissioner Robert Ganger, including text messages and e-mails “from private accounts. Compl. ¶ 10. Jonathan O’Boyle testified at the fee hearing that these records were critical to his father because he was running for Town Commission opposite incumbent Commissioner Ganger in an election set for March 11, 2014. See also Trial Tr. 11/14/17 at 130:5-14, 135:12-19. 3. For the first three (3) years of this case, during which Plaintiff was represented by the OBLF, Plaintiff did little to diligently prosecute this case. This despite the fact that the Public Records Act entitles a requestor to seek an “immediate hearing” under Section 119.11(1) (“Whenever an action is filed to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the court shall set an immediate hearing, giving the case priority over other pending cases.”). At the hearing, Jonathan O’Boyle testified that he was not aware that courts in this circuit do not sua sponte call up public records cases for immediate hearing. Certainly as time went by and in light of the number of other public records cases the OBLF was handling in this circuit, Plaintiff and its counsel should have been aware of the need to move the case forward. 4. In light of Plaintiff’s lack of prosecution, this Court twice issued notices of dismissal. The first notice issued April 14, 2015. Plaintiff then filed and billed a number of hours for a form motion for summary judgment on June 11, 2015 that was nearly identical to prior motions filed by the OBLF on behalf of Martin O’Boyle and one of his entities. Compare Pl.’s Ex. 4(a) with Pl.’s Exs. 4(b), (c). Even then, Plaintiff failed to even notice the motion for hearing. The Court issued another notice of dismissal for lack of prosecution on February 23, 2017. 5. On January 31, 2017, this Court ruled for the Town in another public records suit brought by Mr. O’Boyle involving the Town’s production of its “sign in sheet” just two days after the last of nine (9) detailed records requests made by Mr. O’Boyle by fax during a single 15-minute period. See Final Judgment dated 1/31/17, O’Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA000834. 6. On May 9, 2017, the Court set the case for trial. 7. Just prior to that trial setting, the Honorable Thomas Barkdull, III, on May 8, 2017 upheld an affirmative defense of bad faith asserted by the Town in a public records suit brought by another Town resident Christopher O’Hare. Judge Barkdull held that “any delay or deficiency in the Town’s response was excused by O’Hare’s patently bad faith conduct” and barred the relief he sought under Chapter 119 See Final Judgment dated May 8, 2017 in O’Hare v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA008142XXXXMB AB at 16. Mr. O’Hare was represented in that suit by the OBLF and Attorney James. 8. On June __, 2017, Martin O’Boyle gave written consent on behalf of Plaintiff for the OBLF to withdraw as counsel in this matter. The Court on August 2, 2017, “discharged \[Nickalaus Taylor and the Firm\] as attorneys for plaintiff” and substituted attorney Robert Rivas and the law firm of Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L. See Order Granting Substitution of Counsel for Plaintiff dated 8/2/19. 9. With the benefit of Judge Barkdull’s order in the O’Hare case, the Town moved for leave to add an affirmative defense of bad faith here. The Court denied that relief. 10. The suit was tried for one day on November 14, 2017, followed by a two- hour hearing on legal argument on November 20, 2017. Attorney Rivas handled the hearing for Plaintiff, with Jonathan O’Boyle testifying as Plaintiff’s “General Counsel.” Trial Tr. 11/14/17 at ___. 11. At the time this case was tried in November 2017, the Town had no affirmative defenses or counterclaims on filed. Further, no depositions had been taken. 12. The only depositions ever taken in this case on behalf of Plaintiff were taken in early 2018 by Attorney Rivas – brief depositions of the Town’s former Administrative Assistant Freda DeFosse and its former commissioner Robert Ganger. Attorney Rivas testified that he spent a significant amount of time preparing for Mr. Ganger’s deposition in part because he did not realize that Mr. Ganger had been incapacitated by a stroke. However, he ultimately conceded that he would have been on notice of a motion for protective order filed on behalf of Mr. Ganger well prior to the deposition. \[CITE RIVAS\]. A deposition of another former commissioner, Joan Orthwein, never went forward. The Town took a single deposition of the Plaintiff; Plaintiff chose to be represented at that deposition by Jonathan O’Boyle. 13. On March 22, 2018, pursuant to another Stipulation executed by Martin O’Boyle dated March 21, 2018, Plaintiff brought in yet another attorney to represent it in this matter. Elaine Johnson James was substituted for Attorney Rivas. 14. Plaintiff refused to allow the Town to question Attorney Rivas regarding his withdrawal and replacement by Attorney James. Bill Ring testified that Attorney James was brought in to replace Mr. Rivas because of the complexity of the relationships involved, Attorney Rivas believes “that is a false pretense.” Dep. Robert Rivas 9/19/19 at 113:16-19. The SSC Firm’s Complaint details pretextual attempts by Mr. O’Boyle to get Attorney Rivas to withdraw so Mr. O’Boyle could avoid terminating him. Rivas Compl. at ¶¶ 10-12. 15. Attorney James then represented Plaintiff through the Consent Final Judgment in December 2018. 16. On December 3, 2018, this case was mediated as part of a global mediation involving 10 remaining public records cases brought by Mr. O’Boyle or his entities against the Town. This case was resolved by a Consent Final Judgment dated December 14, 2018. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Tthe Florida Supreme Court in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), adopted the federal lodestar approach as the foundation for setting reasonable fee awards. 472 So. 2d at 1150. As the Fourth District has explained: The first step of that lodestar approach ‘requires the court to determine the number of hours reasonably expended’ and the second step requires the court to determine a reasonable hourly rate. The number of hours reasonably expended, determined in the first step, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, determined in the second step, produces the lodestar, which is an objective basis for the award of attorney fees.” th Nalasco v. Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc., 171 So. 3d 759, 762 (Fla. 4 DCA 2015) (quoting Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1150-51). Thus, to determine the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees to be assessed against Thorstad, the Court must multiply the number of hours found to be reasonably expended by the hourly rates found to be reasonable.. In determining the reasonableness of the fees sought, the Court considers the following criteria: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the question involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1150. The Court has considered the following additional legal principles in reviewing Plaintiff’s fee claim in this case: A. Reasonableness of Hours Expended Relative to Services Rendered. In determining the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded, the court must consider whether the number of hours expended in the representation is reasonable. That amount is not necessarily the number of hours actually expended by counsel. In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 333 (Fla. 1991); Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowner's Ass‘n at the Vineyards. Inc., 928 So. 2d 495, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). See also Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass‘n v. Carreras, 633 So. 2d 1103,1110-11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (stating that under the “hour setting” portion of a fee award, it is important to distinguish between the “hours actually worked” and the “hours reasonably expended,” because the hours actually worked is not the issue). “‘Reasonably expended’ means the time that ordinarily would be spent by lawyers in the community to resolve this particular type of dispute... In this respect, the magnitude of the case should be a consideration.” See Centex-Rooney Const. Co. v. Martin Cnty., 725 So. 2d 1255, 1258 th (Fla. 4 DCA 1999) (quoting In re Estate of Platt, 586 So.2d 328, 333-34 (Fla.1991)). Where an attorney devotes more hours than necessary to a case, “inflating the level of attorney's fees...for prosecuting a case that Plaintiff's counsel knew would involve no more than a modest sum,” he cannot recover for such time. Goss v. Killian Oaks House of Learning, 248 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1168-69 (S.D. Fla. 2003). “In addition, work that is necessitated by the client’s own behavior should more properly be paid by the client than the opposing party.” Baratta, 928 So. 2d at 499 (citing Guthrie v. Guthrie, 357 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)). B. Multiple Attorneys A claimant is entitled to recover for at least one good lawyer, but not all lawyers, associates and paralegals that may have worked on the case. See Brake v. Murphy, 736 So. 2d 745, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Moreover, although a party has the right to hire as many attorneys as it desires, “\[t\]he opposing party is not required to compensate for overlapping efforts should they result.” Id. Florida courts are extremely sensitive to the duplication of fees in cases involving multiple attorneys. See id. at 748; see also Brevard Cnty. v. Canaveral Props., Inc., 696 So. 2d 1244, 1245-46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding court must consider possibility of duplicative effort arising from multiple attorneys in determining a proper fee award). To recover for tasks performed by more than one attorney, the burden is on the fee applicant to show the time spent by each attorney “reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and \[is\] the customary practice of multiple lawyer litigation.” Barnes, 168 F.3d at 432 (citations omitted). To reflect duplication of services, fees should be adjusted and hours reduced or eliminated. See Brevard Cnty, 696 So. 2d at 1245-46. C. Fees for In-House Counsel th In Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1983), the 11 Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to include in-house counsel fees as part of the attorney’s fees award. The court stated: “Attorney’s fees for the services of in-house counsel are not recoverable. There is no precedent in Florida law for an award of attorney’s fees for the services of in-house counsel.” Id. at 1499. See also Dictiomatic, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 2000 WL 33115333 at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2000) (“Attorney’s fees for services of in-house counsel who act primarily as liaisons between the client and outside counsel are not recoverable . . .”). ANALYSIS Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable costs of enforcement under Chapter 119 in the form of attorney’s fees for work performed by (1) ten separate timekeepers at the O’Boyle Law Firm (“OBLF”) -- Jonathan O’Boyle, Daniel Welch, Giovani Mesa, Ian Singer Marrett Hanna, Nick Taylor, Ryan Witmer, Krstin Blackwell, Taylor Bailey and William Ring; (2) Robert Rivas, Esq. (“Attorney Rivas”); (3) Elaine Johnson James, Esq. (“Attorney James”) and (4) Martin Reeder, Esq. (“Attorney Reeder”). Fee affidavits from these professionals were admitted into evidence. Pl.’s Exs. 1-4. A costs’ application was also made by William Ring. Pl.’s Ex. 3. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the hourly rates of all timekeepers. The issue for the Court to decide is the reasonable number of hours expended on behalf of the Plaintiff and the ultimate fee to be awarded as costs of enforcement in this case. After consideration of the Rowe factors, the Court has determined the reasonable fee for each claimed timekeeper. In reaching the conclusions set forth below, the Court has reviewed the reasonableness of the hours spent on the case, including considering the expert testimony presented and conducting an independent analysis of the time spent on the case. For ease of reference the Court will perform the lodestar calculation separately for each of the foregoing categories of professionals. A. The OBLF The OBLF brought this case on behalf of Plaintiff in March 2014 and served as counsel of record for more than three (3) years, until it was discharged by Plaintiff’s principal, Martin O’Boyle, in June 2018 and the Court granted a substitution by Attorney Rivas and the SSC Firm on August 2, 2018. In analyzing the fees sought by Plaintiff, the Court takes into account the fact that the OBLF did little to move the case along during that three-year period despite repeated prompting from the Court. Plaintiff’s expert Pettis testified that the OBLF fees sought by Plaintiff’s Amended Motion should be reduced some 40% from $87,006.92 to $51,598.50. The Town’s expert Mandel testified that the OBLF fees should be limited to fees for work performed prior to being discharged as counsel of record in this matter, or to $6,146.00. That figure also takes into account time Mr. Mandel deems unreasonable relative to interoffice communications, notices of appearance never filed and administrative tasks. 1. No Fees for Time After Plaintiff Discharged the OBLF in 2017 The Court concludes that it would be unreasonable to permit Plaintiff to recover fees for time spent by the OBLF after that firm was voluntarily “discharged as attorneys for plaintiff” by the Court and Attorney Rivas was substituted in as counsel of record on August 2, 2017. Mr. O’Boyle expressly consented to the substitution in a writing dated several weeks earlier, on June 19, 2017. The Court agrees with Mr. Mandel that the OBLF did not have to withdraw if they truly intended to remain involved and as co-counsel on the case. Instead, the testimony was clear that both the OBLF and Plaintiff wanted the OBLF discharged of any responsibility in the case. Further, aside from filing the Complaint, the OBLF did nothing to substantively enforce Plaintiff’s rights under the Act while it was counsel of record. The Court also finds it would be inequitable to assess fees against the Town for services performed by the OBLF after that firm was discharged. No evidence was presented to the Court reflecting that the Town understood that the OBLF continued to represent Plaintiff, let alone that the Town was permitted to communicate with OBLF regarding this matter. Attorney O’Boyle was unable to identify from the OBLF billing records a single oral or written communication between him or any member of the OBLF and counsel for the Town. Instead, the only communications between the OBLF and counsel for the Town after the Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel was filed July 31, 2017 occurred during the transition in August 2017 when Attorney Rivas requested that the Town continue to communicate with a paralegal at the OBLF for the limited purpose of scheduling mediation since “the O’Boyle law firm remains co-counsel until an order is entered granting the substitution.” Rivas Def. Ex. 2. \[THE TOWN PROPOSES THE FOLLOWING SHOULD THE COURT NOT AGREE WITH THE TOWN’S EXPERT MANDEL THAT REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE OBLF SHOULD CUT OFF WHEN PLAINTIFF VOLUNTARILY DISCHARGED THE FIRM: 2. No Fees for Plaintiff’s “House Counsel” William Ring The Court finds that all time for William Ring should be eliminated. Mr. Ring is the admitted “house counsel“ for the Plaintiff. He has worked for Mr. O’Boyle and his corporate entities for several decades. Despite Mr. Ring’s testimony that he was an employee of the OBLF during the time for which Plaintiff seeks to recover fees for him, Mr. Ring is not a litigator and remained an officer of many of Mr. O’Boyle’s corporate entities throughout that period. Attorney Rivas, who appeared as counsel for Plaintiff at the August 2017 mediation in this case, confirmed that Mr. Ring was acting as Plaintiff’s corporate representative. Rivas Dep. at 95:23-96:7. See also Rivas Dep. Def. Ex. 3 (email from Rivas to O’Connor dated Aug. 14, 2017: “Joanne, the corporation has chosen Bill Ring to be its representative at the mediation conference with full authority to settle.”). Plaintiff seeks to recover the following time for Mr. Ring: 8/2/2017 0.3 discussion re: responsive documents $120.00 William Ring 8/3/2017 0.3 notes re discovery $120.00 William Ring 8/8/2017 0.4 discussion with rivas - re scheduding $160.00 William Ring Travel to and attend mediation in West Palm, including 8/17/2017 4.8 various calls and discussions with MEO RR pre $1,920.00 William Ring Mediation, and post mediation. 8/21/2017 0.3 Notes re: stay and mediation $120.00 William Ring Discussion with Rob re: Case and Hearing and Cease Fire, along with Refining what Cease Fire means. 8/22/2017 1.1 $440.00 William Ring Discussed 3-cases. Divided Time equally on three cases. Working on Document title Cease Fire. Discussion re: Sweetapple personal use vs. 11/7/2017 0.3 $120.00 William Ring Sweetapple billing time to Town for Personal Use. 11/9/2017 0.3 conversation re: upcoming trial $120.00 William Ring Assisting in prep for Monday trial: Reviewing Town Log of PRRs re: Town's defense; Collecting other Ganger 11/15/2017 3 $1,200.00 William Ring TOGS documents that should have been responsive to the Request at issue in this matter. Assist in: printing color copies of cases (printer issues); various discussions with MEO, JRO re: evidence of 11/16/2017 1.5 $600.00 William Ring TOGS bad faith, including the existence of responsive docs on Town's web site not produced in this matter. assisting on various pre-trial issues and information 11/17/2017 0.6 $240.00 William Ring review 11/21/2017 0.3 Discussions re: process for deps, etc. $120.00 William Ring Multiple discussions with Rob, MEO, JRO re: proposed settlement offer from Gulf Stream to Plaintiff, and how 1/25/2018 1.5 $600.00 William Ring Gulf Stream's delay could affect P's preparation for trial. discussion with Rob and/or Jon re: depos. Review newly provided emails by Mr. Ganger (his description 1/31/2018 0.3 $120.00 William Ring of fellow commissioners is harsh - I can see why he did not want these public). 2/28/2018 4.8 travel to and attend JRO depo with Rivas, MEO. $1,920.00 William Ring Post depo discussions; discussing Motion for 2/28/2018 1.4 $560.00 William Ring Sanctions against GS 3/8/2018 0.6 Discussion with RR re: hearings and schedules $240.00 William Ring 3/8/2018 0.6 Discussion with RR re: hearings and schedules $240.00 William Ring $8,960.00 The descriptions provided in Mr. Ring’s time entries are consistent with him serving in an in-house capacity for Plaintiff. Mr. Ring’s entries largely reflect unspecified communications with Attorney Rivas or Martin and Jonathan O’Boyle and unidentified preparation and assistance, including some clearly administrative tasks (see 11/16/17). Plaintiff’s expert Pettis eliminated time on November 14, 2017 (Lines 121, 122) and again on November 20, 2017 (Line 143) for “\[v\]arious conversations” and “discussions” with 3 Martin O’Boyle, Attorney Rivas and Jonathan O’Boyle regarding the trial, but 3 Plaintiff’s expert Pettis also reduced Mr. Ring’s August 17, 2017 entry for attending mediation from 5.8 to 4.8 hours and eliminated time entries on August 31, 2017 (Line 97), November 13, 2017 (Line 117), January 29, 2018 (Line 178) and February 45, 2018 (Line 186). inconsistently permitted other similar entries. With regard to the time for Mr. Ring to attend the February 28, 2018 deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative, the Court notes that it has already credited time for Attorney Rivas to defend Plaintiff’s representative Jonathan O’Boyle at that deposition. 3. No Fees for Plaintiff’s General Counsel onathan O’Boyle Of the $53,598.50 \[THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM EXHIBIT I HAVE, CONFIRM\] in OBLF fees Plaintiff’s expert Pettis found reasonable, $20,377.00 of those fees (representing 101.89 hours) were billed to Plaintiff by Jonathan O’Boyle. Aside from .8 hours on July 28, 2017, all of his time was billed after the OBLF was discharged on August 2, 2017. Just a few months after the August 2017 discharge of the OBLF, in November 2017, Jonathan O’Boyle was testifying at trial as the Plaintiff’s “General Counsel.” Plaintiff also presented Jonathan O’Boyle to testify as its Rule 1.310(b)(6) corporate representative at a deposition on February 28, 2018. Notwithstanding the fact that he was serving as the client and that the OBLF had been discharged, Jonathan O’Boyle nevertheless billed, and Plaintiff seeks to recover, for the time he spent serving as the client’s representative. Plaintiff’s expert Pettis recognized this was improper and eliminated the time Jonathan O’Boyle spent on February 27 and 28, 2018 preparing for and being deposed as the corporate representative. Yet he made no similar reduction for Jonathan O’Boyle’s time preparing to and testifying at trial on November 14, 2017 and preparing again for trial to resume on November 20, 2017. \[CITE END OF TRANSCRIPT WHERE WE MADE CLEAR HE NEEDED TO BE AVAILABLE IN OUR CASE) Those entries are excerpted below: Prep for trial (gather exhibits with Ian, and review documents). Talk with Bill and Jonathan 11/13/2017 4.5 MEO and Rivas about trial strategy. $900.00 $900.00 4.50 O'Boyle Research Town's website and track down every exhibit for authentication. Meet rob at 715 am. Trial Prep, Trial and Jonathan 11/14/2017 10.5 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 10.50 debriefing with the firm and MEO. O'Boyle Saturday from 1:00 to 6:30 doing trial prep, Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Jonathan 11/19/2017 14.5 $2,900.00 $1,500.00 7.50 doing trial prep and getting exhibits O'Boyle together. Jonathan 11/20/2017 5 Attend Trial. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 5.00 O'Boyle Call with RIVAS about depositions of Jonathan 2/6/2018 0.6 myself and protective orders as well as $120.00 $120.00 0.60 O'Boyle Orthwein. The Court concludes that Plaintiff is not entitled to the hours reported by Jonathan O’Boyle as those hours not only reflect his role as Plaintiff’s General Counsel, but they also reflect duplicative efforts by multiple attorneys throughout the period that Plaintiff was represented by other counsel in Attorney Rivas and then Attorney James. Florida law is clear that while a claimant is entitled to recover time spent by at least one good lawyer, it is not entitled to recover for all lawyers that may have worked on a case. Fees for Motion for Summary Judgment Never Filed Pettis acknowledged not reasonable to seek to recover for fees but instead of eliminating reduced to 2.8 hours, asserting _____. See Pettis Line 88 B. The SSC Firm and Attorney Rivas After Plaintiff discharged the OBLF, the SSC Firm and Attorney Rivas served as counsel of record for Plaintiff from August 2, 2017 to March 22, 2018, when Plaintiff opted to replace Attorney Rivas with Attorney James. Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit by Attorney Rivas in support of its January 14, 2019 Fee Motion, seeking $92,119.90 for work performed by Attorney Rivas from July 28, 2017 to March 28, 2018. Pl.’s Fee Mot. Ex. A. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s expert Pettis testified that certain hours should be excluded from the lodestar for Attorney Rivas as excessive, redundant or otherwise necessary. He opined that a reasonable award of fees for Attorney Rivas is $78,351.50. Notably, and as detailed below, Mr. Pettis never questioned Attorney Rivas about the suit he filed against Mr. O’Boyle for unpaid fees and did not adjust his opinions to reflect the significant discount that accrued to Plaintiff when Mr. O’Boyle settled that suit. In fact, the Court finds below that the Plaintiff actually paid the SSC Firm some $15,000 less than the amount Mr. Pettis testified was reasonable. Mr. Pettis’ also gives Plaintiff credit for 2.1 hours of time by the SSC Firm on February 12, 2018 (Line 65), which Attorney Rivas concedes improperly duplicates an identical entry the same day (Line 64). Rivas Dep. at 32:21-33:13. The Town’s expert Mandel testified that a reasonable award of fees for Attorney Rivas is $42,253.55, after reductions that include the benefit of Mr. O’Boyle’s settlement with the SSC Firm, travel time and excessive time on certain pleadings and trial and deposition preparation. The Court makes the following findings regarding the reasonable hours sought by Plaintiff for work performed by the SSC Firm and Attorney Rivas: 1. No Entitlement to Fees for Travel The Court declines to award Plaintiff fees for travel by Attorney Rivas. Attorney’s fees for travel time are not recoverable absent a showing that a competent local attorney could not be obtained. Mandel v. Decorator’s Mart, Inc. of Deerfield Beach, 965 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 132 So.3d 858, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (noting that “travel time is generally not compensable”); Fence Wholesalers of America, Inc. v. Beneficial Commercial Corp., 465 So. 2d 57, 5700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (affirming except as to attorney’s fees, judgment for which was remanded for reduction by amount representing award for travel time absent showing a competent local attorney could not be obtained). Plaintiff failed to make such a showing to justify travel by Attorney Rivas. Plaintiff chose to replace the OBLF with Attorney Rivas, who works out of the SSC Firm’s Tallahassee office after being represented for more than three (3) years by multiple attorneys at the OBLF. Even crediting Attorney Rivas’ testimony that this case was more complex than an average public records case, Attorney Rivas identified Attorney Reeder and Deanna Shullman, Esq. as Palm Beach County lawyers with the skill and experience to competently represent Plaintiff here. Rivas Dep. 9/19/19 at 22:19-22:10. Attorney Rivas also noted that there are fine lawyers with extensive experience in public records litigation gained from representing governmental agencies as well. See id. at 23:11-18. And he conceded that while he had not previously heard of Attorney James as an expert in public records litigation, she was “eminently qualified to do what she was brought in to do.” Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff’s expert Pettis was “certain” there are competent public records lawyers in Palm Beach County like Attorney James who could handle this case. Tr. at 115:1-4. The Town’s expert Mandel agreed that there are other firms and lawyers in Palm Beach and Broward County, including his own, that handle public records matters. That Plaintiff thereafter chose, with the trial underway, to replace with Attorney Rivas with Attorney James and to also enlist the services of Attorney Reeder evidence that Plaintiff had no need to go outside of Palm Beach County to obtain competent counsel to represent it in this one-count public records case. The Court thus disallows the following fees for travel by Attorney Rivas: 8/16/2017 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel to WPB for tomorrow's mediation conference in 3721. 8/17/2017 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel home from mediation conference. 11/13/2017 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel to Palm Beach County for tomorrow's motion hearings In 3721. 11/14/2017 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel home from trial of 3721. 11/17/2017 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel to Palm Beach County to work with O'Boyles to prepare for Monday trial resumption. 11/21/2017 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel home from trial of 3721. 1/14/2018 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel to WPB to work with JRO on preparation for depositions and trial in 3721. 1/17/2018 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel home from aborted depositions. 1/29/2018 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel to Palm Beach County for Wednesday's depositions In 3721. 2/2/2018 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel home from depositions and client meetings. 2/25/2018 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel to WPB for tomorrow's hearing and for depositions on Tuesday and Wednesday, all in 3721. 2/28/2018 RDR 3 $1,185.00 Travel home from hearing, IRO deposition, and Orthwein deposition. $14,220.00 2. Excessive and Unreasonable Hours The Court credits the testimony and findings of the Town’s expert Mandel as to certain additional reductions to the fees Plaintiff seeks for time by the SSC Law Firm. These include a reduction for excessive hours spent on the joint pretrial stipulation filed November 9, 2017 (Line 24) where significant credit was elsewhere given (see, e.g., Lines 18, 19, 22, 23, 25); at the November 14, 2017 hearing, from 10.0 to 8.0 hours (Line 29); for trial preparation (32 total hours) between the November 14 and 20, 2017 hearings to a total of 19 hours, consistent with the 14.5 hours of time billed by Attorneys O’Connor and Sweetapple for the Town during the same period (Lines 31-33, 35-37); responding to the Town’s motion for leave to file a good faith defense (Lines 41, 43-45, 47); and preparing for and taking the brief depositions of DeFosse, Ganger and Orthwein (Lines 56-57, 65, 71). 3. Reduction for Fees Not Paid by Plaintiff Mr. O’Boyle stopped paying the SSC Firm for work performed after November 30, 2017, causing the SSC Firm to sue him for the unpaid fees. Rivas Dep. 9/19/19 at 72:1- 6 & Def. Ex. 1. Plaintiff paid fees owed the SSC Firm through November 30, 2017, which total $43,213.00. It was undisputed, however, that the remaining $48,906.90 of the $92,119.90 for which the SSC Firm billed Plaintiff in this case occurred after November 30, 2017 and was thus the subject of the lawsuit and resultant settlement. Mr. O’Boyle owed the SSC Firm $120,019.35 for work the SSC Firm performed for Mr. O’Boyle and his entities on at least 10 separate matters. The $48,906.90 from this case thus represented a significant portion of those unpaid fees. Rivas Dep. at __ & Def. Ex. 1, Compl. at Ex. B. In December 2018, Mr. O’Boyle settled the SSC Firm’s lawsuit, at a significant discount to him. (Rivas Dep. at 72:19-20). Specifically, Mr. O’Boyle agreed to pay the SSC Firm just $50,000 of the $120,019.35 that it owed for all the work the SSC Firm had done on various cases after November 30, 2017. See id. at 73:17-19. By the settlement, Mr. O’Boyle thus obtained a 58.34% discount of all the fees for work performed by the SSC Firm after November 30, 2017. In other words, Mr. O’Boyle paid just 41.66% of the fees billed to him and his entities, including Plaintiff, by the SSC Firm after November 30, 2017. Attorney Rivas testified that no particular amount of that settlement payment was directed to one particular case or another. Rivas Dep. at 86:11-13. Relative to this case, therefore, Plaintiff actually paid the SSC Firm at most $63,587.61. This amount reflects the $43,213.00 paid through November 30, 2017 plus $20,374.61, which is 41.66% of the $48,906.90 in fees billed to Plaintiff by the SSC firm after November 30, 2017. Plaintiff’s registered agent, Mr. Ring, conceded at the hearing that the Court must reduce the fees awardable to Plaintiff to reflect the fees that Plaintiff did not pay to the SSC Firm. Notably, however, and even though Mr. O’Boyle settled with the SSC Firm in December 2018, Plaintiff’s Fee Motion filed January 14, 2019 did not account for that benefit to Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff sought to recover the full $92,119.90 billed it by the SSC Firm. Nor did Plaintiff’s expert Pettis take that benefit into account. Mr. Pettis testified that Plaintiff should be awarded $78,351.50, nearly $15,000 more than Plaintiff actually paid the SSC Firm in fees on this case. At the hearing, Mr. Ring asserted that the Court could apply the entirety of the $50,000 payment made by Mr. O’Boyle to settle unpaid fees on at least 10 separate matters entirely to the fees billed for this case, as to which the Town consented to judgment. Alternately, Mr. Ring asserted that this Court should consider the fact that when the settlement is taken into account, Mr. O’Boyle paid the SSC Firm 76% of its fees on all of the cases for which it provided services to him and entities other than Plaintiff both prior to and after November 30, 2017. The Court rejects both of these arguments, which would give the Plaintiff here, Stopdirtygovernment LLC, either the entirety or a disproportionate amount of the settlement discount negotiated by Mr. O’Boyle on behalf of not just this Plaintiff but himself and other entities and for work performed in other, unrelated cases both before and after November 30, 2017. This Court can only concern itself with fees for services Attorney Rivas performed in this case. The Court therefore concludes that the reasonable attorneys’ fees expended by Attorney Rivas after November 30 2017 should be further reduced by 58.34% to reflect the benefit Plaintiff obtained by Mr. O’Boyle’s settlement with the SSC Firm. The Town’s expert Mandel took this further reduction into account as part of the $36,080.85 in reductions he made for fees awardable to Plaintiff for work by the SSC Firm after November 30, 2017 and the Court adopts those reductions. \[ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSION: Plaintiff’s expert Pettis concluded that the reasonable fees awardable to Plaintiff for work by the SSC Firm after November 30, 2017 total $37,300. See Pl.’s Ex. ___, SSC Firm Analysis at Lines __ through 74. Because Plaintiff only paid 41.66% of those fees, or $15,539.18, the Court further discounts the fees awardable to Plaintiff by $21,760.82 (58.34% of $37,300).\] C. Fees for Attorney James Attorney James substituted in as counsel for Plaintiff in place of Attorney Rivas and the SSC Firm on March 21, 2018. She represented Plaintiff through the conclusion of this case by the Consent Final Judgment on December 14, 2018. The Town did not dispute Attorney James’ rate, which at $475 per hour is significantly higher than the $395 per hour that Plaintiff had agreed to pay Attorney Rivas and well above the OBLF rates. Attorney James’ invoices were admitted into evidence at the hearing (Pl.’s Ex. 4), but she did not testify in support of those fees. Plaintiff seeks 80.22 hours of time by Attorney James. The Court finds reasonable the 15.5 hours of reductions made by Plaintiff’s expert Pettis, see Pl.’s Ex. 9C at Lines 14, 21, 37, but finds certain additional reductions warranted. Specifically, the Court finds unreasonable the hours Plaintiff seeks for time spent by prior to Attorney James being substituted into this case on March 21, 2018, which time is also largely comprised of unspecified conferences with Attorney Rivas and Jonathan O’Boyle, and the time sought for hours after the Consent Final Judgment issued on December 14, 2018. Pl.’s Ex. 9C, Lines 2-6, 69-70. See also Pl.’s Ex. 4, James Dec. at ¶ 15 (referencing invoices never introduced into evidence or the subject of testimony by Plaintiff’s expert Pettis). The Court also finds unreasonable the hours billed by Attorney James for undescribed communications and an undescribed meeting on April 20, 2018. See id. at Lines 8, 11-12,15-16, 18 , 20, 26, 36, 39-41, 45, 52, 54. Without the aid of Attorney James’ testimony and particularly where a number of the time descriptions are redacted (see, e.g., id. at Lines 8, 11-12, 16, 36, 52), the Court cannot find those hours supported with competent substantial evidence that they were reasonable and necessary costs of enforcement in this case. As to fees for mediation, the Court finds the fees for Attorney James’ time at mediation on April 3, 2018 should be apportioned equally among the five (5) cases mediated that day (1.8 hours for this case) and her time at the mediation on December 3, 2018 should be apportioned among the 10 cases mediated on that day (1.05 hours for this case). See id. at Lines 14, 37. Finally, the Court finds excessive and duplicative of the work of Attorney Rivas, the time spent reviewing deposition transcripts of Ganger and DeFosse and reduces that time to 1.0 hour. See id. at 56, 59. The Court thus concludes that a further reduction of 16.42 hours is warranted. The Court calculates the lodestar for Attorney James as follows: Reasonable Rate Number of Hours Total Fee Elaine James $475 48.3 $22,942.00 D. Fees for Attorney Reeder The Court declines to award Plaintiff any fees for work performed by Attorney Reeder. Attorney Reeder did not testify at the evidentiary hearing in support of the fees purportedly billed to Plaintiff on this case although an invoice submitted by him to Mr. O’Boyle for work performed in “Gulf Stream Matters” was admitted into evidence. Pl.’s Ex. 5. The Court also considered Attorney Reeder’s September 23, 2019 testimony regarding the same invoice from an evidentiary hearing before the Honorable John Kastrenakes on reasonable costs of enforcement under the Public Records Act in Asset Enhancement v. Town of Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA10216XXXXMB AF. Town Ex. 31. Attorney Reeder never filed a notice of appearance in this case. He participated, along with Attorney James, in a December 3, 2018 mediation of 10 then pending public records lawsuits. Attorney Reeder thereafter attempted to resolve not just those 10 public records suits, but also disputes concerning Mr. O’Boyle’s home renovations, including construction and noise issues with the Town. Ultimately, the mediation led to a settlement of the 10 public records cases resulting in the dismissal by the plaintiffs of five (5) cases, the Town consenting to judgment in four (4) cases and a mixed resolution of the last case on a count-by-count basis. Asset Tr. at 145:2-7; 150:11-17. Attorney Reeder invoiced Plaintiff’s principal Martin O’Boyle for work on all “Gulf Stream Matters” for which he was retained, not just this case. Pl.’s Ex. 5; Asset Tr. at 144:6-14; 149:9-13. That invoice not only fails to separate out the work done in this case, it reflects significant block billing for public records and non-public record matters handled by Attorney Reeder. As Judge Kastrenakes observed, the work Attorney Reeder performed and for which Plaintiff seeks to recover includes at least 12 hours of time on December 6, 7, 11 and 12, 2018 that was unrelated to any public records case, specifically, time spent reviewing Town noise ordinances and conferring regarding Mr. O’Boyle’s home renovations. Asset Tr. at 171:11-19; 147:6-148:9. (Another 3.5 hours billed December 4, 2018 includes time spent on noise ordinances and Mr. O’Boyle’s home renovations.) Attorney Reeder had difficulty allocating the portion of such time spent on the public records cases, ultimately conceding that 50% of the time probably was attributed to the noise ordinance issues. See id. at 171:20-172:25. Plaintiff seeks to apportion 49.50 hours of time spent by Attorney Reeder on all Town matters by only the four (4) public records cases in which the Town consented to judgment, entirely ignoring the fact that the parties resolved a total of 10 cases including by the voluntary dismissal of at least five (5) cases. Pl.’s Ex. 5, Reeder Decl. at Ex. 1 Invoice, p. 4. Plaintiff’s apportionment also fails to account for time clearly spent on non- public records related matters. Plaintiff also credits both Attorney Reeder and Attorney James with attending the December 3, 2018 mediation. Plaintiff then allocates to this case 100% of time spent by Attorney Reeder on December 7 and 8, 2018 to confer with Attorney James and request and review various pleadings prepared by the Plaintiff’s prior attorneys. See id. at pp. 2, 4. Reasonable Rate Number of Hours Total Fee Martin Reeder $450 0 $0.00 \[DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE AN ALTERNATIVE THAT DEDUCTS THE 12.0 HOURS AND APPORTIONS BY 10?\] E. Plaintiff’s Cost Application \[TO BE INSERTED – JZC RESEARCH RE EXPEDITED TRANSCRIPT\] F. Fees for Fees Plaintiff is not entitled to fees for prosecuting its fee application after the Consent Final Judgment was entered on December 14, 2018. In Florida, a party generally may not recover attorney’s fees for the time expended in determining the amount of attorney’s fees. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1993). Palma held that only the time spent establishing the entitlement to a fee was compensable. Id. In denying “fees for fees,” the Florida Supreme Court reasoned that work performed by an attorney concerning the amount of the fee to be awarded “inures solely to the attorney’s benefit and cannot be considered services rendered in procuring full payment of the judgment.” Id. at 833. Since Palma, the Fourth District and other Florida appellate courts have consistently applied its holding to bar fee awards under attorney’s fees statutes for time spent litigating the amount (as opposed to entitlement) of the fee to be awarded. See Yakavonis v. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc., 934 So. 2d 615, 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Attorney’s fees are only available for time spent litigating the issue of entitlement, not for the time spent litigating the amount of fees to be awarded.”); Mediplex Construction of Florida, Inc. v. Schaub, 856 So. 2d 13, 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Oruga Corp., Inc. v. AT & T Wireless of Fla., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1141, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (barring fees for fees under section 768.79(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1995)); Dep’t of Transp. v. Robbins and Robbins, Inc., 700 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (barring fees for fees under sections 73.091 and 73.092, Florida Statutes (1993), in eminent domain proceeding). Plaintiff’s suggestion that a fee award will inure to the Plaintiff’s benefit because it paid certain of its attorneys would eviscerate the foregoing law. That a party is not entitled to “fees for fees” has been extended to Public Records Act cases. Thus, in Downs v. Austin, the appellate court made clear that “\[n\]o fee is authorized for efforts expended to obtain the statutory fee” under Section 119.12 of the Act. 559 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (emphasis added). Noting that the stated purpose of the Act is to promote open access to public records, Downs concluded that the fee provision in Section 119.12 was simply intended to serve as disincentive to an agency to delay access. See id. at 247. Plaintiff does not cite any case permitting fees for fees in a Public Records Act Case. The Court Determined Plaintiff’s Entitlement to Costs of Enforcement, Including Reasonable Attorney’s Fees, on December 14, 2018 The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that entitlement to fees was not finally determined when the Consent Final Judgment was entered on December 14, 2018 simply because Plaintiff is enforcing the attorney’s fee provision of the Public Records Act. To find otherwise would mean that any Plaintiff seeking attorney’s fees under either a mandatory or permissive statutory scheme would be entitled to fees for fees. That is not the law, as the above-cited cases demonstrate. This case concluded on December 14, 2018 when the Court entered the Consent Final Judgment. Among other things, the Consent Final Judgment determined that Plaintiff was entitled “to recover from the Town its reasonable costs of enforcement, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under the Act.” See Dec. 14, 2018 Consent Fin. Judg. The Consent Final Judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction as to the reasonable amount of the fee to be awarded. See id. By its Fee Motion filed January 14, 2019, Plaintiff observed that by the Consent Final Judgment the Town had “conceded that … Plaintiff was entitled to recover from Defendant the reasonable costs of enforcing its rights under the Act, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” Am. Mot. at ¶ 1. The Fee Motion asked the Court to conduct a hearing to “determine the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid” and attached the invoices of the four different law firms that represented Plaintiff. See id. at pp. 1-2 (emphasis added). This Court thereafter held an evidentiary hearing on October 17 and 18, 2019 to determine one issue, namely, the amount of the attorney’s fees to be awarded to Plaintiff under the Consent Final Judgment. \[DO WE WANT TO CITE JUDGE KELLEY ORDER? THEY SURELY WILL RE EXPERT FEES\] Finally, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the Town’s expert Mandel somehow placed the threshold entitlement to attorney’s fees at issue by testifying that the OBLF is not entitled to recover for work performed after it was discharged by the Court. Expert Mandel’s testimony in this regard clearly went to the reasonableness of the amount of hours that Plaintiff seeks to recover for work by the OBLF. He never asserted that Plaintiff was not entitled to a reasonable attorney fee in this case. In light of the clear Florida law disallowing recovery of fees for fees, Plaintiff is not entitled to any fees or costs incurred after December 14, 2018, when the Court entered its Consent Final Judgment entitling Plaintiff to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees. G. Expert Fees for Fees The final category of fees sought by Plaintiff at the hearing are the expert witness fees incurred by its fees expert, Eugene K. Pettis and another timekeeper at his firm, Trisha Widowfield. Pl.’s Ex. 10. As noted above, Palma does not permit an award of attorney’s fees “for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.” 629 So. 2d at 833. The Fourth District addressed the issue of an award for expert fees incurred in litigation over the amount of attorney’s fees in Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff, 132 So. 3d 249, 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Relying on Palma, the Fourth District in Bogorff “reverse\[d\] the assessment against the Department of the fee of the attorney expert witness who testified as to the reasonableness of the fees.” 132 So. 3d at 258. Bogorff also relied on the Fifth District’s decision in Department of Transportation v. Robbins, 700 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), which found no no entitlement to fees for an expert witness called to testify to the amount of a reasonable fee, reasoning that as in the “fee for fee” scenario, the benefit inured solely to the attorney. A number of other Florida appellate courts are in accord. See Seminole Cnty. v. Boyle Inv. Co., 719 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (reversing award of expert fees; “We do find error in the award of expert witness fees for appellees’ experts who testified about the amount of fees to be awarded.”). Even if the foregoing law did not apply, this Court clearly has the discretion to tax as costs expert witness fees for a lawyer who testifies as an expert as to reasonable attorney fees. Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1985). The Court declines to award expert witness fees here. By its Fee Motion, Plaintiff sought a total award of $230,581.23. Plaintiff’s expert Pettis opined that a reasonable fee award in this case is $175,750.75, a reduction of 24%. In fact, as to the $87,034.92 in fees sought by the OBLF, Mr. Pettis could support as reasonable no more than 60% of those fees at $51,598.50. Mr. Pettis discounted Jonathan O’Boyle’s hours alone by nearly 50%, from 196.60 to 101.89 hours. Without Plaintiff providing Mr. Pettis the benefit of its settlement with the SSC Firm, Mr. Pettis testified that Plaintiff was entitled to $78,351.50 for fees incurred by the SSC Firm. That amount is nearly $15,000 more than the Plaintiff actually paid for the SSC Firm’s services in this case. Under these circumstances, the Court declines to award Plaintiff any expert witness fees. \[ALTERNATIVE: NEED TO ASK COURT FOR HEARING ON AMOUNT OF EXPERT FEES IF SHE IS INCLINED TO AWARD\] H. Request for a Contingency Fee Multiplier The Court concludes that no contingency risk multiplier should be added to the lodestar amount, finding that a multiplier was not necessary for Plaintiff to obtain competent counsel to prosecute a one count Public Records Act case. In determining whether to apply a contingency fee multiplier, a court considers the following factors: (1) Whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) Whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and, (3) Whether any of the factors set forth in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) are applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client. Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). A request for a multiplier must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Plaintiff failed to provide the fee agreement between it and the OBLF, so Plaintiff has not demonstrated what multiplier, if any, can be used in this case. See Joyce v.Federated Nat’l Ins. Co.,________________ (Fla. 2017) (explaining that the multiplier to be used varies whether the fees are fully or partially contingent on the case’s outcome). But even if the fee agreement had been provided, there is no competent substantial evidence that the relevant market required a multiplier to obtain competent counsel in this one-court public records case; instead, the record reflects just the opposite. Plaintiff had absolutely no difficulty obtaining highly competent lawyers from at least three (3) different law firms to work on this case on a non-contingent basis after it consented to the withdrawal of the O’Boyle Law Firm. Plaintiff’s expert Pettis did not testify that a multiplier was needed. Further, the Court notes that while there is no prohibition on the use of a multiplier in a Chapter 119 action, Plaintiff fails to cite a single public records case in which a multiplier has been approved. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Stopdirtygovernment LLC’s Amended Motion to Assess and Award Reasonable Costs of Enforcement, Including Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED. Plaintiff is AWARDED $72,471.95 as its reasonable costs of enforcement, including attorneys’ fees and costs. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this ___ day of October, 2019. DateHoursDescriptionRateAmountUser Work with Ian on getting discovery done, Jonathan (convo with Rivas yesterday about us getting 7/28/20170.8$200.00 $160.00 O'Boyle discovery to him). Talk to potential witness about Ganger Docs. Jonathan 8/8/20170.8$200.00 $160.00 758.O'Boyle Work with Ian on getting exhibits and plan of Jonathan action, Email Rob re witness and exhibits, work 8/9/20170.5$200.00 $100.00 O'Boyle on 155. Email to Rivas containing Missing Ganger Jonathan Emails. Discussion of getting Docs from 96 8/9/20170.2$200.00 $40.00 O'Boyle from Ian as roadmap to this case. Talk to Nick about getting in touch with Rivas about Dep of Ganger, send email to Nick and Jonathan Ian about Subpoean Duces tecum to ganger 8/10/20170.4$200.00 $80.00 O'Boyle and attach discovery from Boat case regarding emails. Jonathan 8/10/20170.4Work with Ian on getting Discovery out RFP$200.00 $80.00 O'Boyle Find and email request language for 155 to Jonathan 8/14/20170.1$200.00 $20.00 MEO.O'Boyle Jonathan 8/14/20170.2Talk with MEO about mediation with Joanne.$200.00 $40.00 O'Boyle Review Rivas Saturday email regarding Jonathan subpoena of Ganger and Email to Rivas 8/14/20170.4$200.00 $80.00 O'Boyle regarding docs stored by Ganger. Spoke with Rivas about mediation strategy and history of past attempts to settle as well as Ganger Subpoena (2min); worked with Ian on Jonathan 8/15/20172.9$200.00 $580.00 Ganger Subpoena and got smmary of Doc O'Boyle Review. Research Town Website and find request 14-946 for more responsive docs. Review emails from various sources to find missing docs. Talk with Bill about mediation Jonathan 8/15/20173.1$200.00 $620.00 strategy. Talk with lan about gettign information O'Boyle In usable format for Rivas. Email regarding witness fee to Ian and Gerrard. Jonathan 8/16/20170.2$200.00 $40.00 Attached law.O'Boyle Jonathan 8/17/20171.2Several calls regarding mediation.$200.00 $240.00 O'Boyle Review old MSJ and talk to Ian about updating Jonathan 8/23/20170.4$200.00 $80.00 it.O'Boyle Make chart for rivas with Bill yesterday (1.4), Jonathan 8/23/20171.7$200.00 $340.00 work with lan on MSJ this morning (.3).O'Boyle Go over MSJ with Ian, attention to statement of Jonathan material facts and found it necessary to have 8/25/20170.5$200.00 $100.00 O'Boyle an affidavit. Talk with Rivas about going forward in case Jonathan and strategy, reminder to check dates and get 10/2/20170.6$200.00 $120.00 O'Boyle discovery going. Dan was present. two calls with Rivas re general strategy (2.1), review Ganger Emails, review Town's website, Jonathan 10/17/20175.3$200.00 $1,060.00 and gather documents and review for making O'Boyle statement of undisputed facts for MSJ. Conversation with RIVAS about global strategy and pushing this matter in relation to other Jonathan 10/18/20171.9$200.00 $380.00 matters and strategy of cross talk between O'Boyle cases and potential similarities in issues. Jonathan 10/18/20171.7Work on MSJ, getting emails together.$200.00 $340.00 O'Boyle Jonathan 11/2/20171.1Work with Ian on finalizing MSJ.$200.00 $220.00 O'Boyle Talk with Ian about Exhibit List and transferring Jonathan 11/7/20170.3$200.00 $60.00 files.O'Boyle Prep for trial (gather exhibits with Ian, and review documents). Talk with Bill and MEO and Jonathan Rivas about trial strategy. Research Town's 11/13/20174.5$200.00 $900.00 O'Boyle website and track down every exhibit for authentication. Meet rob at 715 am. Trial Prep, Trial and Jonathan 11/14/201710.5$200.00 $2,100.00 debriefing with the firm and MEO.O'Boyle Draft and send detailed Email of To-do list and Jonathan trial strategy to Rob and MED with 11/14/20171.1$200.00 $220.00 O'Boyle attachments. Conversation with MEO and Bill about pros and Jonathan 11/15/20170.4$200.00 $80.00 cons of subpoenaing Ganger.O'Boyle Talk with Rob about Subpoena Ganger, Jonathan 11/15/20170.2$200.00 $40.00 confirm with Ian about process server.O'Boyle Work all day, and until 1:15 a.m. on good faith memorandum of law. Multiple conversations with Rivas regarding overall strategy. Conversation with MEO and WFR to test out Jonathan arguments for logical sense. Dan Welch came 11/16/201713.5$200.00 $2,700.00 O'Boyle over late night to go over some of the wording on the motion to see if it made sense. Reviewed countless cases, 2017 Sunshine manual and legislative history of 119.07(1)(c). Saturday from 1:00 to 6:30 doing trial prep, Jonathan Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. doing trial prep 11/19/201714.5$200.00 $2,900.00 O'Boyle and getting exhibits together. Jonathan 11/20/20175Attend Trial.$200.00 $1,000.00 O'Boyle 45+ min call with rob about various strategies Jonathan 12/7/20170.9$200.00 $180.00 and moving on 155 to get depositions.O'Boyle Search 4474 for anything on immediate hearing Jonathan 12/11/20170.7$200.00 $140.00 from the Town regarding that argument.O'Boyle Review ganger subpoena, review Town notice of Dep 30b6. talk with rivas then ian about Jonathan 12/18/20170.3$200.00 $60.00 getting ganger for service on Jan 5 and send O'Boyle Town dep to Rivas. Email to Rob, review past similar records Jonathan requests and responses for discovery ideas. 12/18/20173$200.00 $600.00 O'Boyle Think about strategy with Discovery. Talk with Rivas, email K about getting Jonathan transcript, talk to K about finding who ordered 12/21/20170.6$200.00 $120.00 O'Boyle stenographer. Various Calls with Rivas (.6), Bill Ring, (.4) on 1.25.18 and (.2) today. Meo (.5) yesterday about settlement deal and credibility of Gulf Stream "Fool me once" Various opinions on Jonathan consent order procedures. Big Issue ... how 1/26/20182.1$200.00 $420.00 O'Boyle can we trust? Spent some time researching Town Charter and power of lawyers and town manages to get a deal done without town commission. Call with Rob and Bill about making decision on what to do (strategically) (38 minutes). Also, Jonathan 1/26/20181.1$200.00 $220.00 review Robs Stip and Consent J. Give O'Boyle comments back to Rob. Jonathan 1/30/20186.4Dep prep with Rob Rivas.$200.00 $1,280.00 O'Boyle Travel and attend depositions, post game talks Jonathan 1/31/20189.3$200.00 $1,860.00 and analysis of what happened.O'Boyle Jonathan 2/5/20180.3Joan Orthwein memo and discussion with Bill.$200.00 $60.00 O'Boyle Call with ROB for 17 min about transcripts and strategy of protective order and Orthwein. Talk Jonathan with MEO and Bill about importance of 2/5/20180.5$200.00 $100.00 O'Boyle Orthwein and legal reasons, expecting a mo for prot. order. Email to Plunkett at Coastal Star for the Jonathan 2/5/20180.9$200.00 $180.00 purposes of advancing the case.O'Boyle Call with RIVAS about depositions of myself Jonathan 2/6/20180.6$200.00 $120.00 and protective orders as well as Orthwein.O'Boyle 10 minute call with Rob to check in and see Jonathan what, if anything, needs to be done this week 2/12/20180.2$200.00 $40.00 O'Boyle on this case. Talk with Bill and MEO about brainstorming with Rob and issues regarding this trial with Jonathan regard to Joan Orthwein deposition and 2/22/20181.1$200.00 $220.00 O'Boyle potential to gain information in from other sources. Prep for Orthwein deposition and case in general, go over theories of remedial action Jonathan 2/26/20186.1$200.00 $1,220.00 and Orthwein’s knowledge --- prep a bit for O'Boyle JRO dep. Attend Orthwein deposition, prep for deposition Jonathan 2/27/20186.6$200.00 $1,320.00 of SDG.O'Boyle Jonathan 2/28/20184.8Attend deposition of SDG, debrief afterwards.$200.00 $960.00 O'Boyle 1 hour discussion with Elaine about Jonathan representing MEO personally in the case, 2/28/20181$200.00 $200.00 O'Boyle giving case update for deposition to Elaine. Call Rob regarding things to do in case, Jonathan strategy for Motion. Talk with MEO and Bill 3/1/20180.8$200.00 $160.00 O'Boyle regarding going forward. Call with Rivas about whether Town ordered expedited (yesterday .2) and follow-up today confirming that the Town said they would order Jonathan it expedited and requesting a copy. However, 3/2/20180.4$200.00 $80.00 O'Boyle town apparently did not order expedited or cancelled that order. I ordered the transcript expedited and sought a rough draft ASAP. Jonathan 3/2/20180.8Email to Rivas re STD Protective order.$200.00 $160.00 O'Boyle Go through depo transcript (early morning) and make notes for Rob. Call up Rob and Elaine Jonathan (separately) to get status on what I need to be 3/5/20182.3$200.00 $460.00 O'Boyle doing for each re this case. Follow-up email to Rob regarding deposition comments and Jonathan 3/5/20180.2Talk with Elaine regarding scheduling.$200.00 $40.00 O'Boyle Calls with Rob and Elaine regarding Chandler Dep (telephonic or not) and finally Jonathan continuances. Discuss what we want to do with 3/6/20181.1$200.00 $220.00 O'Boyle Client with regard to (1) planning for chandlers dep and (2) continuing the trial Update from Elaine yesterday, review Rob's Jonathan 3/7/20180.4$200.00 $80.00 Motion as-filed.O'Boyle Review Nicks docs, created sample document Jonathan to improve readability and send back to nick for 3/14/20180.5$200.00 $100.00 O'Boyle completion. Talk with Rivas and try to call Elaine. Work Jonathan 3/19/20180.7$200.00 $140.00 with Nick on Outline for de p .O'Boyle Jonathan 3/30/20180.4Synopsis of case for mediator$200.00 $80.00 O'Boyle Mediation, post game debriefing (4.3.18) (talk with MEO and Bill this morning about getting Jonathan 4/4/201812.8$200.00 $2,560.00 back with Elaine and Hazouri to see what we O'Boyle can salvage). Talk with Elaine and Marty about reaching out to Hazouri further, and if there is any hope for Jonathan further mediation talks, and if we should even 4/4/20180.8$200.00 $160.00 O'Boyle be making overtures. Consequences of making offers, what else is available besides money. Discuss plan of action in Ganger case re good faith, exhibits, witnesses, and get Elaine pretrial Jonathan 7/20/20180.8$200.00 $160.00 order from last go around. pull pretrial order O'Boyle from Ganger pretrial and sent to Elaine. Docket Search and Follow up email to Elaine sending her relevant docs for getting a plan of Jonathan 7/20/20180.3$200.00 $60.00 action together for trial (witness lists, aff. d. of O'Boyle good faith, etc.). Talk with Elaine about motion today and strategies. Analyze claims and evidence Jonathan 9/21/20181.3$200.00 $260.00 admitted at trial. (.8) (review motion last night .5 O'Boyle and docket). Call with Elaine and revise motion in Jonathan 9/25/20181.1$200.00 $220.00 opposition.O'Boyle 2 Calls to Bill regarding Elaine’s message Jonathan about trial continuance, talk to Kristen about 10/12/20180.2$200.00 $40.00 O'Boyle Freda Dep. Prep with Taylor (.8) and Kristen; call with Jonathan 12/4/20181.2$200.00 $240.00 Elaine on what she needs to get ready (.4).O'Boyle Trial prep with Taylor, calls with Elaine, Review Jonathan the file and prepare binders and outlines of new 12/4/20188.9$200.00 $1,780.00 O'Boyle evidence and get things trial ready. Continue to do trial prep. Outline depositions and trial testimony, prepare themes of case Jonathan and organize impeachment evidence and 12/5/20187.5$200.00 $1,500.00 O'Boyle prepare outline for proposed cross examination. Continue to work on trial prep with Taylor. Jonathan Make binders and outlines of all evidence. take 12/6/20188.9$200.00 $1,780.00 O'Boyle direction from Elaine on what to outline. Go over outlines and case prep with Elaine and Jonathan 12/7/20186.8$200.00 $1,360.00 Taylor. Review transcripts.O'Boyle Back and forth with Elaine and Taylor as to Ganger issue re 804 unavailable and Jonathan admissibility of evidence. Double check for 12/10/20181.2$200.00 $240.00 O'Boyle sufficiency of evidence for admissibility. Also, discuss posterboards. go over trial testimony and JF exhibits with MEO. Prep for testimony. (3.2). Early morning Jonathan prep with Taylor, review cases like Jackson 12/11/20185.4$200.00 $1,080.00 O'Boyle Shaw and Grapski and review the rules of evidence and authenticity. (2.2). Research and outline proposed judgment with Elaine (3.2); print and organize case law, highlighted (1.5). Review transcript in 4474 for Jonathan 12/11/20187$200.00 $1,400.00 Freda Defosse prior testimony and 4474 order O'Boyle as well as collateral estoppel for Town's burden during this time period (2.3). 12/12/20180.3Late night correspondence with Elaine $200.00 $60.00 Jonathan meet Taylor for office prep before trial - getting things organized in boxes and final check to ensure we have everything. print complaint, answer, admissions, rogs and put in folders (.8). attend court hearing and various calls with Jonathan 12/12/20183.6$200.00 $720.00 Elaine and marry to confirm settlement (1.7). O'Boyle Debrief with Elaine on stips and research fee hearing motions and law for what Is required under rule 1.525 and review judges proposed order re fee hearing (1.1). 196.6 10/10/19 10/10/19 10/10/19 Mandel 9/13/19 EKP 9/13/19 EKP Mandel Mandel Reasonable AmountHours CommentsReductions Hours 0.8$0.000.00 Out of case0$160.00$160.000.80 Out of case0$100.00$100.000.50 Out of case0$40.00$40.000.20 Out of case0$80.00$80.000.40 Out of case0$80.00$80.000.40 Out of case0$20.00$20.000.10 Out of case0$40.00$40.000.20 Out of case0$80.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$580.00$580.002.90 Out of case0$620.00$200.001.00 Out of case0$40.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$240.00$0.000.00 Out of case/Never 0$80.00$560.002.80 Filed Out of case/Never 0$340.000.00 Filed Out of case/Never 0$100.000.00 Filed Out of case0$120.00$120.000.60 Out of case/Never 0$1,060.00$0.000.00 Filed Out of case0$380.00$0.000.00 Out of case/Never 0$340.00$0.000.00 Filed Out of case/Never 0$220.00$0.000.00 Filed Out of case0$60.00$60.000.30 Out of case0$900.00$900.004.50 Out of case0$2,100.00$2,100.0010.50 Out of case0$220.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$80.00$80.000.40 Out of case0$40.00$40.000.20 Out of case0$2,700.00$1,400.007.00 Out of case0$2,900.00$1,500.007.50 Out of case/Corpor 0$1,000.00$1,000.005.00 ate Rep Out of case0$180.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$140.00$140.000.70 Out of case0$60.00$60.000.30 Out of case0$600.00$300.001.50 Out of case0$120.00$90.000.45 Out of case0$420.00$420.002.10 Out of case0$220.00$220.001.10 Out of case/Duplic 0$1,280.00$1,100.005.50 ative Out of case/Duplic 0$1,860.00$600.003.00 ative Out of case0$60.00$60.000.30 Out of case0$100.00$100.000.50 Out of case0$180.00$0.000.00 Out of case/Fact 0$120.00$120.000.60 witness Out of case0$40.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$220.00$220.001.10 Out of case0$1,220.00$300.001.50 Out of case0$1,320.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$960.00$0.000.00 Out of case/MEO 0$200.00$0.000.00 personal Out of case0$160.00$160.000.80 Out of case0$80.00$60.000.30 Out of case0$160.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$460.00$100.000.50 Out of case0$40.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$220.00$100.000.50 Out of case0$80.00$0.000.00 Out of case0$100.00$75.000.38 Out of case0$140.00$80.000.40 Out of case0$80.00$80.000.40 Out of case0$2,560.00$512.002.56 Out of case0$160.00$160.000.80 Out of case0$160.00$160.000.80 Out of case0$60.00$60.000.30 Out of case0$260.00$80.000.40 Out of case0$220.00$100.000.50 Out of case0$40.00$40.000.20 Out of case0$240.00$240.001.20 Out of case0$1,780.00$1,200.006.00 Out of case0$1,500.00$800.004.00 Out of case0$1,780.00$800.004.00 Out of case0$1,360.00$800.004.00 Out of case0$240.00$120.000.60 Out of case0$1,080.00$800.004.00 Out of case0$1,400.00$800.004.00 $60.00$60.000.30 Out of case0 Out of case0$720.00$200.001.00 $20,377.00101.89 Renee Basel From:Martin E. O’Boyle <meo@commerce-group.com> Sent:Monday, July 9, 2018 9:23 AM To:Rita Taylor; Renee Basel Cc:Gregory Dunham; Michelle Melicia Subject:The following is a records request made pursuant to chapter 119 of the Florida statutes regarding: Local Housing Authority - Gulfstream Florida Dear Mdm. custodian of records and Ms. Basel: As you can see from the below, I have been asking the town manager, Mr. Greg Dunham, for 6 calendar months to provide me with information regarding information in connection with a local housing authority for the town of Gulfstream. His deafening silence now requires me (with reluctance) to have to send a formal records request. Needless to say, I am saddened by Mr. Dunham's "shunning" a resident and taxpayer of the town; and refusing to even extend the courtesy of a response. In my opinion, the speaks loudly of his character. The foregoing the side, my request is as follows: Please provide all public records related to any housing authority (local or otherwise) that exist with in the town of Gulfstream or exist by way of an interlocal or similar agreement within the town of Gulfstream. Saying it another way, in some areas, local housing authorities have different "labels", and they may (as applies to municipalities) be county agencies, quasi-government agencies or state agencies. Nonetheless, I would assume that if there was a need or requirement for a a “local housing authority”, such as for government, senior or low income type housing, etc. that they would be directed to some agency. Please provide all public records which may refer to any such agency or agencies. Note: This email was prepared using dictation software. As a result, there may be errors in the content and thus the content may not be relied upon. If you wish clarification, please call or write requesting the same. Thank you. Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561-383-1221 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com From: Martin E. O’Boyle Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 8:14 AM To: Greg Dunham <GDunham@gulf-stream.org> Cc: Brenda Russell <brussell@commerce-group.com> Subject: Local Housing Authority - Gulfstream Florida Dear Mr Dunham - would you kindly advise me if Gulfstream has a local housing authority. If not, do they have an interlocal agreement with another governmental agency wherein they use their local housing authority? Thank you for your time and I await your kind and prompt response. 1 Thank you! :-) Martin E. O'Boyle, Commerce Group 1280 W. Newport Center Drive Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33442 Direct Dial: 954-570-3505 Fax: 954-360-0807 Cell: 561 213 3486 E-mail: meo@commerce-group.com Web Page: www.commerce-group.com 2