HomeMy Public PortalAboutPRR 15-1873Jonathan O'Boyle has requested the following:
communications which reflect the meeting between Joan, Thrasher and Scott where they
decided that Scott would be the signatory to the [Bar UPL] complaint
Kelly Avery
From: OConnor, Joanne M. <JOConnor @jonesfoster.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:56 AM
To: joboyle @oboylelawfirm.com
Cc: Bill Thrasher; Rita Taylor; stearns @jambg.com; Macfarlane, Mary;
kendrake @dldlawyers.com; malvarez @dldlawyers.com; Elaine Johnson James; Steven D
Weber (SWeber @bergersingerman.com)
Subject: Gulf Stream Public Records Request
Attachments: RE: new pics
Importance: High
Jonathan —
The Town is in receipt of your June 11, 2015 public records request. In Kelly Avery's absence this week, I am
responding on the Town's behalf.
First, the April 2013 e-mail chain you requested between Marty Minor and Bill Thrasher regarding 23 N. Hidden
Harbor Drive is attached.
Second, please be advised that there are no public records responsive to your request for government records
that Mayor Morgan reviewed relating to your driver's license prior to communicating with the Florida Bar on
May 21, 2015. The Town previously produced to you an e-mail chain from Rock Legal dated May 15, 2015 in
regard to this matter. I note that your e-mail of June 16, 2015 now suggests that you also seek a DPPA report
or other record. The Town did not request that a DPPA report be run and is not aware of any report being run.
To the extent that Rock Legal ran such a DPPA report for its own purposes, that is not a public record of Gulf
Stream.
Third, you have requested public records of the Town relating to the complaint made by Mayor Morgan to the
UPL Division of The Florida Bar in August 2014. As The Florida Bar Complaint reflects, an identical complaint
was filed by the Town against you and other attorneys referenced in Mr. O'Boyle's Motion. On April 17, 2015,
Martin O'Boyle filed a Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records with regard to the Town's
complaint to The Florida Bar in O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No. 502014CA004474XXXXMB AA. I understand
that Mr. O'Boyle gave notice to non - parties, but am not sure if you were included in that notice.
The Town has repeatedly advised counsel for Martin O'Boyle that it cannot agree to the relief sought by the
Motion, particularly because numerous corporate entities have made public records requests for these
documents. Nevertheless, Martin O'Boyle has failed to withdraw the Motion to Determine Confidentiality of
Court Records. Until that Motion is withdrawn or Judge Blanc has determined that the Florida Bar records are
not confidential, the Town cannot respond to public records requests for those records.
I have copied Ken Drake, counsel for you, and Elaine Johnson James, counsel for Mr. O'Boyle, in Case
No. 002014CA004474XXXXMB AA. If your or counsel have suggestions as to how we can resolve the conflict
between these two positions, I am open to them. If you would like an estimate of the cost to produce the Bar
records in the meantime, please let me know.
Regards,
Joanne
JONESFOSTER
_ .___ p+11W(IN KSmem P. a.
Joanne M. O'Connor Worncc
Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 1 has: 561.650.5300 1 joconnor(7alonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Ccnter, Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561 -659 -3000 1 www.jonesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which mac 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 die original message.
Kelly Avery
From: Marty Minor <MMinor @udkstudios.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Bill Thrasher
Subject: RE: new pics
Dear lord.....
First, I think he is violating Section 70 -106 (e) which requires homes to use colors from the approved color list, which I
am assuming these colors don't comply.
The prohibition on signs may apply, but he is going to respond with a First Amendment argument, so we have to be
careful with that.
I am headed out to a meeting, but will look more into the code later.
Unbelievable,marty
Marty R.A. Minor, AICP
Urban Design Kilday Studios
The Offices at City Place North
477 South Rosemary Avenue, Suite 225
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 -5758
561- 366 -1100
urban
The 477 SS..I Rosemary lAvenue Suite 225 Ph (561) 366.1;
d00
Miggnn West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 www.udkstudios.com
MW y - --
STUDIOS Urban Planning and Design I Landscape Architecture I Communication Graphics
From: Bill Thrasher [mailto:bthrasher @gulf - stream.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:01 AM
To: Marty Minor
Subject: FW: new pics
Any ideas.
From: Kelly Avery
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Bill Thrasher
Subject: new pits
Kd y Avery
Accountant /Assistant to the Finance Director
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483 -7427
561 -276 -5116
561- 737 -0188 fax
%aver ®�ul/ -� fream. ark
From: OConnor, Joanne M.
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:47 PM
To: 'Jonathan O'Boyle'
Cc: Chris Stearns; Elaine Johnson James; Ken Drake; scottmoraan75(algmail.com; Macfarlane, Mary
(MMacfarlane@)ionesfoster.com); 'Kelly Avery'; 'Rita Taylor'; 'Bill Thrasher'
Subject: RE: Gulf Stream Public Records Request
Jonathan —
1. You had asked for the Marty Minor email, which we produced in its original format. It did
not have pictures attached. You have now asked for the original April 2013 email in the
chain, drafted by Kelly Avery, who is out this week. We are attempting to determine
whether her email ever attached any pictures. We will forward the original to you as soon
as possible.
2. We obviously disagree as to what Mayor Morgan's letter to the Bar of May 21, 2015
states. You have now asked for information, not records, related to what Mayor Morgan
may or may not have done before he sent that letter. That is not a request for records as
to which the Town must respond. As to your new request for records, there are no drafts
of a complaint forwarded by Mr. Sweetapple to Mr. Morgan. The only draft of the May
21, 2015 letter of which I am aware was prepared by Mr. Morgan and is attached to this
email. Mr. Morgan is out of state this week but will review his office records upon his
return for any other drafts but I do not expect there will be any additional drafts.
3. With regard to The Florida Bar Records, while the closure of your UPL file might be
relevant to a work product exemption, it does not affect the fact that a claim of
confidentiality has been made. Indeed, the claim has been made by Martin O'Boyle, a
client of your law firm, as to the confidentiality of those documents vis a vis your law
partner Mr. Ring and associates Messrs. Taylor and Mesa. The pertinent motion is
attached. I have to assume that those parties likewise contend that any drafts of that
complaint, communications regarding its preparation and other public records that
identify or relate to the complaints against them should also be maintained as
confidential. Regardless of whether the records are placed on the website, once they are
produced to you, that confidentiality will be destroyed. I have left a message with Ms.
James to see if we might be able to reach some sort of agreement that will satisfy all
parties involved.
I believe that there are communications supplemental to the initial complaint that the
Town directed exclusively to The Florida Bar UPL Division. We can produce those
communications to you. I will have an estimate and /or partial production to you
tomorrow.
With regard to August billing entries by Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, the Sweetapple
invoice dated 08/22/2014 was provided in response to Public Record Request 14 -1347
submitted verbally by Martin O'Boyle on 09/18/2014. This bill had portions of the invoice
redacted and is now the subject of pending litigation. I will review the unredacted invoice
in light of your new public records request to determine if anything that was redacted
appears to relate to the now apparently concluded UPL complaint. If so, a revised
invoice will be produced to you tomorrow.
The Sweetapple invoice dated 09/29/2014, which contains some additional time entries
through the end of August, was provided in unredacted form in response to a Public
Record Request 14 -1569 submitted by CRO Aviation on 10/21/2014.
Regards,
Joanne
JONESFOSTER
jWINf10.Y kSiU9kR F.A.
Joanne M. O'Connor Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 ioeonnor@jonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Flagler Center Tower. 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, \\ esr Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561 -659 -3000 1 www.ionesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. 'Phis email is personal to the named recipient(s) and mac
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: Jonathan O'Boyle [ mailto :ioboyle(@obovlelawfirm.coml
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:11 PM
To: OConnor, Joanne M.
Cc: Chris Stearns; Elaine Johnson James; Ken Drake
Subject: RE: Gulf Stream Public Records Request
Joanne, thank you ever so kindly for getting back to me promptly.
I was figuring that my next move was to send carrier pidgeons, smoke signals, or a singing telegram to
the Town to get someone's attention (jokingly of course).
I just want to get a couple of things straight so I can get out of yalls' hair.
As a preliminary matter, I thank you for the email chain between Mr. Thrasher and Minor. However,
before you or the Town close things out, it appears that pictures were attached at some point to that
chain. Can I get those?
1. I just want to confirm that Mayor Morgan did not personally review any "government records"
prior to telling the bar that he or the Town did in fact review government records which showed
that my driver's license was from Florida as of 2014. That is fine, can I get the drafts of the
complaint that Mr. Sweetapple forwarded to Mayor Morgan for him to sign? The drafts of the
May 21, 2015 letter.
2. 1 am not aware of any confidentiality issue in 4474. 1 can check on that but I am not really
seeing the bugaboo here. My UPL file is closed with the bar and I need the Town's file. I am
sure that there are certain documents that can be produced as a temporary solution (aka Partial
Production).
As for the confidential records, I believe I have a solution. Those documents could be emailed to
me directly and not be reproduced on the Town's website. If we are talking about the Dr. Glass
letter, I am not interested, I was counsel in O'Boyle v. Isen in NJ for the appeal and am well
aware of Judge Higbee's order to keep that document confidential and sealed. I have not
researched it on my own but I assume there is some mechanism to produce records and
maintain confidentiality. If a police officer wants a copy of her "file" can the Town not give that
officer her file even though information like her SSN would be exempt to all others?
Bottom line is I am sure we can meet halfway on this issue until we get some
clarification. Perhaps we can start with Sweetapple's August Bills which reflect that he worked
on my bar complaint. Also, the emails and drafts between him and mayor Morgan. The
authorizations for attorneys to work on my bar complaint. The memoranda passed around
concerning my complaint. The communications reflecting ethical considerations concerning
filing my bar complaint. The communications which reflect the meeting between Joan, Thrasher
and Scott where they decided that Scott would be the signatory to the complaint. And any
communications that proceeded the closing of my bar file. These are things that I think could be
responsive that are not before any court that I am aware of.
Lastly, I would like an estimate please and a production schedule in case there are a lot of
documents. I do not know how the records are stored but I am assuming they are either on Mr.
Sweetapple's hard drive in a neatly organized folder or in a paper file. If there are documents
that are easily accessible (such as a paper or computer file) I think we could start there first. If
there are scattered documents that the Town needs to hunt down, we can maybe put those on
a tier 2 production plan. I think grouping the documents could be an easy way to tier the
production if necessary.
If it less cumbersome for the Town to make these documents open for inspection as opposed to
copying, by all means please let me know.
Thanks in advance, I know we are all busy but I do have someone waiting on these files so any
suggestions that you or the Town has to make this as quick and painless as possible, I am all ears. Have
a great dayl
Kelly Avery
From: scottmorgan75 @gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:27 PM
To: Robert Sweetapple; OConnor, Joanne M.
Subject: UPL O'Boyle letter
Attachments: FlaBar- UPL.Vazquez.1e.5- 19- 15.docx
Bob and Joanne,
Attached is a draft letter I want to send to the Branch UPL Counsel this week.
Please feel free to make changes and additions, and return to me.
Thanks.
Scott W. Morgan
1315 Neptune Dr.
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
(561) 752 -1936
May 18, 2015
Algeisa M. Vazquez, Esq.
Branch UPL Counsel
The Florida Bar
1300 Concord Terrace, Su. 130
Sunrise, FL 33323
Re: Jonathan R. O'Boyle
Fla Bar No. 2015- 1027 (17C)
Dear Ms. Vazquez:
I have reviewed Mr. Tozian's letter of Februay 4, 2015, and request leave to
respond by highlighting some important points about Mr. O'Boyle's alleged unlicensed practice
of law.
Mr. O'Boyle does not dispute his January 23, 2014, representation to the Hon.
Meenu Sasser in O'Hare v. Town of Gulfstream, et al., 2014 CA 720, (Motion to Appear Pro Hoc
Vice) in which he swore to the Court that his domicile and primary residence was in Longport,
New Jersey. This statement does not appear to be valid.
A review of government records reveals that Mr. O'Boyle possesses a driver's
license with a residential address of 23 Hidden Harbor Dr., Gulf Stream, FL. That license is
believed to be unchanged from 2014. Mr. O'Boyle also possesses a pilot's license indicating an
address of 23 Hidden Harbor Dr., Gulf Stream, FL. In January 2014, the same month he
represented to Judge Sasser that he permanently resided in Longport, N.J., Mr. O'Boyle
updated his pilot's license with the FAA to correct his medical classification, and he re-
confirmed his address at Hidden Harbor Dr. in Gulf Stream, FL. (See FAA Registry "Personal
Information- Medical" attached as Exhibit A).
During this same time period, when he swore to Judge Sasser about his
Longport, New Jersey residence, Mr. O'Boyle represented to the Pennsylvania Courts that he
was "an out of state" lawyer residing at 23 Hidden Harbor Dr., Gulf Stream, FL. The PA Code,
Chapter 83, Subchapter B, Rule 219 requires Pennsylvania attorneys to annually file with the
Attorney Registration Office a form setting forth the lawyer's current residential address. (See
Rule 219 (d)(1)(ii) attached as Exhibit B).
Regarding his business location, Mr. O'Boyle represented to the State of Florida
in his January 15, 2014, Application by Foreign Corporation for Authorization to Transact
Business in Florida that the Pennsylvania address of the O'Boyle Law Firm was 2146 E.
Huntingdon St., Philadelphia, PA. The validity of that address as a legitimate law office is
suspect, however, for several reasons: First, the office telephone number was Mr. O'Boyle's
Florida cell phone number; Second, the address was zoned R10A Residential, not commercial
(see Property Details and photographs of building attached collectively as Exhibit C); and Third,
the address was a residential townhouse owned by Mr. O'Boyle's relative, Kelly L. O'Boyle.
Given the markedly different residential and business addresses submitted to
the Florida and Pennsylvania courts by Mr. O'Boyle, especially in light of the questionable
nature of the Philadelphia office location, we request that he be asked to produce the following
additional information regarding this UPL complaint:
1. Copies of the 2013 and 2014 City of Philadelphia Commercial Activity Licenses for
Jonathan R. O'Boyle, PC and the 2014 license for the O'Boyle Law Firm;
2. Returns filed by Jonathan O'Boyle and /or his law firms for Philadelphia City Wage
Taxes in 2013 and 2014, or of an Earnings Tax Account registration if no city wage
taxes paid;
3. Copies of the Philadelphia Business Income & Receipts Tax (BIRT) returns for
Jonathan O'Boyle and /or his law firms in 2013 and 2014;
4. The 2013 and 2014 leases between his law firms and Kelly L. O'Boyle;
5. The names /addresses of all employees of Jonathan R. O'Boyle PC and /or the
O'Boyle Law Firm that worked at the 2146 E. Huntingdon St., Philadelphia, PA office
location;
6. Evidence of Pennsylvania motor vehicle registrations in the name of Jonathan
O'Boyle and /or his law firms in 2013, 2014 and 2015;
7. Evidence of Insurance Coverage of any nature covering realty, personal property,
motor vehicles, professional negligence, and /or general liability for Jonathan O'Boyle
and /or his law firms relative to any Pennsylvania address in 2013, 2014 and in 2015;
8. Evidence of payment by Jonathan O'Boyle and /or his law firms of Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania taxes in 2013, 2014 and 2015;
9. Utility bills of any nature, including electric, steam, gas or oil, and telephone and
internet bills for Jonathan O'Boyle and /or his law firms relative to any Pennsylvania
address in 2013, 2014 and in 2015;
10. Bank information, especially Pennsylvania Interest On Lawyer Trust Account
(IOLTA) bank account number for client funds held by Jonathan R. O'Boyle, PC
and /or the O'Boyle Law Firm;
11. Proof of Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Compliance Certification for
Jonathan O'Boyle for 2014;
12. Proof of 2013 and /or 2014 membership, if any, in Philadelphia Bar Association
and /or Pennsylvania Bar Association;
13. Proof of pro bono legal services performed at anytime in Philadelphia County;
14. Names /docket numbers of all Out of State (not Florida) lawsuits involving Jonathan
R. O'Boyle, PC and /or the O'Boyle Law Firm;
15. Copy of 2014 and 2015 Lease between the O'Boyle Law Firm and the landlord of
1001 Broad St., Johnstown PA; (See Listing of Businesses at This Location which
does not identify any law firm - attached hereto as Exhibit D)
16. The 2014 and 2015 leases between the O'Boyle Law Firm and the owner of 1280 &
1286 W. Newport Dr., Deerfield Beach, FL;
17. Copy of Jonathan O'Boyle's Voter's Registration for 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Sincerely,
Scott W. Morgan, Mayor
Town of Gulf Stream
c.c. Scott K. Tozian, Esq.
Filing # 26255995 E -Filed 04/17/2015 06:06:00 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2014 -CA- 004474 -AG
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendant.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Counter - Plaintiff
V.
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, an individual
RYAN WITMER, an individual,
CHRISTOPHER O'HARE, an individual,
WILLIAM RING, an individual,
JONATHAN R. O'BOYLE, an individual,
DENISE DEMARTINI, an individual, PUBLIC
AWARENESS INSTITUTE, INC., CITIZENS
AWARENESS FOUNDATION, INC.,
OUR PUBLIC RECORDS, LLC,
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC,
COMMERCE GROUP, INC. and THE
O'BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C., INC.
Counter - Defendants
CONFIDENTIAL
FILING UNDER SEAL
Confidential Party or Confidential Affected Non - Party- -Court
Service Requested
PLAINTIFF MARTIN E. O'BOYLE'S MOTION TO DETERMINE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS
CONFIDENTIAL - Filed Under Seal
5829940 -1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2014 -CA- 004474 -AG
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendant.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Counter - Plaintiff
V.
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, an individual
RYAN WITMER, an individual,
CHRISTOPHER O'HARE, an individual,
WILLIAM RING, an individual,
JONATHAN R. O'BOYLE, an individual,
DENISE DEMARTINI, an individual, PUBLIC
AWARENESS INSTITUTE, INC., CITIZENS
AWARENESS FOUNDATION, INC.,
OUR PUBLIC RECORDS, LLC,
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT, LLC,
COMMERCE GROUP, INC. and THE
O'BOYLE LAW FIRM, P.C., INC.
Counter - Defendants
PLAINTIFF MARTIN E. O'BOYLE'S MOTION
TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS — FLORIDA BAR
COMPLAINTS
Plaintiff MARTIN E. O'BOYLE ( "O'Boyle "), pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
2.420(c)(8), 2.420(d)(3), and 2.420(e), respectfully submits his Motion to Determine
2 CONFIDENTIAL - Filed Under Seal
5829940.1
Confidentiality of Court Records — Florida Bar Complaints (the "Motion to Determine
Confidentiality "), and in support states:
This case involves the Town of Gulf Stream's ( "Gulf Stream ") failure to timely and
completely produce public records relating to the activities of Gulf Stream's Police Department
on March 3-4,2014. The O'Boyle Law Firm previously represented O'Boyle in this action and,
after it withdrew as O'Boyle's counsel, and notwithstanding that O'Boyle's only prayer for relief
regarding attorneys' fees in this matter was for an award in accord with chapter 119, Florida
Statutes, Gulf Stream requested all fee agreements between the O'Boyle Law Firm and O'Boyle
or any of his companies for public records litigation, whether in Florida or New Jersey, since
January I, 2011.
When O'Boyle objected to the production of those fee agreements, Gulf Stream filed a
Motion to Compel Production of the O'Boyle Law Firm's Fee Agreements (the "Motion to
Compel "), arguing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Gulf Stream's complaint
against the O'Boyle Law Firm for the alleged unlicensed practice of law. Without citation to
any authority, Gulf Stream argued that the "forum first asserting jurisdiction in a disciplinary
matter shall retain the same...." Motion to Compel 139. In support of that argument, Gulf
Stream asserted a bar complaint is pending against the O'Boyle Law Firm and that, "upon
information and belief, the Florida Bar has not yet asserted jurisdiction" over the complaint
against the O'Boyle Law Firm. Id. at J1 36, 39.
In the Motion to Compel, Gulf Stream omits to inform the court that, in 2014, it filed
complaints with the Florida Bar, which are relevant to the allegations in the Motion, against
3 CONFIDENTIAL - Filed Under Seal
5829940 -1
Florida Bar Member 1, 2 and 3 1, who are attorneys at the O'Boyle Law Firm. In the
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of the O'Boyle Law
Firm's Fee Agreements (the "Memorandum "), O'Boyle provides the Court with material
information regarding those bar complaints in support of his request that the Court deny the
Motion. To maintain their confidentiality, the three bar complaints form composite Exhibit A to
this Motion to Determine Confidentiality, which is being filed concurrently with the
Memorandum.
Because (i) those bar complaints referred to in the Memorandum and attached as
composite Exhibit A to this Motion to Determine Confidentiality and (ii) the information
regarding those bar complaints and their recipients referred to on pages 6 and 7 of the
Memorandum are confidential under Rule 3 -7.1 of the Rules Regulating Fla. Bar, O'Boyle
moves to seal and maintain those bar complaints attached as composite Exhibit A to this Motion
to Determine Confidentiality as confidential. R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3 -7.1 provides that "All
matters including files, preliminary investigation reports, interoffice memoranda, records of
investigations, and the records in trials and other proceedings under these rules, except those
disciplinary matters conducted in circuit courts, are property of The Florida Bar. All of those
matters are confidential and will not be disclosed except as provided in these rules."
There are nonparties who are affected by the confidential information described above, to
whom notice must be given under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(4).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, O'Boyle respectfully requests that the Court seal and maintain
composite Exhibit A to this Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records — Florida Bar
1 The identities of the recipients of bar complaints are being withheld to protect their
confidentiality.
4 CONFIDENTIAL - Filed Under Seal
582 99411 -1
Complaints as confidential and take all further steps the Court deems necessary and proper to
maintain the confidentiality of composite Exhibit A to this Motion to Determine Confidentiality
of Court Records.
If the Motion to Determine Confidentiality is denied, the subject material will not be
treated as confidential by the Clerk.
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
It is certified pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(e)(1) that this motion is made in good
faith and is supported by a sound factual and legal basis.
Respectfully submitted,
BERGER SINGERMAN LLP
2650 North Military Trail, Suite 240
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 241 -9500
Fax: (561) 998-0028
By: s/ Steven D. Weber
Mitchell W. Berger, Florida Bar No. 311340
mberger@bergersingennan.com
Elaine Johnson James, Fla. Bar No. 791709
eiames@bergersingerinan.com
Steven D. Weber, Florida Bar No. 47543
sweber@bergersingerman.com
Attorneys far Martin O'Boyle
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on April 17, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida E- Filing Portal.
By: ls/ Steven D. Weber
Steven D. Weber
5 CONFIDENTIAL - Filed Under Seal
5829940 -I
SERVICE LIST
Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq.
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL
20 S.E. 3`s Street
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 392 -1230
Email: Pleadines @sweetapplelaw.com
Co- Counsel for Defendant
D. Culver Smith, III, Esquire
CULVER SMITH, P.A.
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 600
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Telephone: (561) 598 -6800
E -mail: csmith @culversmithlaw.com
5829940.1
Joanne O'Connor, Esq.
John C. Randolph, Esq.
Ashlee A. Richman, Esq.
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A.
505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Phone: (561) 659 -3000
Email: ioconnor @ionesfoster.com
irandolvh@ionesfoster.com
arichman@ionesfoster.com
Counsel for Defendant
Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. University Drive, Suite 209
Coral Springs, FL 33071
Phone: (954) 603 -1340 (direct)
Email: ddesouza @desouzalaw.com
By: s /Steven D. Weber
Steven D. Weber
6 CONFIDENTIAL - Filed Under Seal
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT A
WILLIAM RING BAR COMPLAINT
Q FrFDvE 0
The Florida Bar AUG 2 5 2014
Inquiry /Complaint Form
ga,•Ae
CAP
TayNges, i;oA
PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE — Complainant Information.):
Your Name: Scott W. Morgan
Organization: Town of Gulf Stream
Address: 100 Sea Rd.
City, State, Zip Code: Gulf Stream, FL 33483
Telephone: 561- 276 -5116
E -mail: smorgan @gulf- stream.org
ACAP Reference No.:
Have you ever filed a complaint against a member of The Florida Bar: Yes No
If yes, how many complaints have you filed?
Does this complaint pertain to a matter currently in litigation? Yes X No
PART TWO (See Page 1, PART TWO — Attorney Information.):
Attorney's Name: William F. Ring, Jr. (Florida Bar No. 961795
Address: 1286 West Newport Center Dr.
City, State, Zip Code: Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Telephone: 954 - 574 -6885
PART THREE (See Pagel, PART THREE —Facts/Allegations.): The specific thing or things I
am complaining about are: (attach additional sheets as necessary)
My name is Scott W. Morgan and I am the Mayor of the Town of Gulf Stream.
On behalf of the Town, I am filing the attached ten (10) page Complaint. This Complaint is being filed
both with The Florida Bar's Attorney /Consumer Assistance Program against the named attorneys for
numerous violations of rules of The Florida Bar, and separately with The Florida Bar's Unlicensed
Practice of Law Division against Jonathan R. O'Boyle.
THE FLORIDA BAR
INQUIRY /COMPLAINT FORM
AUGUST25, 2014
WITNESS
JOEL CHANDLER
1355 Forrest Park St.
Lakeland, FL 33803
tel: 863 - 660 -4244
Counsel for the Town of Gulf Stream has a lengthy statement from Mr. Chandler,
which is available for review upon request.
PART FOUR (See Page 1, PART FOUR— Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my
allegations are: [see attached sheet].
PART FIVE (See Page 1, PART FIVE — Signature.): Under penalties of perjury, I declare that
the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Scott W. Morgan
Print Name
VV , vWi
na
August 25, 2014
Date
Please allow this correspondence to serve as a formal complaint regarding the activities
of The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., a Foreign Profit corporation formerly known as Jonathan
R. O'Boyle P.C. with its principal place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida ( "the O'Boyle
Law Firm "), and the following attorneys practicing with that firm who are engaged in public
records litigation throughout the State of Florida:
Jonathan O'Boyle (Florida Bar admission pending)
William Ring, Florida Bar No. 961795
Giovani Mesa, Florida Bar No. 86798
Nickalaus Taylor, Florida Bar No. 51629
Verhonda Williams, Florida Bar No. 92607
Ryan Witmer, Florida Bar No. 0107563
The public records litigation prosecuted by this firm and attorneys includes 25 Public Records
Act suits filed against the Town of Gulf Stream ("the Town ") since January 2014 on behalf of
Martin O'Boyle and entities affiliated with him.
I have reason to believe that The O'Boyle Law Firm and its attorneys have violated
numerous rules of The Florida Bar including R. Reg. Fla. Bar 4- 1.5(a), 4- 1.5(f), 4 -1.6 and 4 -7.18
and that the firm and attorney Jonathan R. O'Boyle are engaged in the unlicensed practice of law
in violation of Rule 4 -5.5. The Town of Gulf Stream seeks restitution pursuant to R. Reg. Fla.
Bar. 10 -7.1.
The O'Boyle Law Firm f/k/a Jonathan R. O'Boyle P.C.
The O'Boyle Law Firm has been operating in Florida since mid -January 2014. It was
formed by Jonathan O'Boyle as a Pennsylvania corporation on November 14, 2013.
The O'Boyle Law Firm submitted an Application by Foreign Corporation for
Authorization to Transact Business in Florida to the Florida Division of Corporations on or about
January 15, 2014. In the Application, the O'Boyle Law Firm represented the following:
Jonathan O'Boyle is the President and sole officer and director of The O'Boyle
Law Firm;
A principal office address at address of 1280 W. Newport Center Drive, Deerfield
Beach, FL 33442; and
A mailing address of 2146 E. Huntingdon Street, Philadelphia, PA 19125
The Application was completed by paralegal Norma Lenna, who provided an email address of
nlenna a- commerce -group com. (The Application is available on the Florida Division of
Corporations website at www.sunbiz.orgl.
The O'Boyle Law Firm was registered to transact business with the State of Florida
effective February 10, 2014.
Non- Florida Bar Member Jonathan R. O'Boyle
A recent, 2012 graduate of Drexel University School of Law, Jonathan O'Boyle is
admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar (PA Bar #314500). He has apparently passed The Florida Bar
examination but has not been admitted to The Florida Bar.
Just two months after The O'Boyle Law Firm was incorporated in Pennsylvania in
November 2013, Jonathan O'Boyle moved to appear pro hac vice in Florida state and federal
court cases. On January 23, 2014, he filed a sworn Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro
Hac Vice in the case of Christopher F. O'Hare v. Town of Gulfstream and William H. Thrasher,
Jr., Case No.: 2014CA000720XXXXMB AI, pending before the Honorable Meenu Sasser. In
that Motion, Jonathan O'Boyle swore in paragraph 2 that he is a member of The O'Boyle Law
Firm with offices at 2146 E. Huntingdon Street, Philadelphia. (That address appears to be a
residential property constituting a homestead owned by a relative of Mr. O'Boyle, Kelly L.
O'Boyle). He also swore that he is domiciled in and permanently resides at 107 South 13`s Street,
Longport, New Jersey.
In addition to the case before Judge Sasser, Jonathan O'Boyle has applied to appear pro
hac vice in the following Florida cases:
• Martin O'Boyle v Town of Gulf Stream, Case No.: 9:2013 -cv- 80530 -DMM
(Middlebrooks, J.) (since dismissed) on June 17, 2013 (see Exhibit "H "); and
• Christopher O'Hare v. Town of Guystream, Case No.: 9:13 -CV- 81053 -KLR
(Ryskamp, J.), on or about January 13, 2014 (see Exhibit "I ").
Although Jonathan O'Boyle represented to the Florida courts that he practiced outside the
state, as of April 4, 2014, the Pennsylvania Bar had Jonathan O'Boyle registered as an out -of-
state lawyer with an address at the home of his father, Martin O'Boyle, at 23 North Hidden
Harbour Drive in Gulfstream, Florida, and a telephone number with a (561) area code. (Exhibit
"111). Thus, as of April 4, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not reflect that Jonathan
O'Boyle actively practiced in the state.
More recently, Jonathan O'Boyle has apparently changed his Pennsylvania Bar
information and as of May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court records reflect that he
practices in Cambria County, Pennsylvania with an address of 1001 Broad Street, Johnstown,
PA. (Exhibit "211). Johnston, Pennsylvania is more than five (5) hours from Longport, New
Jersey, where Jonathan O'Boyle advised Judge Sasser he resides.
The Non -Law Firm Feeder Entities
On information and belief, recognizing that the filing of thousands of public records
requests to business and public agencies across the State would lead to litigation and statutory
attorney's fee entitlements (see Fla. Stat. § 119.12), Martin O'Boyle joined with his son Attorney
Jonathan O'Boyle and his long -time business associate Attorney Ring to create The O'Boyle
Law Firm and, simultaneously, the non - profit foundation CAFI, and to re- activate corporate
entities previously formed by Martin O'Boyle for the sole purpose of feeding public records
litigation to his son Jonathan O'Boyle and The O'Boyle Law Firm.
To this end, the O'Boyle Law Firm's principal place of business is in a suite of offices
owned and/or leased by Martin E. O'Boyle a real estate developer who resides in Gulf Stream,
Florida. According to Florida Department of State Division of Corporations records available at
www.sunbiz.ore, the following entities affiliated with Martin O'Boyle are also located at 1280
West Newport Center Drive, the address the O'Boyle Law Finn first provided the Florida
Division of Corporations:
Commerce Group, Inc. — a Florida corporation, which has been located at 1280
West Newport Center drive since at least 1992, according to the Florida Division
of Corporations. Martin O'Boyle is the President of the Commerce Group and
Martin O'Boyle's longtime real estate counsel, William Ring, Esq., is its Vice
President.
Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc. — a Florida non -profit corporation
incorporated on January 27, 2014, approximately two (2) weeks after the O'Boyle
Law Firm applied to do business in Florida. Attorney Ring was the President of
CAFI from incorporation until the end of June 2014. The current President and
former Treasurer (Jan. 27 — June 23, 2014) of CAFI is Denise DeMartini, a non -
lawyer and longtime business associate of Martin O'Boyle. The former Executive
Director of CAM advises that CAFI is funded by Martin O'Boyle,
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC — a Florida limited liability company
established in 2011. Martin O'Boyle is its Manager and Attorney Ring its
registered agent.
CG Acqusition Company, Inc. — a Florida profit corporation incorporated in
1998. Its officers are Martin O'Boyle and Attorney Ring.
According to Joel Chandler, the former Executive Director of CAFI ( "Chandler'),' the
O'Boyle Law Firm is housed in the offices of the Commerce Group. Commerce Group
employees are free to walk through the law firm's space and the two entities shared employees.
The O'Boyle Law Firm does not have a separate sign or door to its law offices. While the
O'Boyle Law Firm documented a change of address with the Florida Division of Corporations
on February 14, 2014, from 1280 to 1286 West Newport Center Drive, that address is across the
hall from the Commerce Group space and was not renovated prior to Chandler's resignation
from CAM in June 2014.
From January 2014 to the present, the aforementioned entities as well as Martin O'Boyle
and other individuals and entities affiliated with him (Denise DeMartini, Airline Highway LLC,
Asset Enhancement, Inc., Our Public Records, LLC) have made public records requests to the
' As noted at the conclusion of this correspondence, counsel for the Town of Gulf Stream has obtained a lengthy
statement from Mr. Chandler and can make that statement available upon request.
Town, most if not all directing responses to a domain name used by Martin O'Boyle's real estate
development company the Commerce Group, Inc. - records a.commerce- eroun.com
Creation of Citizens Awareness Foundation Inc. ( "CA17I ")
In January 2014 Martin O'Boyle contacted Chandler about creating a non - profit
foundation to engage in public records and open meetings advocacy. At the time, Chandler had
been working as a self - employed civil rights and public records activist. He had considerable
experience in making public records requests and in public records request litigation throughout
the State of Florida.
On or about January 22, 2014, Chandler was invited to the O'Boyle home in Gulf Stream,
Florida. At the initial meetings, which included Jonathan O'Boyle, Chandler and the O'Boyle's
discussed the creation of the foundation and the O'Boyle Law Firm's capacity for handling
public records litigation throughout the state. The O'Boyles had proposed retaining Chandler to
work for a non - profit foundation they had already created but Chandler believed a conflict would
exist as Jonathan O'Boyle already served as a director of that foundation.
CAFI was incorporated as a Florida non - profit corporation on January 27, 2014 and
Chandler began work as its Executive Director immediately. The officers and directors of CAFI
at that time were Martin O'Boyle's long -time (30 years or more) business associates and
employees of the Commerce Group: Attorney Ring, President; Denise DeMartini, Treasurer; and
Brenda Russell, Secretary.
Chandler was advised (including by Martin O'Boyle) that Martin O'Boyle funds the
O'Boyle Law Firm and CAFI. A Commerce Group employee handled payroll for CAFI and,
presumably, for the O'Boyle Law Firm.
CAFI paid Chandler $120,000 per year to travel the state making hundreds of public
records requests to public entities and state contractors. Thereafter, any evidence that would
serve as a pretext for a lawsuit was to be forwarded immediately to Jonathan O'Boyle for the
filing of litigation. (Chandler had initially requested a reduced salary and the opportunity to
continue his own pro se public records litigation but O'Boyle refused). Chandler understood that
litigation was only one part of the open government advocacy that CAFI would advance and that
he would have the sole authority to authorize public records litigation and to engage law firms on
CAFI's behalf. As instructed, Chandler began creating public records requests and legal claims
and referring these to the O'Boyle Law Firm. However, almost immediately after Chandler
began with CAFI, O'Boyle expressed to him a lack of interest in advocacy efforts.
Chandler understood Jonathan O'Boyle to be working full -time at the O'Boyle Law Firm
offices in Deerfield Beach and to permanently reside at his parents' home in Gulf Stream,
Florida during the time that Chandler was associated with CAFI, from January to June 2014.
Jonathan O'Boyle directed the activities of the O'Boyle Law Firm in Florida.
At the end of March and in early April 2014, Chandler learned that a receptionist for the
Commerce Group had been making public records requests to the Town of Gulf Stream on
behalf of CAR without his knowledge or approval but, instead, at the direction of Martin
O'Boyle. Chandler later learned that well over a hundred unauthorized public records requests
had been made by the Commerce Group in the foundation's name.2
In mid -April 2014, Chandler came to learn that Denise DeMartini, Martin O'Boyle's
long -time business associate at the Commerce Group and the CAR director to whom Chandler
reported, was managing operations of The O'Boyle Law Finn. Chandler attended one meeting of
the O'Boyle Law Firm that was run by DeMartini remotely by telephone from her home in
Martin County, Florida. The meeting focused on the number of new cases that had been filed
rather than management of pending cases. Additionally, while Chandler understood he was
participating in order to discuss CAR cases, conversations were had in his presence about other
public records cases to which neither he nor CAM nor DeMartini were a party, including cases
Chandler had referred to the O'Boyle Law Firm.
DeMartini expressed to Chandler on numerous occasions her frustration that CAFI was
not generating sufficient new public records cases for the O'Boyle Law Firm. Toward the end of
April 2014, in response to an email from Chandler outlining the advocacy and educational
outreach contemplated by CAFI employee Cathy Zollo, DeMartini expressed the law firm's
expectation that Chandler produce a minimum of 25 new lawsuits a week for the O'Boyle Law
Firm to file.
Chandler's efforts to refer lawsuits to attorneys other than the O'Boyle Law Firm were
rejected. For instance, Chandler suggested that one lawsuit arising out of a public records request
made by him on behalf of CAFI, CAFI v. Barnes & Noble College Bookstore, be referred to the
Thomas & LoCicero law firm in Tampa. Thomas & LoCicero had represented Chandler for
years and he considered them the preeminent open government litigators in Florida. Attorney
Ring advised Chandler that after discussing the matter with DeMartini he was not inclined to let
Chandler refer any cases to any law firm other than the O'Boyle Law Firm.
On May 19, 2014 Chandler met with Ring and DeMartini and again demanded that
public records requests and lawsuits cease being filed without his knowledge or approval. After
consulting with Martin O'Boyle, Ring and DeMartini agreed that this would no longer occur and
confirmed that Chandler had the sole authority to make public records requests as well as to
commence or to settle public record request lawsuits. Nevertheless, the O'Boyle Law Finn filed
a new lawsuit purportedly on behalf of CAFI against the Town of Gulf Stream and engineering
firm Brannon & Gillespie, LLC the very next day (see CAFI v. Gulf Stream and Brannon &
Gillespie LLC, Case No. 2014CAXXXX IB006112 AA (151h Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach Cty.).
DeMartini expressed to Chandler on numerous occasions her frustration that CAFI was
not generating sufficient new public records cases. At the end of May 2014, DeMartini
repeatedly requested that Chandler prepare verified complaints including templates to be used by
the O'Boyle Law Firm in public records request litigation. Chandler refused, citing independent
a In fact, some 40 public records requests were made by CAFI to the Town over a 2 -day period on April 22 and 23,
2014, with directions to respond to imohler flacitizensawarenessfoundation .ore .
advice that to do so would constitute the unlicensed practice of law. Despite this, DeMartini
continued to attempt to coax Chandler to draft lawsuits for The O'Boyle Law Firm.
In June 2014, Chandler learned that The O'Boyle Law Finn was engaged in what he
deemed an attorneys' fee "windfall scheme ". The scheme involved the firm demanding monetary
settlements on behalf of CAM far in excess of the actual and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred and contemplated in F.S. § 119.12 and to keep all of the proceeds including the
"windfall ". Ring, Jonathan O'Boyle and DeMartini requested that Chandler approve the scheme.
Thereafter Chandler learned that Ring, DeMartini and Jonathan O'Boyle actually represented
that Chandler had approved the scheme, even though he had vehemently objected to it. When
Chandler expressed his outrage, he was advised that "windfall" settlement demands were being
made in accordance with the O'Boyle Law Firm policy.
On June 30, 2014 Chandler arrived at the Commerce Group /CAF /O'Boyle Law Firm
office and presented his letter of resignation to Ring.
On July 3, 2014, CAFI filed Articles of Amendment by which DeMartini became its
President following Ring's resignation. Ring continues to serve as General Counsel and Vice
President of The Commerce Group and is newly associated with The O'Boyle Law Finn. He has
filed at least one public records suit on behalf of Martin O'Boyle and
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC while an attorney at The O'Boyle Law Firm. See
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC and Martin E. O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No.
2014CA008529RL (Cty. Court, 15'h Jud. Cir. in and for Pahn Beach Cty.).
The Public Records Lawsuits
The O'Boyle Law Firm has filed 25 public records lawsuits against the Town of Gulf
Stream since January 22, 2014. Those suits have been filed on behalf of Martin O'Boyle, CAFI,
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC and CO Acquisition Company, Inc. Notwithstanding the
hundreds of public records requests made to the Town by Martin O'Boyle and his affiliated
entities, including CAFI, The O'Boyle Law Firm has filed every suit arising out of these
requests.
The O'Boyle Law Firm has now filed hundreds of public records lawsuits throughout the
State of Florida but, on information and belief, has not filed any such lawsuits in the State of
Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
Violations of The Florida Bar Rules
Sharing Space With Non - Lawyers Sharing Client Confidences
The O'Boyle Law Firm's sharing of space with its clients including the Commerce
Group, STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC, CAFI, CG Acquisition Company Inc. and
numerous other legal entities that identify 1280 West Newport Center Drive as their principal
place of business and have made public records requests to the Town (Asset Enhancement, Inc.,
Our Public Records, LLC) violates Rule Reg. Fla. Bar 4 -1.6 (requiring attorney to preserve in
confidence all information relating to representation of his or her clients). See Fla. Bar Ethics
Op. 88 -15 (Oct. 1, 1988) ( "An attorney must take steps to avoid misleading the public as to the
nature of the business activities being conducted within his or her offices. ")
Captive Law Firm and Feeder Relationships
The Florida Bar rules do not appear to permit the feeder relationship that Martin
O'Boyle, Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring have created whereby a non -profit foundation is
created for the sole purpose of generating public records litigation to be sent to a single law firm
to pursue attorney's fee claims. Attorney Ring's service as an officer and director of CAFI, an
officer of CG Acquisition Company, Inc., a Vice President of the Commerce Group and now as
an attorney at the O'Boyle Law Firm, which is prosecuting public records suits on behalf of all
of these entities from the same offices evidences the impropriety of this situation. See Fla. Bar
Ethics Op. 02 -8 (Jan. 16, 2004) ( "this Committee has issued a number of opinions which
preclude an attorney from using a nonlegal business as a 'feeder' to the attorney's law firm)
(citing Fla. Bar Ethics Ops. 88 -15, 79 -3, 78 -14 and 73 -1).
The O'Boyle Law Firm is effectively a captive law firm financed by Martin O'Boyle to
generate business for his son, who is not a member of The Florida Bar. This relationship violates
the solicitation rules of The Florida Bar. See R. Reg. Fla. Bar. 4- 7.18(a). DeMartini's soliciation
of business on behalf of The O'Boyle Law Firm is likewise prohibited. Fla. Bar Ethics Op. 89 -4
(Aug. 15, 1989) (law firm may not allow its nonlawyer marketing director to solicit business for
the firm in any manner forbidden to lawyers themselves)
Windfall Fee Scheme
The O'Boyle Law Firm appears to be engaged in a windfall fee scheme that violates The
Florida Bar rules. To the extent the firm represented CAM and other public records clients
pursuant to a contingent fee agreement, the agreement had to be in writing and a written closing
statement prepared. See Reg. Fla. Bar. 4- 1.5(f)(1), (2) and (5). The Florida Bar Rules also
prohibit attorneys from collecting clearly excessive fees and fees "generated by employment that
was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with R. Reg. Fla. Bar. 4-
1.5(a).
Unlicensed Practice of Law
As set forth above, it appears that Jonathan O'Boyle, a lawyer not admitted to practice in
Florida, has "establish[ed] an office or other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law"
in violation of R. Reg. Fla. Bar. 4 -5.5.
It is also questionable whether The O'Boyle Law Firm is a valid interstate law firm. Fla.
Bar. Ethics Op. 74 -78 (Dec. 26, 1974) ( "The partnership [contemplated by an interstate law
firm], however, must be a full, bona fide partnership in which the profits and losses of several
offices are actually shared according to the terms of a partnership agreement. "). See also The
Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1978).
Counsel for the Town has obtained a lengthy sworn video statement from former CAM
Executive Director, Joel Chandler, and can make the transcript and/or the videotape available to
The Florida Bar upon request.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that to
the best of my knowledge and belief the facts stated in it are true.
Sig
Scott W. Morgan
Mayor
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
ZJ� /
Date
NICKALAUS B. TAYLOR BAR COMPLAINT
The Florida Bar Q�j
Inquiry /Complaint Form n�(� r
PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE— Complainant Information.i�� PuG 15 J'p 4
\u\ �
Your Name: Scott W. Morgan
Organization: Town of Gulf Stream
Address: 100 Sea Rd.
City, State, Zip Code: Gulf Stream, FL 33483
Telephone: 561 - 276 -5116
E -mail: smorgan(3a gulf -st wn.org
ACAP Reference No.:
Have you ever filed a complaint against a member of The Florida Bar: Yes F7 No
If yes, how many complaints have you filed?
Does this complaint pertain to a matter currently in litigation? Yes rT< No
PART TWO (See Page 1, PART TWO — Attorney Information.):
Attorney's Name: Nickalaus B. Taylor (Florida Bar No. 51629)
Address: 1286 West Newport Center Dr.
City, State, Zip Code: Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Telephone: 954 - 574 -6885
PART THREE (See Pagel, PART THREE — Facts/Allegations.): The specific thing or things I
am complaining about are: (attach additional sheets as necessary)
My name is Scott W. Morgan and I am the Mayor of the Town of Gulf Stream.
On behalf of the Town, I am filing the attached ten (10) page Complaint This Complaint is being filed
both with The Florida Bar's Attorney /Consumer Assistance Program against the named attorneys for
numerous violations of rules of The Florida Bar, and separately with The Florida Bar's Unlicensed
Practice of Law Division against Jonathan R. O'Boyle.
PART FOUR (See Pagel, PART FOUR— Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my
allegations are: [see attached sheet].
PART FIVE (See Pagel, PART FIVE— Signature.): Under penalties of perjury, I declare that
the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Scott W. Morgan
Print Name
�w.
�tufe
August 25, 2014
Date
Please allow this correspondence to serve as a formal complaint regarding the activities
of The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C, Inc., a Foreign Profit corporation formerly known as Jonathan
R- O'Boyle P.C. with its principal place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida ("the O'Boyle
Law Firm', and the following attorneys practicing with that firm who are engaged in public
records litigation throughout the State of Florida:
Jonathan O'Boyle (Florida Bar admission pending)
William Ring, Florida Bar No. 961795
Giovani Mesa, Florida Bar No. 86798
Nickalaus Taylor, Florida Bar No. 51629
Verhonda Williams, Florida Bar No. 92607
Ryan Witmer, Florida Bar No. 0107563
The public records litigation prosecuted by this firm and attorneys includes 25 Public Records
Act suits filed against the Town of Gulf Stream ("the Town") since January 2014 on behalf of
Martin O'Boyle and entities affiliated with him.
I have reason to believe that The O'Boyle Law Firm and its attorneys have violated
numerous rules of The Florida Bar including R. Reg. Fla. Bar 4- 1.5(a), 4- 1.5(i), 4 -1.6 and 4 -7.18
and that the firm and attorney Jonathan R. O'Boyle are engaged in the unlicensed practice of law
in violation of Rule 4 -5.5. The Town of Gulf Stream seeks restitution pursuant to R. Reg. Fla.
Bar. 10 -7.1.
The O'Boyle Law Firm Me& Jonathan R. O'Boyle P.C.
The O'Boyle Law Firm has been operating in Florida since mid -January 2014. It was
formed by Jonathan O'Boyle as a Pennsylvania corporation on November 14, 2013.
The O'Boyle Law Firm submitted an Application by Foreign Corporation for
Authorization to Transact Business in Florida to the Florida Division of Corporations on or about
January 15, 2014. In the Application, the O'Boyle Law Firm represented the following:
Jonathan O'Boyle is the President and sole officer and director of The O'Boyle
Law Firm;
A principal office address at address of 1280 W. Newport Center Drive, Deerfield
Beach, FL 33442; and
A mailing address of 2146 E. Huntingdon Street, Philadelphia, PA 19125
The Application was completed by paralegal Norma Lenna, who provided an email address of
nleana(a).commerce- group.com. (The Application is available on the Florida Division of
Corporations website at www.sunbiz.org).
The O'Boyle Law Firm was registered to transact business with the State of Florida
effective February 10, 2014.
Non - Florida Bar Member Jonathan R. O'Boyle
A recent, 2012 graduate of Drexel University School of Law, Jonathan O'Boyle is
admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar (PA Bar #314500). He has apparently passed The Florida Bar
examination but has not been admitted to The Florida Bar.
Just two months after The O'Boyle Law Firm was incorporated in Pennsylvania in
November 2013, Jonathan O'Boyle moved to appear pro hoc vice in Florida state and federal
court cases. On January 23, 2014, he filed a sworn Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro
Bac rice in the case of Christopher F. O Hare v Town of Gu#stream and William H Thrasher,
Jr., Case No.: 2014CA000720)D{)CCAB Al, pending before the Honorable Meenu Sasser. In
that Motion, Jonathan O'Boyle swore in paragraph 2 that he is a member of The O'Boyle Law
Firm with offices at 2146 E. Huntingdon Street, Philadelphia. (fbat address appears to be a
residential property constituting a homestead owned by a relative of Mr. O'Boyle, Kelly L.
O'Boyle). He also swore that he is domiciled in and permanently resides at 107 South 13 I Street,
LongpoM New Jersey.
In addition to the case before Judge Sasser, Jonathan O'Boyle has applied to appear pro
hoc vice in the following Florida cases:
• Martin O'Boyle v. Town of Guys Stream, Case No.: 9:2013 -cv- 80530 -DMM
(Middlebrooks, J.) (since dismissed) on June 17, 2013 (see Exhibit "H"); and
• Christopher O Hare v. Town of Gulfstream, Case No.: 9:13 -CV- 81053 -KLR
(Ryskamp, J.), on or about January 13, 2014 (see Exhibit "P').
Although Jonathan O'Boyle represented to the Florida courts that he practiced outside the
state, as of April 4, 2014, the Pennsylvania Bar had Jonathan O'Boyle registered as an out -of-
state lawyer with an address at the home of his father, Martin O'Boyle, at 23 North Hidden
Harbour Drive in Gulfstream, Florida, and a telephone number with a (561) area code. (Exhibit
"I "). Thus, as of April 4, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not reflect that Jonathan
O'Boyle actively practiced in the state.
More recently, Jonathan O'Boyle has apparently changed his Pennsylvania Bar
information and as of May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court records reflect that he
practices in Cambria County, Pennsylvania with an address of 1001 Broad Street, Johnstown,
PA. (Exhibit "2 "). Johnston, Pennsylvania is more than five (5) hours from LongpoM New
Jersey, where Jonathan O'Boyle advised Judge Sasser he resides.
The Non -Law Firm Feeder Entities
On information and belies; recognizing that the filing of thousands of public records
requests to business and public agencies across the State would lead to litigation and statutory
attorney's fee entitlements (see Fla. Stat. § 119.12), Martin O'Boyle joined with his son Attorney
Jonathan O'Boyle and his long -time business associate Attorney Ring to create The O'Boyle
Law Firm and, simultaneously, the non -profit foundation CAR, and to re- activate corporate
entities previously formed by Martin O'Boyle for the sole purpose of feeding public records
Litigation to his son Jonathan O'Boyle and The O'Boyle Law Firm.
To this end, the O'Boyle Law Firm's principal place of business is in a suite of offices
owned and/or leased by Martin E. O'Boyle a real estate developer who resides in Gulf Stream,
Florida. According to Florida Department of State Division of Corporations records available at
www.sunbiz.ore, the following entities affiliated with Martin O'Boyle are also located at 1280
West Newport Center Drive, the address the O'Boyle Law Firm first provided the Florida
Division of Corporations:
Commerce Group, Inc. — a Florida corporation, which has been located at 1280
West Newport Center drive since at least 1992, according to the Florida Division
of Corporations. Martin O'Boyle is the President of the Commerce Group and
Martin O'Boyle's longtime real estate counsel, William Ring, Esq., is its Vice
President,
Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc. — a Florida non -profit corporation
incorporated on January 27, 2014, approximately two (2) weeks after the O'Boyle
Law Firm applied to do business in Florida Attorney Ring was the President of
CAFI from incorporation until the end of June 2014. The current President and
former Treasurer (Jan. 27 — June 23, 2014) of CAFI is Denise DeMartini, a non-
lawyer and longtime business associate of Martin O'Boyle. The former Executive
Director of CAFI advises that CAFI is funded by Marlin O'Boyle.
STOPURTYGOVERNMENT LLC — a Florida limited liability company
established in 2011. Martin O'Boyle is its Manager and Attorney Ring its
registered agent.
CG Acqusition Company, Inc. — a Florida profit corporation incorporated in
1998. Its officers are Martin O'Boyle and Attorney Ring.
According to Joel Chandler, the former Executive Director of CAM ( "Chandler "),t the
O'Boyle Law Firm is housed in the offices of the Commerce Group. Commerce Group
employees are free to walk through the law firm's space and the two entities shared employees.
The O'Boyle Law Firm does not have a separate sign or door to its law offices. While the
O'Boyle Law Firm documented a change of address with the Florida Division of Corporations
on February 14, 2014, from 1280 to 1286 West Newport Center Drive, that address is across the
hall from the Commerce Group space and was not renovated prior to Chandler's resignation
from CAFI in June 2014.
From January 2014 to the present, the aforementioned entities as well as Martin O'Boyle
and other individuals and entities affiliated with him (Denise DeMartini, Airline Highway LLC,
Asset Enhancement, Inc., Our Public Records, LLC) have made public records requests to the
' As noted at the conclusion of this correspondence, counsel for the Town of Gulf Stream has obtained a lengthy
statement from Mr. Chandler and can make that statement available upon request
Town, most if not all directing responses to a domain name used by Martin O'Boyle's real estate
development company the Commerce Group, Inc. - records @commerce- eroup.com
Creation of Citizens Awareness Foundation Inc. ( "CAFP'1
In January 2014 Martin O'Boyle contacted Chandler about creating a non -profit
foundation to engage in public records and open meetings advocacy. At the time, Chandler bad
been working as a self - employed civil rights and public records activist. He had considerable
experience in making public records requests and in public records request litigation throughout
the State of Florida
On or about January 22, 2014, Chandler was invited to the O'Boyle home in Gulf Stream,
Florida At the initial meetings, which included Jonathan O'Boyle, Chandler and the O'Boyle's
discussed the creation of the foundation and the O'Boyle Law Firm's capacity for handling
public records litigation throughout the state. The O'Boyles had proposed retaining Chandler to
work for a non -profit foundation they had already created but Chandler believed a conflict would
exist as Jonathan O'Boyle already served as a director of that foundation.
CAFI was incorporated as a Florida non -profit corporation on January 27, 2014 and
Chandler began work as its Executive Director immediately. The officers and directors of CAP
at that time were Martin O'Boyle's long -time (30 years or more) business associates and
employees of the Commerce Group: Attorney Ring, President; Denise DeMartini, Treasurer, and
Brenda Russell, Secretary.
Chandler was advised (including by Martin O'Boyle) that Martin O'Boyle funds the
O'Boyle Law Firm and CAR A Commerce Group employee handled payroll for CAM and,
presumably, for the O'Boyle Law Firm.
CAFI paid Chandler $120,000 per year to travel the state making hundreds of public
records requests to public entities and state contractors. Thereafter, any evidence that would
serve as a pretext for a lawsuit was to be forwarded immediately to Jonathan O'Boyle for the
filing of litigation. (Chandler had initially requested a reduced salary and the opportunity to
continue his own pro se public records litigation but O'Boyle refused). Chandler understood that
litigation was only one part of the open government advocacy that CAFI would advance and that
he would have the sole authority to authorize public records litigation and to engage law funs on
CAM's behalf As instructed, Chandler began creating public records requests and legal claims
and referring these to the O'Boyle Law Firm. However, almost immediately after Chandler
began with CAFI, O'Boyle expressed to him a lack of interest in advocacy efforts.
Chandler understood Jonathan O'Boyle to be working full -time at the O'Boyle Law Firm
offices in Deerfield Beach and to permanently reside at his parents' home in Gulf Stream,
Florida during the time that Chandler was associated with CAR, from January to June 2014.
Jonathan O'Boyle directed the activities of the O'Boyle Law Firm in Florida.
At the end of March and in early April 2014, Chandler learned that a receptionist for the
Commerce Group had been making public records requests to the Town of Gulf Stream on
behalf of CAM without his knowledge or approval but, instead, at the direction of Martin
O'Boyle. Chandler later learned that well over a hundred unauthorized public records requests
had been made by the Commerce Group in the foundation's name.
In mid -April 2014, Chandler came to learn that Denise DeMartini, Martin O'Boyle's
long -time business associate at the Commerce Group and the CAFI director to whom Chandler
reported, was managing operations of The O'Boyle Law Firm. Chandler attended one meeting of
the O'Boyle Law Finn that was run by DeMartini remotely by telephone from her home in
Martin County, Florida. The meeting focused on the number of new cases that had been filed
rather than management of pending cases. Additionally, while Chandler understood he was
participating in order to discuss CAFI cases, conversations were had in his presence about other
public records cases to which neither he nor CAM nor DeMartini were a party, including cases
Chandler had referred to the O'Boyle Law Firm.
DeMartini expressed to Chandler on numerous occasions her frustration that CAM was
not generating sufficient new public records cases for the O'Boyle Law Firm. Toward the end of
April 2014, in response to an email from Chandler outlining the advocacy and educational
outreach contemplated by CAM employee Cathy Zollo, DeMartini expressed the law firm's
expectation that Chandler produce a minimum of 25 new lawsuits a week for the O'Boyle Law
Firm to file.
Chandler's efforts to refer lawsuits to attorneys other than the O'Boyle Law Firm were
rejected. For instance, Chandler suggested that one lawsuit arising out of a public records request
made by him on behalf of CAFI, CAFI v. Barnes & Noble College Bookstore, be referred to the
Thomas & LoCicero law firm in Tampa. Thomas & LoCicero had represented Chandler for
years and he considered them the preeminent open government litigators in Florida. Attorney
Ring advised Chandler that after discussing the matter with DeMartini he was not inclined to let
Chandler refer any cases to any law firm other than the O'Boyle Law Firm.
On May 19, 2014 Chandler met with Ring and DeMartini and again demanded that
public records requests and lawsuits cease being filed without his knowledge or approval. After
consulting with Martin O'Boyle, Ring and DeMartini agreed that this would no longer occur and
confirmed that Chandler had the sole authority to make public records requests as well as to
commence or to settle public record request lawsuits. Nevertheless, the O'Boyle Law Firm filed
a new lawsuit purportedly on behalf of CAFI against the Town of Gulf Stream and engineering
firm Brannon & Gillespie, LLC the very next day (see CAFI v. Gulf Stream and Brannon &
Gillespie LLC, Case No. 20I4CAJXXCMB006112 AA (15' Judicial Circuit in and Tor Palm
Beach Cty.).
DeMartini expressed to Chandler on numerous occasions her frustration that CAM was
not generating sufficient new public records cases. At the end of May 2014, DeMartini
repeatedly requested that Chandler prepare verified complaints including templates to be used by
the O'Boyle Law Firm in public records request litigation. Chandler refused, citing independent
' In fact, some 40 public records requests were made by CAFI to the Town over a 2 -day period on April 22 and 23,
2014, with directions to respond to imohler (alcitizensawerenessfoundation .ore .
advice that to do so would constitute the unlicensed practice of law. Despite this, DeMartini
continued to attempt to coax Chandler to draft lawsuits for The O'Boyle Law Firm.
In June 2014, Chandler learned that The O'Boyle Law Firm was engaged in what he
deemed an attorneys' fee "windfall scheme ". The scheme involved the firm demanding monetary
settlements on behalf of CAFI far in excess of the actual and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred and contemplated in F.S. §119.12 and to keep all of the proceeds including the
"windfall ". Ring, Jonathan O'Boyle and DeMartini requested that Chandler approve the scheme.
Thereafter Chandler learned that Ring, DeMartini and Jonathan O'Boyle actually represented
that Chandler had approved the scheme, even though he had vehemently objected to it. When
Chandler expressed his outrage, he was advised that "windfall" settlement demands were being
made in accordance with the O'Boyle Law Firm policy.
On June 30, 2014 Chandler arrived at the Commerce Group /CAF/O'Boyle Law Firm
office and presented his letter of resignation to Ring.
On July 3, 2014, CAM filed Articles of Amendment by which DeMartini became its
President following Ring's resignation. Ring continues to serve as General Counsel and Vice
President of The Commerce Group and is newly associated with The O'Boyle Law Firm. He has
filed at least one public records suit on behalf of Martin O'Boyle and
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC while an attorney at The O'Boyle Law Firm. See
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC and min E. O'Boyle v. Gulf Stream, Case No.
2014CA008529RL (Cty. Court, 15'b Jud. Cit. in and for Palm Beach Cry.).
The Public Records Lawsuits
The O'Boyle Law Firm has filed 25 public records lawsuits against the 'Town of Gulf
Stream since January 22, 2014. Those suits have been filed on behalf of Martin O'Boyle, CAFI,
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC and CG Acquisition Company, Inc. Notwithstanding the
hundreds of public records requests made to the Town by Martin O'Boyle and his affiliated
entities, including CAFI, The O'Boyle Law Firm has filed every suit arising out of these
requests.
The O'Boyle Law Firm has now filed hundreds of public records lawsuits throughout the
State of Florida but, on information and belief, has not filed any such lawsuits in the State of
Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
Violations of The Florida Bar Rules
Sharing Space With Non - Lawyers, Sharing Client Confidences
The O'Boyle Law Firm's sharing of space with its clients including the Commerce
Group, STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC, CAFI, CG Acquisition Company Inc. and
numerous other legal entities that identify 1280 West Newport Center Drive as their principal
place of business and have made public records requests to the Town (Asset Enhancement, Inc.,
Our Public Records, LLC) violates Rule Reg. Fla. Bar 4 -1.6 (requiring attorney to preserve in
confidence all information relating to representation of his or her clients). See Fla. Bar Ethics
Op. 88 -15 (Oct. 1, 1988) ("An attorney must take steps to avoid misleading the public as to the
nature of the business activities being conducted within his or her offices. ")
Captive Law Firm and Feeder Relationships
The Florida Bar rules do not appear to permit the feeder relationship that Martin
O'Boyle, Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring have created whereby a non - profit foundation is
created for the sole purpose of generating public records litigation to be sent to a single law firm
to pursue attorney's fee claims. Attorney Ring's service as an officer and director of CAFI, an
officer of CG Acquisition Company, Inc., a Vice President of the Commerce Group and now as
an attorney at the O'Boyle Law Firm, which is prosecuting public records suits on behalf of all
of these entities from the same offices evidences the impropriety of this situation. See Fla. Bar
Ethics Op. 02 -8 (Jan. 16, 2004) ( "this Committee has issued a number of opinions which
preclude an attorney from using a nonlegal business as a `feeder' to the attorney's law firm)
(citing Fla. Bar Ethics Ops. 88 -15, 79 -3, 78 -14 and 73 -1).
The O'Boyle Law Firm is effectively a captive law firm financed by Martin O'Boyle to
generate business for bis son, who is not a member of The Florida Bar. This relationship violates
the solicitation rules of The Florida Bar. See R. Reg. Fla Bar. 4- 7.18(a). DeMartini's soliciation
of business on behalf of The O'Boyle Law Firm is likewise prohibited. Fla. Bar Ethics Op. 89-4
(Aug. 15, 1989) (law firm may not allow its nonlawyer marketing director to solicit business for
the firm in any manner forbidden to lawyers themselves)
Windfall Fee Scheme
The O'Boyle Law Firm appears to be engaged in a windfall fee scheme that violates The
Florida Bar Hiles. To the extent the firm represented CAFI and other public records clients
pursuant to a contingent fee agreement, the agreement had to be in writing and a written closing
statement prepared. See Reg. Fla. Bar. 4- 1.5(f)(1), (2) and (5). The Florida Bar Rules also
prohibit attorneys from collecting clearly excessive fees and fees "generated by employment that
was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with R. Reg. Fla Bar. 4-
1.5(x).
Unlicensed Practice of Law
As set forth above, it appears that Jonathan O'Boyle, a lawyer not admitted to practice in
Florida, has "establish[ed] an office or other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law"
in violation of R. Reg. Fla Bar. 4-5.5.
It is also questionable whether The O'Boyle Law Firm is a valid interstate law firm. Fla
Bar. Ethics Op. 74 -78 (Dec. 26, 1974) ( "The partnership [contemplated by an interstate law
firm], however, must be a full, bona fide partnership in which the profits and losses of several
offices are actually shared according to the terms of a partnership agreement."). See also The
Florida Bar v Saviry 363 So. 2d 559 (Fla 1978).
Counsel for the Town has obtained a lengthy sworn video statement from former CAR
Executive Director, Joel Chandler, and can make the transcript and/or the videotape available to
The Florida Bar upon request.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that to
the best of my knowledge and belief the facts stated in it are true.
Scott W. Morgan
Mayor
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, Fl, 33483
ZJ� /
Date
GIOVANI MESA BAR COMPLAINT
The Florida Bar
Inquiry/Complaint Form
p F-i0EId[ED
AUG 2 12014
D
PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE – Complainant Information.): TM
Your Name: Scott
Organization: Town of Gulf Stream
Address: 100 Sea Rd.
City, State, Zip Code: Gulf Stream, FL 33483
Telephone: 561- 276 -5116
E -mail: smorganAyulf- stream.org
ACAP Reference No.:
Have you ever filed a complaint against a member of The Florida Bar: Yes F_ No
If yes, how many complaints have you filed?
Does this complaint pertain to a matter currently in litigation? Yes FX—. No (-
PART TWO (See Pagel, PART TWO – Attorney Information.):
Attorney's Name: Giovani Mesa (Florida Bar No. 86798)
Address: 1286 West Newport Center Dr.
City, State, Zip Code: Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Telephone: 954574 -6885
PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE – Facts /Allegations.): The specific thing or things I
am complaining about are: (attach additional sheets as necessary)
My name is Scott W. Morgan and 1 am the Mayor of the Town of Gulf Stream.
On behalf of the Town, I am filing the attached ten (10) page Complaint. This Complaint is being filed
both with The Florida Bar's Attorney /Consumer Assistance Program against the named attorneys for
numerous violations of rules of The Florida Bar, and separately with The Florida Bar's Unlicensed
Practice of Law Division against Jonathan R. O'Boyle.
THE FLORIDA BAR
INQUIRY /COMPLAINT FORM
AUGUST 25, 2014
WITNESS
JOEL CHANDLER
1355 Forrest Park St.
Lakeland, FL 33803
tel: 863 - 660 -4244
Counsel for the Town of Gulf Stream has a lengthy statement from Mr. Chandler,
which is available for review upon request.
PART FOUR (See Page 1, PART FOUR— Witnesses): The witnesses in support of my
allegations are: [see attached sheet].
PART FIVE (See Page 1, PART FIVE — Signature.): Under penalties of perjury, I declare that
the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.
Scott W. Morgan
Print Name
e
August 25, 2014
Date
Please allow this correspondence to serve as a formal complaint regarding the activities
of The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., a Foreign Profit corporation formerly known as Jonathan
R. O'Boyle P.C. with its principal place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida ( "the O'Boyle
Law Firm "), and the following attorneys practicing with that firm who are engaged in public
records litigation throughout the State of Florida:
Jonathan O'Boyle (Florida Bar admission pending)
William Ring, Florida Bar No. 961795
Giovaai Mesa, Florida Bar No. 86798
Nickalaus Taylor, Florida Bar No. 51629
Verbonda Williams, Florida Bar No. 92607
Ryan Witmer, Florida Bar No. 0107563
The public records litigation prosecuted by this firm and attorneys includes 25 Public Records
Act suits filed against the Town of Gulf Stream ( "the Town ") since January 2014 on behalf of
Martin O'Boyle and entities affiliated with him.
I have reason to believe that The O'Boyle Law Firm and its attorneys have violated
numerous rules of The Florida Bar including R Reg. Fla. Bar 4- 1.5(a), 4- 1.5(f), 4-1.6 and 4 -7.18
and that the firm and attorney Jonathan R. O'Boyle are engaged in the unlicensed practice of law
in violation of Rule 4-5.5. The Town of Gulf Stream seeks restitution pursuant to R. Reg. Fla.
Bar. 10 -7.1.
The O'Boyle Law Firm f/k%a Jonathan R. O'Boyle P.C.
The O'Boyle Law Firm has been operating in Florida since mid -January 2014. It was
formed by Jonathan O'Boyle as a Pennsylvania corporation on November 14, 2013.
The O'Boyle Law Firm submitted an Application by Foreign Corporation for
Authorization to Transact Business in Florida to the Florida Division of Corporations on or about
January 15, 2014. In the Application, the O'Boyle Law Firm represented the following:
Jonathan O'Boyle is the President and sole officer and director of The O'Boyle
Law Firm;
A principal office address at address of 1280 W. Newport Center Drive, Deerfield
Beach, FL 33442; and
A mailing address of 2146 E. Huntingdon Street, Philadelphia, PA 19125
The Application was completed by paralegal Norma Lenna, who provided an email address of
nlenna a commerce- eroup.com. (The Application is available on the Florida Division of
Corporations website at www.sunbiz.oral.
Tire O'Boyle Law Firm was registered to transact business with the State of Florida
effective February 10, 2014.
Non - Florida Bar Member Jonathan R. O'Boyle
A recent, 2012 graduate of Drexel University School of Law, Jonathan O'Boyle is
admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar (PA Bar #314500). He has apparently passed The Florida Bar
examination but has not been admitted to The Florida Bar.
Just two months after The O'Boyle Law Firm was incorporated in Pennsylvania in
November 2013, Jonathan O'Boyle moved to appear pro hoc vice in Florida state and federal
court cases. On January 23, 2014, he filed a sworn Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro
Hac Vice in the case of Christopher F. O'Hare v. Town of Gulfstream and William H Thrasher,
Jr., Case No.: 2014CA000720)CX3CX vIB AI, pending before the Honorable Meenu Sasser. In
that Motion, Jonathan O'Boyle swore in paragraph 2 that he is a member of The O'Boyle Law
Firm with offices at 2146 E. Huntingdon Street, Philadelphia. ('That address appears to be a
residential property constituting a homestead owned by a relative of Mr. O'Boyle, Kelly L.
O'Boyle). He also swore that he is domiciled in and permanently resides at 107 South 13i11 Street,
Longport, New Jersey.
In addition to the case before Judge Sasser, Jonathan O'Boyle has applied to appear pro
hac vice in the following Florida cases:
• Martin O'Boyle v. Town of Guf, Stream, Case No.: 9:2013 -cv- 80530 -DMM
(Middlebrooks, J.) (since dismissed) on June 17, 2013 (see Exhibit 'W'); and
• Christopher O'Hare v. Town of Gulfstream, Case No.: 9:13 -CV- 81053 -KLR
(Ryskamp, J.), on or about January 13, 2014 (see Exhibit "I").
Although Jonathan O'Boyle represented to the Florida courts that he practiced outside the
state, as of April 4, 2014, the Pennsylvania Bar had Jonathan O'Boyle registered as an out -of-
state lawyer with an address at the home of his father, Martin O'Boyle, at 23 North Hidden
Harbour Drive in Gulfstream, Florida, and a telephone number with a (561) area code. (Exhibit
"1 "). Thus, as of April 4, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not reflect that Jonathan
O'Boyle actively practiced in the state.
More recently, Jonathan O'Boyle has apparently changed his Pennsylvania Bar
information and as of May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court records reflect that he
practices in Cambria County, Pennsylvania with an address of 1001 Broad Street, Johnstown,
PA. (Exhibit "2"). Johnston, Pennsylvania is more than five (5) hours from Longport, New
Jersey, where Jonathan O'Boyle advised Judge Sasser he resides.
The Non -Law Firm Feeder Entities
On information and belief, recognizing that the filing of thousands of public records
requests to business and public agencies across the State would lead to litigation and statutory
attorney's fee entitlements (see Fla. Stat. § 119.12), Martin O'Boyle joined with his son Attorney
Jonathan O'Boyle and his long -time business associate Attorney Ring to create The O'Boyle
Law Firm and, simultaneously, the non -profit foundation CAFI, and to re- activate corporate
entities previously formed by Martin O'Boyle for the sole purpose of feeding public records
litigation to his son Jonathan O'Boyle and The O'Boyle Law Firm.
To this end, the O'Boyle Law Firm's principal place of business is in a suite of offices
owned and/or leased by Martin E. O'Boyle a real estate developer who resides in Gulf Stream,
Florida. According to Florida Department of State Division of Corporations records available at
www.sunbiz.orE, the following entities affiliated with Martin O'Boyle are also located at 1280
West Newport Center Drive, the address the O'Boyle Law Firm first provided the Florida
Division of Corporations:
Commerce Group, Inc — a Florida corporation, which has been located at 1280
West Newport Center drive since at least 1992, according to the Florida Division
of Corporations. Martin O'Boyle is the President of the Commerce Group and
Martin O'Boyle's longtime real estate counsel, William Ring, Esq., is its Vice
President.
Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc — a Florida non -profit corporation
incorporated on January 27, 2014, approximately two (2) weeks alter the O'Boyle
Law Firm applied to do business in Florida. Attorney Ring was the President of
CAFI from incorporation until the end of June 2014. The current President and
former Treasurer (Jan. 27 — June 23, 2014) of CAFI is Denise DeMartini, a non -
lawyer and longtime business associate of Martin O'Boyle. The former Executive
Director of CAFI advises that CAFI is funded by Martin O'Boyle.
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC — a Florida limited liability company
established in 2011. Martin O'Boyle is its Manager and Attorney Ring its
registered agent.
CG Acqusition Company, Inc. — a Florida profit corporation incorporated in
1998. Its officers are Martin O'Boyle and Attorney Ring.
According to Joel Chandler, the former Executive Director of CAFI (`Chandler',' the
O'Boyle Law Firm is housed in the offices of the Commerce Group. Commerce Group
employees are free to walk through the law firm's space and the two entities shared employees.
The O'Boyle Law Firm does not have a separate sign or door to its law offices. While the
O'Boyle law Firm documented a change of address with the Florida Division of Corporations
on February 14, 2014, from 1280 to 1286 West Newport Center Drive, that address is across the
hall from the Commerce Group space and was not renovated prior to Chandler's resignation
from CAF] in June 2014.
From January 2014 to the present, the aforementioned entities as well as Martin O'Boyle
and other individuals and entities affiliated with him (Denise DeMartini, Airline Highway LLC,
Asset Enhancement, Inc., Our Public Records, LLC) have made public records requests to the
'As noted at the conclusion of this conespoodence, counsel for the Town of Gulf Stream has obtained a lengthy
statement from Mr. Chandler and can make that statement available upon request.
Town, most if not all directing responses to a domain name used by Martin O'Boyle's real estate
development company the Commerce Group, Inc. - records(- )commerce- group.com
Creation of Citizens Awareness Foundation Inc. ( "CAFr'1
In January 2014 Martin O'Boyle contacted Chandler about creating a non - profit
foundation to engage in public records and open meetings advocacy. At the time, Chandler had
been working as a self - employed civil rights and public records activist. He had considerable
experience in making public records requests and in public records request litigation throughout
the State of Florida
On or about January 22, 2014, Chandler was invited to the O'Boyle home in Gulf Stream,
Florida. At the initial meetings, which included Jonathan O'Boyle, Chandler and the O'Boyle's
discussed the creation of the foundation and the O'Boyle Law Firm's capacity for handling
public records litigation throughout the state. The O'Boyles had proposed retaining Chandler to
work for a non -profit foundation they had already created but Chandler believed a conflict would
exist as Jonathan O'Boyle already served as a director of that foundation.
CAFI was incorporated as a Florida non - profit corporation on January 27, 2014 and
Chandler began work as its Executive Director immediately. The officers and directors of CAR
at that time were Martin O'Boyle's long -time (30 years or more) business associates and
employees of the Commerce Group: Attorney Ring, President; Denise DeMartini, Treasurer, and
Brenda Russell, Secretary.
Chandler was advised (including by Martin O'Boyle) that Martin O'Boyle funds the
O'Boyle Law Firm and CAFI. A Commerce Group employee handled payroll for CAFI and,
presumably, for the O'Boyle Law Firm.
CAFI paid Chandler $120,000 per year to travel the state making hundreds of public
records requests to public entities and state contractors. Thereafter, any evidence that would
serve as a pretext for a lawsuit was to be forwarded immediately to Jonathan O'Boyle for the
filing of litigation. (Chandler had initially requested a reduced salary and the opportunity to
continue his own pro se public records litigation but O'Boyle refused). Chandler understood that
litigation was only one part of the open government advocacy that CAFI would advance and that
he would have the sole authority to authorize public records litigation and to engage law firms an
CAFI's behalf. As instructed, Chandler began creating public records requests and legal claims
and referring these to the O'Boyle Law Firm. However, almost immediately after Chandler
began with CAFI, O'Boyle expressed to him a lack of interest in advocacy efforts.
Chandler understood Jonathan O'Boyle to be working full -time at the O'Boyle Law Firm
offices in Deerfield Beach and to permanently reside at his parents' home in Gulf Stream,
Florida during the time that Chandler was associated with CAFI, from January to June 2014.
Jonathan O'Boyle directed the activities of the O'Boyle Law Firm in Florida
At the end of March and in early April 2014, Chandler learned that a receptionist for the
Commerce Group had been making public records requests to the Town of Gulf Stream on
behalf of CAR without his knowledge or approval but, instead, at the direction of Martin
O'Boyle. Chandler later learned that well over a hundred unauthorized public records requests
had been made by the Commerce Group in the foundation's name.2
In mid -April 2014, Chandler came to learn that Denise DeMartini, Martin O'Boyle's
long -time business associate at the Commerce Group and the CAFI director to whom Chandler
reported, was managing operations of The O'Boyle Law Firm. Chandler attended one meeting of
the O'Boyle Law Firm that was run by DeMartini remotely by telephone from her home in
Martin County, Florida. The meeting focused on the number of new cases that had been filed
rather than management of pending cases. Additionally, while Chandler understood he was
participating in order to discuss CAR cases, conversations were had in his presence about other
public records cases to which neither he nor CAF] nor DeMartini were a party, including cases
Chandler had referred to the O'Boyle Law Firm.
DeMartini expressed to Chandler on numerous occasions her frustration that CAFI was
not generating sufficient new public records cases for the O'Boyle Law Firm. Toward the end of
April 2014, in response to an email from Chandler outlining the advocacy and educational
outreach contemplated by CAM employee Cathy Zolfo, DeMartini expressed the law firm's
expectation that Chandler produce a minimum of 25 new lawsuits a week for the O'Boyle Law
Firm to file.
Chandler's efforts to refer lawsuits to attorneys other than the O'Boyle Law Firm were
rejected. For instance, Chandler suggested that one lawsuit arising out of a public records request
made by him on behalf of CAFI, CAFI v. Barnes & Noble College Bookstore, be referred to the
Thomas & LoCicero law firm in Tampa. Thomas & LoCicero had represented Chandler for
years and he considered them the preeminent open government litigators in Florida. Attorney
Ring advised Chandler that after discussing the matter with DeMartini he was not inclined to let
Chandler refer any cases to any law firm other than the O'Boyle Law Firm.
On May 19, 2014 Chandler met with Ring and DeMartini and again demanded that
public records requests and lawsuits cease being filed without his knowledge or approval. After
consulting with Martin O'Boyle, Ring and DeMartini agreed that this would no longer occur and
confirmed that Chandler had the sole authority to make public records requests as well as to
commence or to settle public record request lawsuits. Nevertheless, the O'Boyle Law Firm filed
a new lawsuit purportedly on behalf of CAFI against the Town of Gulf Stream and engineering
firm Brannon & Gillespie, LLC the very next day (see CAFI v. Gul'Stream and Brannon &
Gillespie LLC, Case No. 2014CAX)CXX IB006112 AA (15's Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach Cry.).
DeMartini expressed to Chandler on numerous occasions her frustration that CAFI was
not generating sufficient new public records cases. At the end of May 2014, DeMartini
repeatedly requested that Chandler prepare verified complaints including templates to be used by
the O'Boyle Law Firm in public records request litigation. Chandler refused, citing independent
z In fact, some 40 public records requests were made by CAFI to the Town over a 2-day period on April 22 and 23,
2014, with directions to respond to imohledgcitizenmwarenessfoundation .ore .
advice that to do so would constitute the unlicensed practice of law. Despite this, DeMartini
continued to attempt to coax Chandler to draft lawsuits for The O'Boyle Law Firm.
In June 2014, Chandler learned that The O'Boyle Law Firm was engaged in what he
deemed an attorneys' fee "windfall scheme ". The scheme involved the firm demanding monetary
settlements on behalf of CAFI far in excess of the actual and reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred and contemplated in F.S. § 119.12 and to keep all of the proceeds including the
"windfall ". Ring, Jonathan O'Boyle and DeMarfini requested that Chandler approve the scheme.
Thereafter Chandler learned that Ring, DeMartini and Jonathan O'Boyle actually represented
that Chandler had approved the scheme, even though he had vehemently objected to it. When
Chandler expressed his outrage, he was advised that "windfall" settlement demands were being
made in accordance with the O'Boyle Law Firm policy.
On June 30, 2014 Chandler arrived at the Commerce Group /CAF /O `Boyle Law Firm
office and presented his letter of resignation to Ring.
On July 3, 2014, CAM filed Articles of Amendment by which DeMartini became its
President following Ring's resignation. Ring continues to serve as General Counsel and Vice
President of The Commerce Group and is newly associated with The O'Boyle Law Firm. He has
filed at least one public records suit on behalf of Martin O'Boyle and
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC while an attorney at The O'Boyle Law Firm. See
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC and 'Martin E. O'Boyle v Gulf Stream, Case No.
2014CA008529RL (Cty. Court, 15a Jud. Cir. in and for Palm Beach Cty.).
The Public Records Lawsuits
The O'Boyle Law Firm has filed 25 public records lawsuits against the Town of Gulf
Stream since January 22, 2014. Those suits have been filed on behalf of Martin O'Boyle, CM- ,
STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC and CG Acquisition Company, Inc. Notwithstanding the
hundreds of public records requests made to the Town by Martin O'Boyle and his affiliated
entities, including CAFI, The O'Boyle Law Firm has filed every suit arising out of these
requests.
The O'Boyle Law Firm has now filed hundreds of public records lawsuits throughout the
State of Florida but, on information and belief, has not filed any such lawsuits in the State of
Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
Violations of The Florida Bar Rules
Sharing Soace With Non - Lawyers, Sharing Client Confidences
The O'Boyle Law Firm's sharing of space with its clients including the Commerce
Group, STOPDIRTYGOVERNMENT LLC, CAFI, CG Acquisition Company Inc. and
numerous other legal entities that identify 1280 West Newport Center Drive as their principal
place of business and have made public records requests to the Town (Asset Enhancement, Inc.,
Our Public Records, LLC) violates Rule Reg. Fla. Bar 4-1.6 (requiring attorney to preserve in
confidence all information relating to representation of his or her clients). See Fla. Bar Ethics
Op. 88 -15 (Oct. 1, 1988) ("An attorney must take steps to avoid misleading the public as to the
nature of the business activities being conducted within his or her offices.')
Captive Law Finn and Feeder Relationships
The Florida Bar rules do not appear to permit the feeder relationship that Martin
O'Boyle, Jonathan O'Boyle and William Ring have created whereby a non -profit foundation is
created for the sole purpose of generating public records litigation to be sent to a single law firm
to pursue attorney's fee claims. Attorney Ring's service as an officer and director of CAFI, an
officer of CG Acquisition Company, Inc., a Vice President of the Commerce Group and now as
an attorney at the O'Boyle Law Firm, which is prosecuting public records suits on behalf of all
of these entities from the same offices evidences the impropriety of this situation. See Fla. Bar
Ethics Op. 02 -8 (Jan. 16, 2004) ( "this Committee has issued a number of opinions which
preclude an attorney from using a nonlegal business as a 'feeder' to the attorney's law firm)
(citing Fla. Bar Ethics Ops. 88 -15, 79 -3, 78 -14 and 73 -1).
The O'Boyle Law Firm is effectively a captive law firm financed by Martin O'Boyle to
generate business for his son, who is not a member of The Florida Bar. This relationship violates
the solicitation rules of The Florida Bar. See R. Reg. Fla. Bar. 4- 7.18(a). DeMartini's soliciation
of business on behalf of The O'Boyle Law Firm is likewise prohibited. Fla. Bar Ethics Op. 89-4
(Aug. 15, 1989) (law firm may not allow its nonlawyer marketing director to solicit business for
the firm in any manner forbidden to lawyers themselves)
Windfall Fee Scheme
The O'Boyle Law Firm appears to be engaged in a windfall fee scheme that violates The
Florida Bar rules. To the extent the firm represented CAFI and other public records clients
pursuant to a contingent fee agreement, the agreement had to be in writing and a written closing
statement prepared. See Reg. Fla. Bar. 4- 1.5(f)(1), (2) and (5). The Florida Bar Rules also
prohibit attorneys from collecting clearly excessive fees and fees "generated by employment that
was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with R. Reg. Fla. Bar. 4-
1.5(a).
Unlicensed Practice of Law
As set forth above, it appears that Jonathan O'Boyle, a lawyer not admitted to practice in
Florida, has "establish[ed] an office or other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law"
in violation of R_ Reg. Fla. Bar. 4-5.5.
It is also questionable whether The O'Boyle Law Firm is a valid interstate law firm. Fla.
Bar. Ethics Op. 74-78 (Dec. 26, 1974) ( "The partnership [contemplated by an interstate law
firm], however, must be a full, bona fide partnership in which the profits and losses of several
offices are actually shared according to the terms of a partnership agreement.'. See also The
Florida Bar v. Savin, 363 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1978).
Counsel for the Town has obtained a lengthy swam video statement from former CAM
Executive Director, Joel Chandler, and can make the transcript and/or the videotape available to
The Florida Bar upon request.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that to
the best of my knowledge and belief the facts stated in it are true.
Si
Scott W. Morgan
Mayor
Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Rd.
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
2J/ /
Date
From: OConnor, Joanne M.
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:57 PM
To: 'Jonathan O'Boyle'
Cc: Elaine Johnson James; Ken Drake; 'Kelly Avery'; Macfarlane, Mary (MMacfarlanenionesfoster.com)
Subject: Public Records Request - J. O'Boyle UPL Complaint
Jonathan —
I spoke to Elaine James yesterday and she advised that she will be withdrawing the motion to
deem the bar complaints confidential. Once that is filed, we will produce any public records that
constitute drafts of the original complaint or correspondence with the Town regarding the
preparation of that complaint.
Please find attached a partial production in response to your request for communications with
the Florida Bar regarding the UPL complaint. Also attached is Invoice No. 10182 from
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, PL.
I will follow up with you early next week once Mayor Morgan and Kelly Avery return regarding
any additional responsive records.
We consider your request relative to Scott Morgan's May 21, 2015 letter to be completed.
Regards,
Joanne
10 FOSTER
_... _... _ . �:,� 1, �: ��,:, �, �:�,,.
Joanne M. O'Connor Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 ioconnor(ajonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Hagler Center Tower. 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Palm Beach, Horida 33401
561- 659 -3000 1 www.jonesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is personal to the named recipients) and may
be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, Von received this in error. If so, any
review, dissemination, or cop. mg of this email is prohibited. Please immediateh_ notify us by email and delete
the original message.
From: Jonathan O'Boyle [ mailto :ioboyle(aloboylelawfirm.coml
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:59 PM
To: OConnor, Joanne M.
Cc: Elaine Johnson James; Ken Drake
Subject: RE: Gulf Stream Public Records Request
Joanne thank you again for making this a priority. I just wanted to follow up with some thoughts
about my epectations and perspective.
As to the confidentiality of my complaint in 4474,1 found an advisory opinion by the Supreme Court -
The Florida Bar, 398 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1981). In that case the Florida Supreme Court held that Chapter
119 carries no force as it relates to UPL records because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with
authority that lies outside that of the legislature's (the good of separation of powers). However, the
Florida Constitution has changed since then and vests authority with the legislature to make
exemptions, not the judiciary. In an interesting twist, the Constitution does state that prior exemption
laws shall remain in force, however this begs the question, is the aforementioned case considered a
"law" under that provision of Florida Constitution. I don't know if this is appropriate but it seems like a
good one for an AGO opinion request.
Nonetheless, I am asking for documents prepared by the Town of Gulf Stream, not an arm of the Florida
Supreme Court so my aforementioned idea may be more academic. If you know of an exemption for
Bar records in the laws of Florida, let me know, I am a bit amiss. I did see the motion for keeping things
under seal, frankly I do not see how records created by the Town in the course of its official business
have much to do with the Judicial Rules of Administration and the ability of the court's to keep their
records sealed. But in any event, I do not need my complaint, I already got it —so I hope that eliminates
that issue. If not, I have already talked to Marty's counsel at Berger Singerman and I am sure that they
can weigh in at least as it relates to my complaint.
I am still flummoxed with the confidentiality issue and particularly waiver because I am asking for my
file. Someone else is not asking for it, I am. If deliverance of my confidential files to myself waives
confidentiality, then I could never review my files to see if I wanted to waive the confidentiality. It
would be a double down, never review your own files and maintain confidence or view them and lose
it. I cannot say I agree that confidentiality follows the rules of quantum cryptography. By that logic,
someone who participated in a state -run health program could never retrieve their files without
exposing to the world their personal mortality. Can they not submit those same medical files to the
Court under seal for litigation? Aren't we talking about two different standards? I am not trying to be
irascible so please don't take it that way, I am just trying to say, "any chance to reconsider now that you
see it from my perspective ?"
Next with regard to the Morgan confusion, and please forgive me for being a bit dense here, but Scott
stated "that a review of government records reveals ... That license is believed to be unchanged from
2014." 1 saw the Town's reply but I did not see anything concerning 2014. That tells me that someone
saw a government record that showed my license was from Florida as of 2014 apart from the records
produced. I apologize if my last request came off as a request for information, I just wanted to be
helpful in identifying my concern that Scott's statement strongly indicated that he reviewed a specific
government record and that record contained DPPA information. If Scott received such a record on
behalf of the Town, I am pretty sure that such a record is a public record. If you are telling me that no
such record exists, o.k. but I have asked the appropriate agency to give me a report of all the times my
DPPA information was accessed and the reasons stated for it. I will follow up if I find something
anomalous.
Lastly, and I want to be clear, there are no work product exemptions for the bar complaints and
especially my file. No exemptions for any mental impressions, work product or anything else; there
never was because the Town was not a party to the Bar's "adversarial administrative
proceedings." Nonetheless, that proceeding is over so I am entitled to all privileged materials. I will
direct you to State v. Coca -Cola Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 582 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), it is of
no consequence that the release of work product or other privileged information may negatively impact
other litigations.
Thanks Joanne,
Truly I make these arguments to show yall where I am coming from and what I consider to be
responsive. And until the good natured argle - bargle comes to an impasse, I am sure we can move on
the non - problematic documents first.
From: OConnor, Joanne M. [ mailto :JOConnor(o)ionesfoster.coml
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Jonathan O'Boyle
Cc: Chris Stearns; Elaine Johnson James; Ken Drake; scottmorgan75(&omail.com: Macfarlane, Mary;
Kelly Avery; Rita Taylor; Bill Thrasher
Subject: RE: Gulf Stream Public Records Request
Jonathan —
1. You had asked for the Marty Minor email, which we produced in its original format. It did
not have pictures attached. You have now asked for the original April 2013 email in the
chain, drafted by Kelly Avery, who is out this week. We are attempting to determine
whether her email ever attached any pictures. We will forward the original to you as soon
as possible.
2. We obviously disagree as to what Mayor Morgan's letter to the Bar of May 21, 2015
states. You have now asked for information, not records, related to what Mayor Morgan
may or may not have done before he sent that letter. That is not a request for records as
to which the Town must respond. As to your new request for records, there are no drafts
of a complaint forwarded by Mr. Sweetapple to Mr. Morgan. The only draft of the May
21, 2015 letter of which I am aware was prepared by Mr. Morgan and is attached to this
email. Mr. Morgan is out of state this week but will review his office records upon his
return for any other drafts but I do not expect there will be any additional drafts.
3. With regard to The Florida Bar Records, while the closure of your UPL file might be
relevant to a work product exemption, it does not affect the fact that a claim of
confidentiality has been made. Indeed, the claim has been made by Martin O'Boyle, a
client of your law firm, as to the confidentiality of those documents vis a vis your law
partner Mr. Ring and associates Messrs. Taylor and Mesa. The pertinent motion is
attached. I have to assume that those parties likewise contend that any drafts of that
complaint, communications regarding its preparation and other public records that
identify or relate to the complaints against them should also be maintained as
confidential. Regardless of whether the records are placed on the website, once they are
produced to you, that confidentiality will be destroyed. I have left a message with Ms.
James to see if we might be able to reach some sort of agreement that will satisfy all
parties involved.
I believe that there are communications supplemental to the initial complaint that the
Town directed exclusively to The Florida Bar UPL Division. We can produce those
communications to you. I will have an estimate and /or partial production to you
tomorrow.
With regard to August billing entries by Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, the Sweetapple
invoice dated 08/22/2014 was provided in response to Public Record Request 14 -1347
submitted verbally by Martin O'Boyle on 09/18/2014. This bill had portions of the invoice
redacted and is now the subject of pending litigation. I will review the unredacted invoice
in light of your new public records request to determine if anything that was redacted
appears to relate to the now apparently concluded UPL complaint. If so, a revised
invoice will be produced to you tomorrow.
The Sweetapple invoice dated 09/29/2014, which contains some additional time entries
through the end of August, was provided in unredacted form in response to a Public
Record Request 14 -1569 submitted by CR,O Aviation on 10/21/2014.
Regards,
Joanne
JONESFOSTER
)unss,aa us nexs. rA.
Joanne M. O'Connor Attorney
Direct Dial: 561.650.0498 1 Fax: 561.650.5300 1 ioconnor(@,,jonesfoster.com
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
Hagler Center Tower, 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, k\ est Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561- 659 -3000 1 www.ionesfoster.com
Incoming emails are filtered which may delay receipt. This email is Personal to the named rccipient(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: Jonathan O'Boyle [ mailto :jobovle(j:boboylelawfirm.coml
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:11 PM
To: OConnor, Joanne M.
Cc: Chris Stearns; Elaine Johnson James; Ken Drake
Subject: RE: Gulf Stream Public Records Request
Joanne, thank you ever so kindly for getting back to me promptly.
I was figuring that my next move was to send carrier pidgeons, smoke signals, or a singing telegram to
the Town to get someone's attention (jokingly of course).
I just want to get a couple of things straight so I can get out of yalls' hair.
As a preliminary matter, I thank you for the email chain between Mr. Thrasher and Minor. However,
before you or the Town close things out, it appears that pictures were attached at some point to that
chain. Can I get those?
1. 1 just want to confirm that Mayor Morgan did not personally review any "government records"
prior to telling the bar that he or the Town did in fact review government records which showed
that my driver's license was from Florida as of 2014. That is fine, can I get the drafts of the
complaint that Mr. Sweetapple forwarded to Mayor Morgan for him to sign? The drafts of the
May 21, 2015 letter.
2. 1 am not aware of any confidentiality issue in 4474. 1 can check on that but I am not really
seeing the bugaboo here. My UPL file is closed with the bar and I need the Town's file. I am
sure that there are certain documents that can be produced as a temporary solution (aka Partial
Production).
As for the confidential records, I believe I have a solution. Those documents could be emailed to
me directly and not be reproduced on the Town's website. If we are talking about the Dr. Glass
letter, I am not interested, I was counsel in O'Boyle v. Isen in NJ for the appeal and am well
aware of Judge Higbee's order to keep that document confidential and sealed. I have not
researched it on my own but I assume there is some mechanism to produce records and
maintain confidentiality. If a police officer wants a copy of her "file" can the Town not give that
officer her file even though information like her SSN would be exempt to all others?
Bottom line is I am sure we can meet halfway on this issue until we get some
clarification. Perhaps we can start with Sweetapple's August Bills which reflect that he worked
on my bar complaint. Also, the emails and drafts between him and mayor Morgan. The
authorizations for attorneys to work on my bar complaint. The memoranda passed around
concerning my complaint. The communications reflecting ethical considerations concerning
filing my bar complaint. The communications which reflect the meeting between Joan, Thrasher
and Scott where they decided that Scott would be the signatory to the complaint. And any
communications that proceeded the closing of my bar file. These are things that I think could be
responsive that are not before any court that I am aware of.
Lastly, I would like an estimate please and a production schedule in case there are a lot of
documents. I do not know how the records are stored but I am assuming they are either on Mr.
Sweetapple's hard drive in a neatly organized folder or in a paper file. If there are documents
that are easily accessible (such as a paper or computer file) I think we could start there first. If
there are scattered documents that the Town needs to hunt down, we can maybe put those on
a tier 2 production plan. I think grouping the documents could be an easy way to tier the
production if necessary.
If it less cumbersome for the Town to make these documents open for inspection as opposed to
copying, by all means please let me know.
Thanks in advance, I know we are all busy but I do have someone waiting on these files so any
suggestions that you or the Town has to make this as quick and painless as possible, I am all ears. Have
a great day!
Kelly Avery
From:
Postmaster
Sent:
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:20 AM
To:
Local Recipient
Subject:
LTR OF RAS TO JANET BRADFORD MORGAN ENC VIDEOTAPED STMNT OF
CHANDLER.090 .... 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
LTR OF RAS TO JANET
BRADFORD MORGAN ENC
VIDEOTAPED STMNT OF
CHANDLER.090 .... pdf
File Size
246660 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.
LAW OFFICES OF
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
DOUGLAS C. BROEKER, P.A.
44 West Flagler Street, Ste. 1500
Miami, Florida 33130 -6817
Telephone: (305) 374 -5623
Facsimile: (305) 358 -1023
ROBERT A. SWEEfAPPLE • ••
DOUGLAS C. BROEKER
ALEXANDER D. VARKAS, JR,
KADISHA D. PHELPS
ASHLEIGH M. GREENE
• aOAIID Cmrvo:oeotnnssunaAnod Armurev
•• BOARp CPRlIrallCwlLIiUALATImTTY
September 3, 2014
Janet Branford Morgan, Esquire
The Florida Bar
Lakeshore Plaza 11
1300 Corcord Terrace,.Suite 130
Sunrise, Florida 33483
SWEETAPPLE & VARKAS, P.A.
20 S.E. 3'° Street
Boca Raton, Florida 33432 -4914
Telephone: (561) 392 -1230
Facsimilc:(561) 394 -6102
Please Reply To: Boca Raton
E -Mail:
rsweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com
avorkas@sweelapplelaw.com
kphelps®sweetapplelaw.com
cbaileyCsweetapplclaw.com
dsmith@sw tapplelaw.eom
Paralegals:
Cynthia J. Bailey, CP, FCP. FRP
Deborah Smith, CP, FRP
Jamie Arden, FRP
Re: Unauthorized Practice of Law Complaint against Jonathan R. O'Boyle
File No. 20151027(17C)
Dear Ms. Morgan:
Your letter of August 29, 2014 addressed to Mayor Morgan has been forwarded to me.
Enclosed please find a copy of the videotaped statement of Joel Chandler with accompanying
transcript that was referenced in Mayor Morgan's Complaint.
Very truly yours,
OBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Kelly Avery
From: Postmaster
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:20 AM
To: Local Recipient
Subject: Itr to Janet Branford Morgan enclosing Mot sanctions.091014.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
Itr to Janet Branford Morgan
enclosing Mot
sanctions.091014.pdf
File Size
232245 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.
LAW OFFICES OF
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
DOUGLAS C. BROEKER, PA
44 West Flagler Street, Ste. 1500
Miami, Florida 33130.6817
Telephone: (305) 374 -5623
Facsimile: (305) 358 -1023
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE •, ••
DOUGLAS C. BROEKER
ALEXANDER D. VARKAS, JR.
KADISHA D. PHELPS
ASHLEIGH M. GREENE
• BOARO CFRTIr1Ea BU9NEf61JTmAl10N ATmRtA:Y
•• BONN [FATInFD e1V6T11W.ATIOPNEY
September 10, 2014
Janet Branford Morgan, Esquire
The Florida Bar
Lakeshore Plaza R
1300 Co&ord Terrace, Suite 130
Sunrise, Florida 33483
SWEETAPPLE & VARKAS, P.A.
20 S.E. P Street
Boca Raton, Florida 334324914
Telephone: (561) 392 -1230
Facsimile: (561) 394 -6102
Please Reply To: Boca Raton
E -Mall:
nweetapple@sweetapplelaw.com
avarkas@sweetapplelaw.com
kphelps@sweclapplelaw, core
ciailey, sweetapplelaw.com
dsmith@sweetapplclaw.com
Paralegals:
Cynthia J. Bailey, CP, FCP, FRP
Deborah Smith, CP, FRP
Jamie Arden, FRP
Re: Unauthorized Practice of Law Complaint against Jonathan R. O'Boyle
File No. 20151027(17C)
Dear Ms. Morgan:
Related to the above matter, enclosed is a copy of a Motion for Sanctions and referenced
exhibits.
Very truly yyoou�urs,
-�_
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
RAS:cjb
Encl.
Kelly Avery
From:
Postmaster
Sent:
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:20 AM
To:
Local Recipient
Subject:
Transcript of Joel Chandler.ptx
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
Transcript of Joel Chandler.ptx
File Size
178294 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
RE: SWORN STATEMENT OF JOEL CHANDLER
THE TOWN OF GULF STREAM
SWORN STATEMENT OF
JOEL CHANDLER
DATE TAKEN: Wednesday, July 23, 2014
TIME: 10:48 a.m. - 3:56 p.m.
PLACE: Sclafani Williams Court
Reporters
402 South Kentucky Avenue
Suite 390
Lakeland, Florida
STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:
Julie A. Kelley, FPR
Florida Professional Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
n by:
Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, PL
199 East Boca Raton Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
(561) 392 -1230
0 PRESENT:
Robert Cruz, Videographer
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
ITNESS
JOEL CHANDLER
Called by The Town of Gulf Stream:
Direct Examination by Mr. Sweetapple
STIPULATIONS
CERTIFICATE OF OATH
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
E X H I B I T S
(No exhibits were marked.)
PAGE
4
191
192
193
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Today's date is July 23rd,
2014. The time is 10:44 a.m.
Would the court reporter kindly swear in the
witness.
(Whereupon the witness was sworn.)
JOEL CHANDLER, having been first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: I do.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Chandler. My name is Bob
Sweetapple and I'm an attorney. I am one of the
attorneys who represents the Town of Gulf Stream.
You're familiar with the town of Gulf Stream I take it?
A. I am.
Q. Okay. And we have not met prior to today; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. You contacted me with regard to
allegations of conduct of Mr. O'Boyle and the O'Boyle
Law Firm and offered to provide a voluntary statement.
Are you here voluntarily today?
A. I am.
Q. Okay. By the same token, I know that you --
M
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
you have indicated to me that you spoke with your
attorneys, private attorneys, before coming here. Have
you spoken with your own legal counsel before coming?
A. I have.
Q. All right. And have you elected to come here
without legal counsel?
A. I have.
Q. Okay. And as I understand it, for some period
of time, you worked for a foundation, or an alleged
foundation, by the same of the Citizens Awareness
Foundation?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I do not want to have you do anything
that would invade any privilege that foundation has by
ay of a lawyer /client privilege with any law firm, any
Florida law firm or any law firm. If in the course of
my questioning or your providing information to me you
come to a point where that may be happening, please
stop, all right, and stop me if that ever occurs because
I don't know what your statement is going to consist of
in its entirety by any means.
A. Okay.
Q. By the same token, I know that you have spoken
with attorneys because you told me that. You have a
right to a privilege with regard to anything you've
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discussed with attorneys. You have the right to waive
that. You've indicated to me that the O'Boyle Law Firm
has or does represent you with regard to a couple of
public records requests. You're the client I take it in
those. If you choose to waive the privilege, that's
your prerogative. I'll leave that to your decision and
discussions with your attorneys.
A. I understand.
Q. Okay. I thought the best way to handle this
would be for you to just tell me what it is that you
anted to make the Town of Gulf Stream aware of, keeping
in mind that the town does have, I believe, two cases
with the Citizens Awareness Foundation. I'm not counsel
in those cases at this time, but I did -- I think you
are aware of that fact.
A. Yeah, I don't know how many there are, which is
part of the reason we're here today.
Q. Okay. But you were aware that the foundation
has filed suits against --
A. I just don't know how many.
Q. Okay. I don't know either. I'm just going by
what I've heard.
A. Right.
Q. All right. Maybe the best way to handle this
if this is comfortable for you is just to have you
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
describe for me the matters that are of concern to you
that you want to make me aware of. And if you don't
mind, if I have a question, I'll interrupt. And if
it's -- if it's messing up your train of thought, just
let me know and I'll wait. But if not, I'll try to
follow up and if something is not clear, I'll get you to
answer it. And then when you're done with your
statement, I'll probably have some questions for you.
A. Sure, feel free to interrupt anywhere along the
way.
Q. Okay, please.
A. Yeah, I, as you know, I think, I went to
work -- I was hired as the Executive Director of the
Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc. and I've -- the
genesis of that relationship comes from an e -mail that I
received from Marty O'Boyle and got an e -mail from him
on January 4th of 2014 and he invited me to meet with
him regarding the -- what became the Citizens Awareness
Foundation, Inc. He invited me to his home in Gulf
Stream, which is where I had been previously. I
actually met Marty sometime in 2013 I believe, early
part of the year. My meeting -- original meeting with
was with Barbara Peterson who's president of the
rst Amendment Foundation. She was having breakfast
th him, thought that I might have some interest in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talking to him because as she understood it, he was
interested in open government issues as I am. Not --
nothing really significant happened at that original
meeting in West Palm Beach. We actually met at a -- I
think it was a Holiday Inn In West palm Beach near the
airport. We met for an hour or so and that was sort of
that.
And then sometime after that, I was contacted
by Marty's attorneys asking for my input on a number of
public records issues they were having in West Palm
Beach or Palm Beach County. So I traveled at their
expense down to West Palm Beach. And again, this was
sometime in 2013. I think it was probably around the
Fall. And I reviewed a very large number of public
records requests they had made. It was a very casual
relationship at that point. And we sort of stayed in
contact. We seemed to hit it off. He's a very, very,
very pleasant man, very charming.
And then in January, on January 4th of 2014, he
asked me to come down to West Palm Beach -- or to Gulf
Stream to meet with him, which I ultimately did. We
exchanged a series of e -mails leading up to that. He
invited me to stay at his home. I met him at his home,
I believe it was on -- it would have been around January
22nd I think maybe, in that vicinity. We met at his
0
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
home and he asked that the two of us meet privately and
that's when he first told me about his vision for
creating a foundation. And the idea, as I understood
it, was he wanted to provide to me meaningful economic
resources so that I could be more effective in my civil
rights advocacy. And I have for a number of years,
probably eight or nine years, worked full time as a
civil rights activist. And my primary focus is open
government issues. I work with a number of civil rights
organizations. I'm very active in a number of minority
communities trying to help people better understand
their civil rights with respect to access to public
ords and open meetings.
So what Marty proposed essentially was that he
ld create -- or I don't want to say that he would
create, that he would provide the economic resources for
the creation of a foundation that would be originally a
not - for - profit and that the intention was to immediately
begin the process of filing as a 501 -C3 with the IRS to
become a non - profit.
When we talked, his original proposal was that
would be hired, we didn't really have a title at the
me, just that I would be hired to head up this
ganization and that he would pay me a salary, or the
undation would pay me a salary, which he would -- my
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understanding was he was going to provide all the
economic resources. He would be the sole owner, at
least in the beginning, and then he would pay me -- that
would be paid a salary, that I would be provided with
car, that I would be provided with a budget to -- to
engage in activism and advocacy for open government.
We negotiated over a period of several days
e of the economic arrangements and ultimately what we
eed to is that I would be paid $120,000 a year, that
would have a very unclear budget. I repeatedly asked
at my travel budget would be, what my -- you know,
at could I plan to spend on advocacy and the response
kept getting was -- was whatever it takes. He said
that he was prepared to spend $300,000 or more, whatever
it takes, to make it possible for me to do what I do.
My understanding, or what I believe our
agreement was, was essentially that I would be -- well
for years I had been working for free making very, very,
very little money, but I would now have a salary so I
wouldn't have to worry about how to feed my family or
keep the lights on, that I would be provided with
meaningful transportation, and that I would basically be
given the resources to do what I had been doing and just
oe able to do more of it.
And what that looks like is meeting with
11
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
student groups on college campuses to inform them,
encourage them, to exercise their constitutionally
protected civil right to access to public records and
open meetings, that I would meet with minority groups,
that I would become the public face of this organization
d encourage people to exercise their rights. In
dition to that, I would continue to do what I've been
ing for many years, which is to audit State and local
encies for their compliance with the Public Records
t.
Since I've been doing this since 2008, I have
personally been the plaintiff in probably something on
the order of about 200 public records lawsuits, and
that's not an exact number, that's just an
proximation. I have won 99 point something percent of
ose cases and about half of those I've done pro se.
because of that, I've appeared as an expert witness
a number of public records cases. And whether it's
served or not I don't know, but I guess I'm widely
garded as something of an expert on the issue.
cause of that apparent expertise, I think Marty felt
that by allowing me to have the resources to go out and
do more of the advocacy that I've already been doing,
t as a result of that, unfortunately, sometimes
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The idea, obviously, was that his son Jonathan
was -- had already started, not long before this meeting
in January, what I understood to be an interstate law
firm, the O'Boyle Law Firm. And it was pretty obvious
that -- that the idea was that if Marty gave me, through
this organization, significant economic resources to do
what I was already doing anyway, that as a result of
that there would probably be public records litigation
that would have to be referred to some law firm. And
I -- it seemed pretty obvious to me that the intent was
that as a result of the economic support that I would
receive from Marty through this foundation, that his son
would -- would have public records lawsuits, which that
in and of itself did not make me uncomfortable. I did
nk at the time it was necessary to put in place some
eguards to be sure that this was above board and that
there were no ethical or potential legal issues. And
there were a number of things that I insisted upon.
There were a number of conditions that I put on the
arrangement that I had with Marty.
And just to kind of give you a sense of the
chronology, we met -- I think it was on January 22nd.
It was a Wednesday. And by the following Monday, which
I believe was January 27th, CAFI, the Citizens Awareness
tion, Inc., was actually incorporated. So we
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
arranged -- we agreed to my relationship with a yet
undefined entity which was created on the 27th and I
literally went to work the same day that the foundation
was created.
And I was frankly very excited because it had
en a long time since I had had a regular paycheck. My
wife was very enthusiastic about that, the prospect of
having a regular income. My real enthusiasm was not for
the paycheck, it was for the resources to do what I
perceived to be real meaningful, valuable advocacy for
public.
Some of the safeguards that I insisted upon was
that, number one, the foundation would be utterly and
entirely independent of any influence from Marty and any
influence from the O'Boyle Law Firm. And to further
that concern or to safeguard that concern, part of the
arrangement was that there would be an independent
rd. In addition to there being an independent board,
t I would have absolute sole discretion with respect
to the commencement of open government litigation. I
would be the only person that made a decision about
whether the foundation was going to engage in
litigation. I would be the sole person with authority
to retain law firms that -- part of that would be that I
would obviously be serving the pleasure of the board,
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t the board was to give me discretion about making
rangements to engage with law firms and that I would
the only person acting on behalf of the foundation to
ke decisions about the settlement or litigation
rategies.
The other condition that I placed on the -- our
angement was that I would be -- have sole discretion
agency or entity or person that the foundation would
litigate against and that there would be no agency that
would be off limits. So I didn't want there to be any
kind of an arrangement where I was expected or directed
to go after one particular entity or that I would be
told that there was somebody I couldn't go after. And
when I say "go after ", what I mean by that is to --
these audits that I engage in, and which I still do, is
I literally will show up at a publically operated agency
or a contractor that acts on behalf of a State or local
agency and I'll make a public records request for
non - exempt public records and see what happens. And if
they comply with the Public Records Act, I'll
congratulate them and thank them for doing the right
thing. And if they violate the Public Records Act and
the facts of the cases -- of the case are very clear and
14
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
unequivocal, then I will oftentimes litigate to enforce
the public's right to know. Unfortunately in Florida,
the only meaningful enforcement of the public's right to
know is civil litigation. That's an observation that
both the courts and the governor have made.
So on the first day, on January 27th, I went
out and started doing my thing. I started in -- in
South Florida in Miami -Dade County and I think I went to
12 agencies the first day and of the 12 agencies I went
to, there were 10 that were just -- just egregiously
violated the Public Records Act. I mean black and
white, unequivocal violations of the Public Records Act.
And I ended up referring those first ten cases to the --
on behalf of the foundation to the O'Boyle Law Firm.
Q. Can you tell me who at the O'Boyle Law Firm?
A. Yeah, I dealt with Jonathan O'Boyle and I dealt
with Ryan Whitmer. I also dealt with -- there were two
other attorneys that were working there at the time,
Marrett Hanna and Giovanni Mesa.
Q. Okay. And -- and did you -- did the foundation
and the law firm enter into any type of written
agreement, retainer agreement of any sort?
A. No, none that I'm aware of. In fact, that was
an issue that I repeatedly raised. I cautioned them
15 1
1
2
3
9
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
t the potential ramifications of not having a fee
eement or at least an engagement letter for each
ividual case. My concern was that under 119.12 that
entitlement to attorney's fees might be in peril if they
didn't have a written fee agreement. But they didn't
seem to take that very seriously. To my knowledge,
re's never been one.
Q. So that -- your advice was to have a written
e agreement?
A. Yeah. And just so we're clear, I never give
legal advice to the public. I am very frequently
engaged by, not always for pay, but very frequently
engaged or contacted by attorneys asking for my input on
public records issues. And that was a very frequent
occurrence with the O'Boyle Law Firm. In fact, the
very -- one of the very first things I did -- within the
first week I actually did a, for lack of a better term,
a public records seminar. There were a couple of civil
rights activists that I've known for a while who came
down. They were in from North Florida. They came down
and sat in as well as Giovanni Mesa, one of the -- who
was a new attorney at the time and didn't really have
much experience with open government litigation --
Q. So as far as you know, the foundation has not
been a party to any fee agreements with the O'Boyle Law
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
irm at any time?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Okay. All right, please continue. I'm sorry.
just --
A. No, that's quite all right. So the -- you
know, I -- my time was spent, the first week, going out
and actually doing audits of public agencies. I
contacted the -- in fact I did a press release. I was
contacted by a number of media outlets. I'm frequently
contacted by reporters who very often are frustrated in
their attempts to get access to public records. I --
somewhere in this general timeframe of late January,
early February, I actually spoke with one of my
attorneys, Greg Thomas, in fact I met with him in Tampa,
and couple of his associates, to kind of lay out
ctly what the arrangement was because what I was
cerned about was not only whether what we were doing
legal, I believed that it was, I was also concerned
ther it was ethical and I believed what we were doing
s ethical because of the safeguards I put in place,
t I was also very concerned about the public
rception. What I did not want to do is to be involved
with something that appeared to be a mechanism for doing
nothing more than generating lawsuits.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that when
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you do meaningful public records, open government
advocacy, a lot of public agencies either just don't
understand what their obligations are and because of
that they violate the Public Records Act or the Sunshine
Laws, or I think it's fair to say many of them
deliberately do it. So as a result, it's really common
to get litigation. It's just a -- it's sort of part and
parcel to what I do. If I were to audit ten publically
operated agencies, municipalities, police departments,
Sheriff's, on average about 60 percent of those would
comply with the Public Records Act. The other 40
percent wouldn't. They just wouldn't produce the
records. If I were to audit ten State contractors whose
contracts explicitly make them subject to the Public
Records Act, nine out of ten would just violate the law.
So I think -- my perception was that Marty, not
unfairly, perceived that by giving me the economic
resource to do what I was doing, as a result of that
there would be litigation that came out of it and
litigation has got to go someplace. One of the issues
t I've had over the years with private attorneys is
it capacity to handle the amount of litigation that
es from what I do. You know, the cost of filing fees
d attorneys being willing to take cases on a
ntingency basis has always been a very significant
�l
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
limiting factor to the amount of litigation that I've
been involved with.
In spite of being involved with literally
hundreds of public records lawsuits, I've only filed a
tiny fraction of those that could have been filed just
because I simply didn't have the resources to -- to
litigate the other ones. When I asked Marty about that,
you know, what are we -- what's your -- I think the way
I put it to him was what's your tolerance for pain,
hat -- how much money are we talking about, I mean how
Q. For what, for filing fees?
A. For filing fees.
Q. Okay.
A. Yeah, how many -- how -- you know, and his
response was how many do you think you would get? And
my immediate response, just sort of a knee -jerk without
really thinking about it, would be 100 and he sort of
was like yeah, that doesn't seem -- like so what, that
doesn't seem like very many. And he was a little -- I
don't remember his exact words, but it was something to
the effect that -- that, you know, 100 in a year is not
very many and I said, no, no, no 100 a month. I mean if
I went out and did what I do full time, it would not
surprise me if what resulted were 100 cases a month.
11
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
And his response, I was really sort of shocked,
pleasantly surprised, his response was yeah, sure,
that's not a problem. So then I was like, again, just
trying to get a -- trying to get a sense of the depth of
the water, what if there were -- that would be 1,200 in
a year. What if there were -- what if there were 2,000
in a year? Sure, no problem. What if there were 3,000
in a year? Sure, no problem, whatever it takes. And I
was -- it was both frustrating and very windsome,
frankly, every time I asked the question well -- you
know, what's -- how much can I spend on travel?
hatever it takes. Well, how much can I spend on
advocacy? Whatever it takes. All right, well, what if
I want to sponsor -- the First Amendment Foundation
does, every year, they do Sunshine seminars all around
the state of Florida and they're free to the public and
public officials go to them. Can I sponsor those?
Sure. Well, can I buy hundreds of Sunshine manuals
which cost $18.95 a piece and I just want to give them
away, not ask for a penny, I just want to give them to
anybody that wants one? Sure, buy all you want. I mean
it was this sort of blank check, do whatever you think
you need to do, you do what you do and -- and I think
the understanding was that as a result of that cases
could -- would flow to the O'Boyle Law Firm.
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But one of the safeguards that I insisted on
s that I would be able to refer cases to other law
firms because I did not want this to be, you know, the
kind of arrangement where all I was doing was generating
lawsuits for anybody, but particularly for one law firm.
My understanding of our arrangement, what I insisted
upon, was I would go do what I do, you'll provide the
economic resources for me to do that more effectively,
and if litigation flows from that, that's fine, if
litigation doesn't flow from that, that's fine. This is
not about going out and getting lawsuits. This is about
doing meaningful advocacy, knowing that historically
unfortunately litigation very often comes from that. I
e it very clear that I would not have any kind of a
quota for lawsuits. I would -- my income, and this was
a very critical part of it, my income was completely
unaffected by litigation. I didn't get any more or any
less whether we got lawsuits or didn't get lawsuits. I
got no more resources or no fewer resources whether we
got lawsuits or didn't get lawsuits.
And, you know, this was a very agreeable,
cable -- Marty and I, as I said, met at his home
terally sitting next to his pool. And then after that
went and met Jonathan, his son, for dinner and we
nd of talked more about the details of this and away
21
1 1we went.
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. Okay. So Jonathan was involved in the early
etings with regard to forming this foundation?
A. Yeah, my sense of things was that -- I --
leading up to my trip from Lakeland down to Gulf Stream
to meet with Marty, I also had a number of phone calls
e -mail exchanges with Jonathan O'Boyle and Ryan
tmer who -- Ryan was the -- as I understood it was
s law partner and I had met Ryan before, a very
arming guy, a very nice guy. And they were very
cited. I've dealt with a lot of lawyers over the
years. I change lawyers like most people change socks.
And, you know, my perception was you're a couple young
guys. They're setting up a law practice. They seemed
very excited about open government litigation. And my
understanding is they had done a little bit, not very
much. They -- the big change for me was that I was
dealing with people that had real meaningful economic
resources because I kept asking the question, not only
to Marty, but to the attorneys, what is your capacity?
Because when somebody says to me, and I've had attorneys
ask me this before, well, you know, like I would love to
do litigation, how many cases are we talking about? You
w, I would -- will ask attorneys what's your --
is your tolerance for pain, how many can you handle?
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And they almost always are shocked by the -- just the
sheer volume of cases that are out there. There's just
almost a limitless number of cases when it comes to open
government because there's just so many violations of
the law --
Q. Okay. Now the -- I'd like to just interrupt
there.
A. Yeah.
Q. Because you didn't start working for the -- the
foundation wasn't even formed until the 27th of January?
A. Right.
Q. So you met with Jonathan O'Boyle prior to the
foundation being formed?
A. No, we -- we talked on the -- yes and no.
We -- he and I spoke on the phone. Ryan and I spoke on
the phone. We had a conference call. We exchanged
e- mails. We met with -- when Marty and I had dinner
with Jonathan. I believe it was on the 22nd. And the
foundation wasn't actually officially incorporated until
the 27th. And there were a series of -- there were a
number of reasons for that. One was Marty had
originally proposed that we use, and I don't even
remember the name of it now, there was some
not - for - profit that had already been created. My
objection to using that was that Mart -- that Jonathan
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was actually on the board and I thought it was entirely
inappropriate for an attorney who might represent the
foundation to be on the board of the foundation. I
thought that clearly showed a potential conflict of
interest --
Q. What was the name of that not - for - profit?
A. I have no idea.
Q. And had it just been recently formed?
A. No, my -- my sense was that it had been
created -- it had actually been -- existed for some
time, but they had never really done much with it.
Q. And did you discuss with Jonathan that would be
a conflict --
A. I did.
Q. And with Martin?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. And at the time that you -- you
were having the dinner and talking to Jonathan or
communicating with him prior to actually going to work
for the foundation --
A. Uh -huh.
Q. -- did he disclose to you that he was not a
member of the Florida Bar?
24 I
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
A. I don't recall. I -- you know, I had met with
Jonathan and Ryan a couple of times back in 2013. You
know, we had dinner, sort of a social talk shop kind of
thing. And I remember that both of them -- I think
Jonathan is licensed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and
I think Ryan passed the Bar in New York maybe. Both of
them had just sat for the Bar in Florida. I think Ryan
had gotten his law license in Florida maybe in November
and Jonathan was still waiting to -- he had passed the
Bar, but he hadn't yet gotten licensed. I don't know
exactly when I learned that. I don't -- I don't
remember whether that issue came up or not.
Q. Before the foundation was formed, did Ryan or
Jonathan tell you that they had formed the O'Boyle Law
Firm?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they tell you they had opened it --
whether or not they had opened it in Florida?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you discuss with them who was
working at the O'Boyle Law Firm prior to your forming
the foundation? Did Jonathan ever tell you that he was
working there?
A. I don't remember him ever using those words.
It was very clear to me that I was talking to the two
25
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
principals of the law firm. I mean that seemed very,
very apparent. It was never presented to me as Ryan is
the only attorney that I'm dealing with. I mean this
again goes back to the issue of, you know, what's your
capacity, how many lawsuits are we talking about --
Q. All right. We'll get into that. This is very
early --
A. Yeah.
Q. I'm just trying to nail down --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- the facts concerning your -- your dialogue
prior to your becoming employed by this foundation.
A. Yeah, part of the -- part of the issue was --
and, you know, I am sort of perpetually on the hunt for
attorneys who can either assist me as a plaintiff, but
more importantly who are available to assist citizens
when they have issues with public records access. I get
contacted by citizens all the time, almost every day,
and I don't -- I'm not a lawyer referral service. I
don't ask for anything in return. I don't get any kind
of a kickback. I don't get any kind of referral fee.
It's just, you know, they are people who need help and
most of them don't have the resources to hire an
attorney and wouldn't know where to start.
So before I even met with Marty, so between the
26
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
telephone conversations with Jonathan and Ryan. Part of
those were -- the initial conversations had nothing to
do with the foundation. It was hey, we're starting a
law firm, you know, if you need -- if you want us to
take cases, we're available to do that. We kind of
talked about, you know, working together in that
capacity, either them representing me or me potentially
referring clients to them, again, for no compensation on
y part. And we even discussed the possibility of them
hiring me on a -- an ad -hawk basis to consult on public
records cases, which I've done for a number of law
firms. And during that telephone conversation, I
actually said to them that, you know, if -- a better way
of doing this, for a whole host of reasons in my
opinion, is to have a non - profit that's actually doing a
lot of this litigation as opposed to having individuals
doing it. And their response was, you know, sort of to
laugh, well, you're really going to enjoy the
conversation you're getting ready to have with Marty. I
mean they -- they clearly knew that the was -- this was
part of what Marty had intended. And in fact I was so
fident of that, the week leading up to my visit with
I sat down and -- in front of my computer and I --
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
I came up with a budget. I really believed this is what
they were going to propose, that -- that, you know, they
would create some sort of foundation and I'm going to
have resources. And ironically, the budget I came up
with was virtually identical to what Marty proposed.
Now, I was only going to -- thinking maybe I'd get paid
$60,000 a year and I think I was guessing about $250,000
a year in total budget. It ended up being closer to
300,000 and paying me 120. But, yeah, it was clear that
there was -- and again, I don't -- even now I have no
objection to that -- the concept of a man who's wealthy
funding a not - for - profit that does real meaningful civil
rights advocacy and operating completely independent of
his influence and completely independent of any outside
influence, period.
Q. And I understand that was the rules you laid
down --
A. Right.
Q. -- from the very beginning?
A. Right.
Q. Now, what -- what I want to be clear on is even
before -- before this concept of -- of Marty funding and
forming, causing to be formed, a not - for - profit, you had
discussions with Jonathan O'Boyle regarding having his
firm represent you and your entities -- or you or your
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
associates or people that you were assisting --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in public records litigation and the state?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was it that said, during these
conversations prior to talking to Marty, who was it that
brought up the idea of a -- forming a not - for - profit,
was that Jonathan, Ryan, you?
A. I -- I brought it up and -- and simply because,
you know, I really do believe that if you're going to do
a lot of advocacy for all the reasons that -- that, you
know, the protections you get from having a corporation
and for -- and also frankly from a credibility
perspective, to actually have a legitimate entity that's
going to defend the public's right to know. I thought
that would just be a better way of doing it. And when
I -- as soon as I mentioned it, they, you know, not in a
bad way, but they, you know, laughed like, you know,
obviously you and Marty are -- are, you know, already
thinking the same way. You're really going to like this
conversation you have with Marty.
Q. So that was Jonathan that said that --
A. It was Jonathan and Ryan, yeah.
Q. Okay. So Jonathan due that your -- his father
aas going to propose that to you, it seemed from your
29 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ersation?
A. That -- that was very much my understanding,
S.
Q. Okay.
A. Now -- and I was -- when I was setting up this
meeting to go down -- when I went down there, I actually
had expected that I was going to meet with Marty and
Jonathan and -- and probably Ryan. And when I mentioned
that to Marty in an e -mail, his response was I want to
eet with you privately first, which was fine, and
that's why he and I met at his home and then from there
we went -- he and I went and met Jonathan at a -- at a
restaurant.
Q. Okay. And before you continue, I'd like to
follow up on just one other area --
A. Sure.
Q. -- if you don't mind, and I'm sorry if I'm --
A. No, please do.
Q. -- taking you off track. With regard to the
proposal that some other not - for - profit or foundation be
used, you mentioned that Jonathan proposed one, but he
was on the board of it and you rejected that idea.
A. I did.
Q. Okay. Did you discuss that with just Jonathan
or did you discuss that with Marty or Ryan --
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. No, we were -- we were actually in a -- in a
conference room at Marty's business, Commerce Group,
which is where all of these -- you know, the foundation,
the Citizens Awareness Foundation, never had its own
offices. We -- you know, the -- Marty, I thought very
generously, allowed me to sort of camp out at empty
desks in the building and convenient -- it was very
convenient actually because the office in Deerfield
Beach also housed the law firm --
Q. So the Commerce Group office is at what
address?
A. I believe it's -- I think it's 1280 West
Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, 34422 I think.
Q. And what suite number is the Commerce Group in
or does it have a suite number?
A. I don't think there's a suite number.
Q. Okay. And so the -- you worked out of the
Commerce Group offices?
A. Well, I worked from my home in Lakeland, but
when I --
Q. Okay --
A. Yeah, but when I went down to Deerfield Beach,
that's where I went --
Q. Okay --
A. -- was to the Commerce Group offices.
31 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. And was the law firm, the O'Boyle Law Firm, in
the same offices as --
A. Yes.
Q. -- the Commerce Group?
A. Yes.
Q. They weren't in a separate suite?
A. No, they were literally in a -- in a back room.
It was sort of funny because they -- they -- right
across the hallway I think -- I think the address across
the hall is 1286, I think, and the -- this is a
facility. I don't know whether Marty owns it or leases
it, but he has control of it. And they were, at the
very beginning stages of -- of remodeling the space
across the hall from the Commerce Group, and while that
was going on, the O'Boyle Law Firm had set up shop in a
back room and it was just a very -- it was a large room
that literally -- we joked about it. The wires were
hanging down from the ceiling. There were no cubicles.
It was just -- there were desks and it was really,
really inconvenient and very annoying actually because
if I'd sit in to have -- sit down and have a
telephone -- have a face -to -face conversation with an
attorney, you know, one desk over, six feet away,
there's another attorney, you know -- it's just -- it
was very chaotic.
32 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. And the Commerce Group employees could walk in
and out of the law firm --
A. They did walk in and out. In fact, they shared
employees.
Q. Okay
A. The
Q. And let me follow up on that.
A. Yeah.
Q. Was there ever a separate sign and a separate
door for the law offices when --
A. No.
Q. No. So they were just -- the law office was
part of the Commerce Group operation?
A. It was housed in the Commerce Group operation.
Q. Now, let's get to employees and that because I
understand your insistence that the -- the total
independence --
A. Yes.
Q. -- which I fully appreciate.
A. Uh -huh.
Q. But what I didn't -- I didn't -- I don't know
the names of any of these people that are involved,
A. Yeah.
Q. -- I understand that Jonathan was on the board
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the originally proposed foundation, which you
rejected. Were there any other people on that board
that you thought --
A. I don't know.
Q. -- constituted a conflict?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. And as far as when the foundation was
formed --
A. The Citizens Awareness Foundation.
Q. Yes. Can you tell me what the names of the
A. Yes.
Q. -- board members were and who they were?
A. Yes. William Ring, Bill Ring --
Q. Who -- who is Mr. Ring?
A. He is the --
Q. I've seen it once.
A. Yeah, he is the -- he's an attorney. I
understand he's not really practiced law in the
traditional sense much. He, I have been told, has been
working with Marty for about 30 years.
Q. Okay. In his business?
A. In his business, the Commerce Group.
Q. So Mr. Ring was not a member of the O'Boyle Law
Firm as far as you were advised?
A. Not at the time he was not.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Okay. All right --
A. And in fact, Bill had actually represented me
in one public records lawsuit against the Town of Gulf
Stream.
Q. William Ring is Bill?
A. Yeah, Bill Ring. My understanding, I don't
know if this is accurate or not, but I was told that he
had never even filed a lawsuit before. So when -- when
I retained him to represent me in a lawsuit --
Q. Keep in mind you don't have to disclose
A. No, I'm happy to.
Q. -- unless you choose to --
A. No, I'm happy to.
Q. Okay.
A. I mean literally it was, you know, can you help
us draft a lawsuit. And I've done a lot of drafting
Q. He asked you to draft the -- help him draft
A. It was either he or -- or Ryan Whitmer who at
the time -- Ryan I think had already sat for the Bar,
hadn't been licensed yet, so was essentially functioning
as his paralegal.
Q. As Mr. Ring's paralegal?
A. As Mr. Ring's paralegal, yeah.
Q. And -- and who asked you to draft the lawsuit?
A. I think Ryan did.
35 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. For -- for Mr. Ring?
A. For -- yeah, on behalf -- yeah, I don't think
there was anything appropriate -- inappropriate about
it. He was communicating to me from Bill Ring, you
know, can you help us. I had -- have done a lot of pro
se litigation. I -- you know, there's a -- in fact I've
very frequently -- this is an issue that comes up in --
with opposing counsel very often, that they see the same
template over and over again and my -- you know, my
response is well of course you do, I don't get -- my --
I don't -- my time is not compensable so why would I
draft a lawsuit from scratch for every lawsuit. And,
you know, by the way it works. I've won 99 point
something percent of the time. It's a --
Q. Right --
A. It's a good template. They actually -- I think
with the lawsuit against Gulf Stream where they
represented me as the Plaintiff, I think it was my
template they used.
Q. Okay. Did that case get settled or --
A. I want to say that it did, and it wasn't for
much. It was like -- the number that sticks in my head
was like $1,200 or something. It's just whatever the
legal fees were. I -- I got nothing out of it. It was
lust --
36
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. Did you have a written fee agreement with
Mr. Ring?
A. I don't recall whether we did or not.
Q. Do you know if he ever had time records or time
billings? Did you ever get a bill --
A. Couldn't tell you.
Q. Did you ever get a bill?
A. I don't recall seeing a closing statement.
Q. And so did you ever see any representation as
to how much time he had spent?
A. I don't recall seeing anything like that.
Q. Do you know if he did any work besides use your
template to file a lawsuit?
A. Couldn't tell you.
Q. So that -- that case was pending and has been
settled?
A. Yeah, I understand it's been settled.
Q. And the counsel of record was not the O'Boyle
Law Firm. It was William Ring?
A. Yeah, this was -- this was long before -- I say
long before. This was sometime in 2013.
Q. '13. Any other cases that were filed by
Kr. Ring or anyone involving your -- the O'Boyle's in
any way prior to the foundation being formed?
A. No, and -- and in all fairness, that -- Bill's
37 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
representation of me did not involve the O'Boyle's. I
can he -- he was not representing me as -- as I
understand, in fact there's an e -mail which -- which
says this, that Bill actually formed, you know, a firm
in order to represent me in this case.
Q. Okay. What was the name of the firm?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Okay. So as far as you're concerned,
throughout this time Mr. Ring has his own firm he's
working for, but he's also Mr. O'Boyle's business
associate?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So the -- Mr. Ring is on the board from
the --
A. He's the -- he was president of the board from
very beginning.
Q. And -- and I guess he was -- I don't want to
S. Is it accurate to -- strike that.
Who appointed Mr. Ring to the board, was
that
A. I have no idea. I mean I --
Q. Did Martin O'Boyle decide who was going to be
on the board?
A. That was very much my understanding, yes. I --
I had no input. I didn't -- I had nothing to do with
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. I was --
Q. Who was told --
A. I didn't have anything to do with the name. It
was -- I was not at all affectionate towards the name.
I was not enthusiastic about it, but it -- it is what it
is and --
Q. Okay. So Mr. Martin O'Boyle told you who was
on the board; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. So Bill was on the board and then --
Q. Go on.
A. -- and then a woman by the name of Denise
DeMartini.
Q. And who is she?
A. She is also, I understand it, a long -time
employee of -- of the Commerce Group. She's been with
Marty for -- I think she's been there longer than Bill.
Q. Okay. So --
A. And I had never met her. She works from her
home as I understand it in Merritt Island, so I -- you
know, I would hear her name. I never met her.
Q. Okay.
A. And when I talked to her the first time --
oecause all this was happening very quickly. You know,
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we -- we met on the 22nd. I literally stayed at Marty's
house for like ten days straight. We were, you know --
I was looking at trying to hire employees and, you
know -- I mean this was a very fast paced sort of series
of events. And at one point I -- I -- you know, I
needed to get a website set up for the foundation and
get business cards and, you know, get a logo and that
sort of thing and I mentioned something to the -- about
this to Marty and he suggested that I contact Denise
because that -- you know, she's really good at that kind
of stuff, so I actually called and talked to Denise
and -- by the way, let me correct -- I don't -- I wasn't
in Marty's house for ten days. I was -- I was in South
Florida for ten days. I was at his home for several
days and then I -- when I went down to Miami /Dade, I
started staying in hotels.
When I called Denise to ask for her help on a
logo, she -- and I mentioned to her about being a board
member. She seemed shocked that she was a board member.
She made it very clear she didn't even know she was a
board member.
Q. And what did you tell her?
A. Well, like congratulations, you know, you're --
apparently you're on the board. And then the other
board member, the third and final board member, was a
I ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
woman named Brenda Russell. And Brenda has been Marty's
personal secretary for many, many years. I think she's
probably been there longer than Bill or Denise. That's
y impression. A very sweet lady. At least from my
perception, her involvement with the foundation was
minimal. She was really -- she was the person that I
gave my, in the beginning, gave me receipts to, you
know, for reimbursement and credit card stuff. That
as -- I never dealt with Brenda in any capacity.
When -- when I did meet with the board, she was never
present. Her, you know, involvement seemed, you know,
minimal.
It was striking to me in the beginning -- Bill
s the person who seemed to have the most knowledge and
perience about government issues, which I would
scribe as being pretty minimal. Denise seemed
npletely and utterly unknowledgeable about any
vernment issues at all. And Brenda was the same way.
Q. And all three of them were employees of the
erce Group?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. And that's one of the reasons you insisted on
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
having absolute independence?
A. That's exactly right. Look, I -- I understand
that, you know, here you have this very wealthy man,
Marty O'Boyle, who is financing this not - for - profit,
hopefully going to become a nonprofit, and is -- is, you
know, prepared to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars
a year, in perpetuity by the way. It wasn't just a --
this is $300,000 to begin with. It was whatever it
takes for as long as it takes. And I also understood
from -- both from Marty, from Ryan, and from Jonathan
that Marty was financing the law firm. I had -- I don't
know the details, but as I understand it, he was loaning
them the money and was.
Q. Who told you that?
A. Marty, Jonathan, and Ryan did on all -- all
three of them on separate occasions.
Q. So did -- they told you that -- that Marty was
funding the law firm?
A. Yes.
Q. And loaning the money for the law firm?
A. Yes. I don't know how much money. I mean
the -- the number that I heard from Marty was a million
dollars. I don't know whether that's true or not or
accurate or not. Maybe that was just --
Q. Do you know if he ever paid salaries of the law
42
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
employees from the Commerce Group?
A. I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that --
that the person who was handling the money is a woman by
the name of Carla Clutchen (phonetic), who is a Commerce
Group employee. She also is the person that I dealt
with for financial issues on behalf of the foundation.
She's the person that got my paychecks. She's the
person that I sent up -- gave -- initially gave some of
y receipts to, Brenda and then very shortly I was
directed to start giving all of that to -- to Carla.
Q. And Carla works for the Commerce Group?
A. Yes.
Q. And did the foundation ever open a bank
account?
A. I believe that it did. I mean I was not a --
Q. Were your salary -- was your salary paid from a
Commerce -- from a Commerce Group account or from a
foundation account, do you know?
A. I couldn't tell you. I think that the --
because there were discussions about -- in the very
beginning, and understand that -- that, you know, I have
gone from being, you know -- I mean when I went down
there to meet with Marty, I had one car. I didn't want
to leave my wife and children stranded, so I rented a
car, the cheapest car I could find. You know, I'm
43
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
scraping together enough money just to buy gas to get
down there, so I'm doing everything on a shoe - string.
And so I -- it was an awkward conversation, but I told
Marty when we first got started, look, I don't -- I'm
not in a position to encourage expenses and get
reimbursed, I need money up front do you -- do you even
do this? And he was very gracious about it. He called
Carla. We were in his conference room. He called Carla
and said I -- you know, cut Joel a check for $1,000 and,
you know, and as soon as he needs more money, give him
more money.
Q. Was this before the foundation was formed?
A. This is I think when the foundation got formed,
but at that point he did not have any bank account, so
I'm trying --
Q. So he paid from the Commerce Group for the --
A. I think he marked it as a loan because I -- I
ended up giving that money back once I got reimbursed,
but he -- he was very insistent that hey, we needed to
get a bank account set up for the Commerce Group. I
think it was set up at BB &T. We need -- we need a card,
you know, so that Joel can use a credit card.
Q. Did you get a credit card from him personally
or from the Commerce Group or both?
A. I got one from Brenda and -- that was on, as I
1 ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understood it, from her. In fact there are a whole
bunch of e -mails that will support this, that the first
credit card I had was on Marty's account and I know that
because it was really annoying. I would -- because I
was on the road a lot, like, you know, maybe weeks at a
time, and she -- apparently there were a lot of people,
both at the Commerce Group, that had credit cards on
Marty's personal account because she told me that every
single night I had to scan my receipts and send them to
her, which was really annoying because I would get in --
you know, been on the road all day and get in a hotel
room at 11:00 at night and the last thing I want to do
sit there and scan receipts, which I would have to do
ry single night, all my receipts for that day, and
then she very frequently would send me credit card
statements that had all these charges, not just mine,
but other people's, and I had to go through and identify
ich ones were mine.
Q. And those were on Marty's cards?
A. Those were on Marty's card, right --
Q. When you were in Miami doing work or wherever?
A. Yeah, wherever, yeah. So -- but at some point,
within a few weeks, there was actually a credit card
that said Citizens Awareness Foundation on it. It had
name on it and, you know, I was no longer -- I gave
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them back the card that I got because I had Marty's
card, but it had my name on it. It was his account with
y name.
Q. Did you reimburse Citizens Awareness for the
charges -- or I mean reimburse Marty for those charges?
A. I turned in all my receipts.
Q. I mean you were paid by him and then you were
paid by Citizens Awareness account?
A. I -- well, I got a Commerce -- I got an advance
from the Commerce Group on a Commerce Group check for
like $1,000 and I think I went back maybe a week later
and needed like another $1,000. And I give them all my
receipts and, you know, I -- I didn't have anything to
do with the money with the
Q. Okay. So you didn't have to repay cash, you
just give your receipts for the advance?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay, I got you. I understand.
A. Yeah, and --
Q. And when was the first -- was there ever a
board meeting after the foundation was formed or did
Marty just say your -- your title is chairman or
something?
A. Well, we kind of -- yeah, we kind of went
around and around about the -- the title. I felt
WE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
strongly -- I have a number of friends who are involved
with non -- nonprofit organizations and I've never --
personally never been a big person -- big on titles, but
I was told by some people who are involved with
nonprofit's that, you know, you really need to be called
Executive Director because apparently that matters in
the world of nonprofit's I guess. That's code so we can
tell each other that we're the big wheel of whatever
;entity we're involved with. So I told him I wanted to
be called the Executive Director and he agreed to that
and, you know -- yeah, so I was the Executive Director.
Q. Okay. Did you ever have any employment
reement, written employment agreement?
A. You know, I -- I told Marty that I wanted a
ntract, and this was the -- the only -- I think the
ly condition that he did not agree to. I wanted -- I
nted a five -year contract, and the reason I want ed a
five -year contract was I thought that that would further
enhance my independence that -- and he said, no, he
didn't want to do that and then I said well, how about a
year, and he didn't want to do that, let's just kind of
see how it goes. And, you know, he had been so generous
and agreeable on -- he originally offered me -- I think
he originally offered me $75,000 and I told him that I
ted 120. I mean why not. I mean -- and I was
47
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
surprised how fast he said yes. In fact afterwards I
thought man, I should have held out for more. He had
been so agreeable and -- and, you know, Marty has the --
up until very recently, has always been exceedingly
kind, gracious, generous, very deferential to me, just
a -- you know, my experience with him personally has
been nothing but delightful.
Q. So you trusted that he would honor your oral
agreements with regard to how the foundation would be
run without a written contract?
A. Yeah, and -- and a big part of that was -- was
this sense of deference that he had always given to me,
that, you know, he frequently referred to me, and I
don't know why he did this, but he would refer to me as
Dr. Chandler, you know, that I was the -- I was the guru
on public records, which I don't hold myself out as
that, but he very much perceived that I was sort of the
expert on -- on public records issues and, you know, if
I thought that we needed to do things a certain way,
that he would defer to that. And I -- I put a lot of
stock in that deference because I felt that he would
continue to defer to my judgment on issues. In fact, he
told me that the reason that he was hiring me was
primarily because of my judgment. So that, having been
communicated, made me feel a pretty high self of -- a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
etty high level of confidence that, you know, they're
ing to do things the way I think they ought to be
Q. And by the same token, you didn't -- you didn't
sign a non - compete or --
A. Well, I'm sorry, yeah --
Q. -- another agreement or anything like that?
A. I apologize. I didn't answer your original
question about the agreement. We -- I ended up drafting
memorandum of understanding. That's the closest thing
we got to a contract. And he and I batted it around.
He asked me to make a number of revisions to it. I
never dealt with the board on that issue. It was all
with Marty. And I signed it, but I never received a
signed copy back from a board member, so I don't -- I
don't know whether they signed it or not.
Q. Okay. And --
A. But there was no confidentiality agreement.
There was no -- you know, he told me -- because what I
wanted to do originally was I asked for $60,000 a year
and the freedom to continue to do pro se litigation and
he adamantly refused that. He was really adamant. In
fact, he -- the way he put it was when I buy people, I
want to buy all of them. And I didn't take that to be,
you know, offensive necessarily. I didn't think he
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
as -- had mentioned servitude. I got what he meant and
he wanted 100 percent of my attention. So there -- that
as the only real stipulation in the memorandum of
understanding that I wasn't really enthusiastic about,
but at 120 grand a year and a lot of resources, I can
live with it.
Q. Did you set forth in the memorandum of
understanding your independence with regard to
instituting litigation, settling litigation --
A. Yeah, that I would -- that I served at the
pleasure of the board and I don't -- I'm more than happy
to furnish you a copy of the --
Q. Okay --
A. -- memorandum, but I don't remember the exact
details. But, yeah, it was -- you know, this was a --
arty was not -- he's not on the board. He's not on
the --
Q. But you negotiated this with Marty though?
A. Oh, absolutely, there wasn't anybody else to
negotiate with.
Q. Right, okay.
A. Yeah.
Q. So, if you don't mind, I would like a copy of
that.
A. Sure.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. So I think I diverted you from your -- your
chronology and your -- and what I'd like to do is take a
five - minute break.
A. Sure.
Q. And then come back and -- I think we were at
the point where you were describing the formation of the
entity and the board and your dealings at that time, so
we're, I guess, still in early January or late January?
A. Late January, early February, yeah.
MR. SWEETAPPLE: Okay, great. How about a
five - minute restroom break?
THE WITNESS: Sure.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the video record
at 11:93 a.m.
(A short recess was taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the video record at
11:51 a.m.
Q. All right. Mr. Chandler, would you please
continue with what you wanted to relate to me regarding
Mr. O'Boyle?
A. Yeah. So we got -- we -- things really got
rolling in earnest starting January 27th. The first
week I did a -- it was very exciting. I did a seminar
for a couple of activists and Giovanni Mesa, one of the
attorneys for the O'Boyle Law Firm, sat in on that. And
51
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
I actually hired the first -- or I guess I was the first
employee for the foundation, but the second employee, a
guy named Terrell Elliston (phonetic). He only worked
for a very short time, two or three days. He and I had
been friends for a long time and he just decided he
wanted to go in a different direction. But I met with
he and his wife. He and I went out and actually made a
bunch of public records requests together. In fact, he
was with me on that first audit I did in South Florida.
All of my interactions -- I didn't have any interactions
with the board at all except -- in any official
capacity. I talked to Denise DeMartini early on about
helping me develop a logo for the foundation and that's
when she expressed her surprise that she was on the
board. But we -- we had that conversation by phone. I
still hadn't met her. I would see Bill Ring on a pretty
regular basis, but just because he was there at the
Commerce Group. We never really interacted much. In
fact, we kind of had this ongoing running joke, that
n I would see him, I -- you know, I'm supposed to
-- I serve at your pleasure and, you know, at your
rection and his response would be I direct you to
-- you know, go do something. I mean, you know, it
s sort of -- it was sort of -- in a friendly way, sort
a nod and a wink that, you know, they're really not
52
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
doing anything. I'm -- I'm doing it, which was great
for me because the -- frankly the -- I was very happy,
delighted actually, to be accountable to somebody for
the money, for what I was spending, but I was equally
delighted that I wasn't really having to answer to
anybody about where I spent my time and what I was
doing. And I was having lots of meetings with civil
rights groups. I was meeting with other activists. You
know, I had meetings with the Society For Professional
Journalists. I had meetings with student organizations
and felt like I was really doing what I am passionate
about doing. And I was pretty much left alone. There
wasn't a whole lot of -- actually there wasn't any
interaction with the -- with the board per se. I did
talk to Marty. When I was in South Florida in Palm
Beach, I would stay at his home. He was very generous
in that respect. And I welcomed the -- his hospitality,
but also he's very busy and when I was in the office,
the Commerce Group office in Deerfield Beach, he's very
inaccessible because he's busy. Whereas when I stayed
at his home, he would get up early in the morning. I
would get up early in the morning. We literally -- you
know, we'd meet in the kitchen and have a cup of coffee
at 6:00 in the morning or 5:30 in the morning and for an
hour or more I -- it was just the two of us. And I
53 1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
mould try to kind of give him updates on what I was
doing and it was a little frustrating because he didn't
really seem at all interested in the advocacy part of
it, you know. For example, I was -- last year, and
again this year, I was invited to Tallahassee to meet
with Don Gates who's president of the Florida senate to
just kind of talk about the government issues. Last
ar I -- he asked for me to give testimony in front of
State Senate Committee on -- on government
accountability and oversight. And when I was invited to
go again this year, I had a really good meeting and we
talked about some proposed open government legislation
and in that conversation with the -- Senator Gates, I
told him about the foundation and my new job and he was
very positive, very pleasant about it. Senator Gates is
a delightful man anyway. And I was really excited about
that. I felt like a big piece of what I was bringing to
the foundation wasn't just my ability to -- to do audits
and the potential litigation that came out of that, but
the -- and not just my expertise on open government, but
I've always cultivated, I think, very meaningful and
significant relationships with Barbara Peterson and the
First Amendment Foundation and Senator Gates and a
number of other public officials, with a lot of other
organizations, the Society for Professional Journalists
54
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
and the Associated Press and I have a lot of meeting
contacts that I've developed --
Q. The research I did on you before coming here to
meet you, it appears that you've done quite a bit of
work with open government, First Amendment, for
journalism. You have quite a bit of expertise in that
area.
A. A lot, yeah, and I -- I am -- it would not be
hyperbole to say that I get contacted every single week
by reporters. I mean, number one, I -- I source for a
lot of reporters. I spend my time digging through
public records and very often that leads to interesting
newsworthy stories. So frequently I'm called by
reporters who are asking me for -- for leads on the
stories --
Q. You're researching for them basically?
A. Very much so, yeah, with the -- not in any
formal way. I just -- I'm not a -- I'm not -- I don't
pretend to be a traditional media outlet. I don't care
about getting credit for the story. I just want the
story told. If I find some graft or corruption or
something -- you know, something I feel the public ought
to know about, I just want the story told. So I'm
frequently contacted by reporters under that set of
circumstances. But also very frequently attorney --
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reporters will contact me saying hey, look, I've asked
for this record, they're not giving it to me, what do
you think? Well, I'm not an attorney. I can't give you
legal advice. I can tell you what I would do if I were
similarly situated. And we sort of talk shop about that
sort of thing. So I've -- I've cultivated a lot of
relationships.
Q. And your integrity and your credibility are the
cornerstone, I take it, of those relationships?
A. Yeah, the way reporters describe me is I'm 100
percent source. If I tell a reporter something, they
can take it to the bank. I don't exaggerate it. I
don't claim it unless I can prove it. I mean frequently
that's how reporters -- have said that -- I'm described
as 100 percent source. And it's because I'm a
straight- shooter. I mean even if people -- I think even
to a very large extent the public officials that I've
had a fairly adversarial relationship with, I think that
at the end of the day most of them would acknowledge
that, you know, there's a reason why I win. It's
because my facts are right. Now, I don't pull the
trigger on a lawsuit unless the facts are -- are 100
percent. And I think that's part of the reason that
I've developed good relationships not only with the
media, but with some legislators and with people like
56
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
rbara Peterson and -- and even some academics.
So I was -- one of the frustrations I had in
these meetings that I would have with Marty over coffee
is he'd seem completely disinterested in this. So I was
trying to explain to him the significance, for example,
of this -- I had a dinner meeting with the president of
the Florida Chapter of the Society of Professional
Journalists, which is the largest journalist
ganization -- journalism organization in the world.
And here's a guy who is the head hauncho for that
organization for the State of Florida. He's really
eager about working on projects. And a big part of my
time with the foundation was working on specific
jects. So for example, I'm very interested in
arning the particulars about school resource officers
d what kinds of resource officers, what kind of police
officers, end up in that position. So for example, I've
een told, had a lot of antidotes, that it's just sort
of a dumping ground for bad cops. Well, I don't know if
that's true or not, but I can look at public records and
find out. So for instance, in Hillsborough County, if
you look at the -- if you look at the Hillsborough
County Sheriff and the Tampa Police Department, which
provide SRO's to Hillsborough County School Board, 80
percent of their officers have no disciplinary history,
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
, but of the officers who have been provided as
SRO's, 97 percent of them have disciplinary histories
and some of those disciplinary issues are very serious,
including a TPD officer who was invested for aggravated
sexual battery. Well, that has the potential to be a
really great story. And what I was after in doing these
projects, and I had about -- literally about 40 of these
things. These stories showcase why public records
access is so important. The SRO's for example -- it
doesn't matter whether you're a liberal or a
conservative or rich or poor, if you got kids going to
public schools, you probably care whether Officer
iendly is a -- is a creep or not. If Officer Friendly
has impulse control issues for, you know, beating
suspects, you probably want to know about that. And
there -- I had a whole bunch of these projects. And to
me, why these were important, is they -- we hold these
up as examples of why public records access matters.
And I was disappointed because the response I
got was really tepid, sort of like, uh, you know -- in
fact, Marty told me at one point when I was telling him
about the dinner I had with SJP -- SPJ, because they
wanted to collaborate on these stories, it was sort of
like don't tell -- I don't -- why are you telling me
t this, I don't care.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. And you expected that would be part -- a big
rt of the foundation's --
A. It was a big part of it. That was the deal,
yeah, absolutely, that -- you know, I -- getting a
paycheck is nice and having lawyers to -- to litigate is
nice because I need lawyers to litigate when I want the
records and to enforce the public's right to know.
That's all great. What I care about are the resources
to work with groups like the Society of Professional
Journalists or student groups like Dream Defenders to
empower them in their membership to do public records
access. But I also want to work with the media to
develop these stories that -- that continue to show the
public why it matters that we have access to records.
It's a constitutionally protected civil right and it's
lly important.
All the rest of this stuff for the foundation
was entirely ancillary to me. I got it. I understood
that, you know -- I understood that Marty want ed
something out of this and what it -- what Marty wanted
out of this was cases for his son's law firm. Okay,
fine, as long as that's a byproduct of what I do. And
that was in February when Marty and I had these -- these
etings
in
his
kitchen
over coffee.
It was
sort of the
ginning
of
me
really
feeling like
maybe --
there
59
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
wasn't any pushback. He wasn't keeping me from doing
it, but he just didn't seem interested in it, which at
that point it was just sort of disappointment. It
wasn't really a concern. It wasn't like he was saying I
don't want you spending your time doing that. He wasn't
telling me that I couldn't take reporters to dinner. It
wasn't that I couldn't meet with student groups. It was
just he didn't seem to really care.
Q. So this is in February?
A. This is in February and --
Q. So that was -- that was -- let me see -- I
don't want to put words in your mouth. Was this -- in
the business, we refer to a red flags. You may have
heard that. Lawyers see red flags --
A. Yeah.
Q. Was this something that you saw as a red flag?
A. It -- no.
Q. A major concern at all?
A. It -- no, it wasn't a concern. It was just
disappointment. I would have been concerned if he had
put the brakes on it. He wasn't putting the brakes on
it. He never said you can't do it. It was just I don't
really care, don't -- don't bother me with the details,
was sort of his attitude. In fact, I sent him a number
of e -mails when I -- when I -- after I had my meeting
E
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
with Senator Gates in Tallahassee, I sent him a very
detailed e -mail explaining why I felt this was
important, that some legislation was pending, and, you
know, again, his response was sort of tepid.
I had a meeting with Barbara Peterson, the
First Amendment Foundation, about coordinating our
efforts in working together. And again, his response
was sort of tepid, like he didn't really care about
that, which I found puzzling and dis -- personally
disappointing because I felt like Marty was sort of a
true believer and really cared about the open government
part of it and that made me feel like -- what he was
really interested in was litigation. But again, I don't
care as long as you don't interfere with what I'm doing.
Q. All right. And you have the complete
discretion that you agreed upon to --
A. Correct.
Q. -- run it properly?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, did you get any -- I don't want any lawyer
/client communications
A. Yeah.
Q. -- or advice
A. Sure.
Q. -- your seeking advice, receiving advice, but
61 1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
did you get any complaints from anyone that they were
having ethical concerns? I'm including any lawyers in
the firm or any -- any staff or -- did anybody ever
contact you in February with regard to any -- any --
A. Yeah, when I -- because my -- in the memorandum
understanding I had with Marty -- I say with Marty,
technically I guess with the foundation, although it
sat -- I don't think that anybody ever signed it, at
least I never got a signed copy of it, but I negotiated
with Marty. You know, part of the deal was I could no
longer do any pro se litigation. And I had -- when the
foundation was created, I had several cases. I can't
remember if I had filed them pro se or not. I don't
remember, but there were -- there were several cases
that needed to be litigated.
Q. Where you're the plaintiff?
A. Where I was the plaintiff personally. And I --
I gave those to the O'Boyle Law Firm for several
reasons, one, it was convenient. I was down there a
lot. And I was -- you know, it was sort of the
beginning of trying to develop a rapport with the other
attorneys, who I came to like very much by the way,
Marrett Hanna, who I have tremendous respect for, and
for Giovanni Mesa. And neither one of them had done
y -- I don't think they had really done any public
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
records litigation, so it was also sort of a teaching
opportunity to kind of -- you know, not only did I want
the foundation to have a particular culture, which I
wanted to control, but I also wanted to cultivate the
culture of the firm to the extent that -- that the
foundation was its client and we were its principal
client. Now, my understanding was that we represented
virtually -- not all because then Marty was also a
client, but we represented the vast majority of the
cases that the O'Boyle Law Firm had. And I'm very, very
insistent that I want things done a certain way for a
whole lot of reasons, none the least of which is I don't
like to lose because losing -- you know, bad facts make
bad law and I don't want to litigate cases unless we're
going to do them the right way.
And in the beginning, Marrett Hanna was the
attorney that was representing me personally in a number
of cases and I was very happy with her --
Q. Keep in mind anything you discuss in terms of
her advice representing you, you have the right to keep
confidential --
A. I understand.
Q. -- or you can waive it.
A. I understand. I -- I'm more than happy to
waive it. And I don't know that we're really going to
63 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t into the particulars of anything that would be
the attorney of record, I actually sat in with her
n she was talking to opposing counsel for the
poses of settlement. Frankly I wanted to hear how
did on the phone. This is somebody who presumably
is going to be representing me, or is representing me,
and is going to be presumably representing the
foundation on a lot of cases and I wanted to get a sense
of what her style was. And I was very pleased. I
thought she did a really fine job. She was very
detail- oriented. She seemed very committed to doing
things ethically. In fact, one of the very first things
I did when I got -- when I'm going to work for the
foundation, was I -- Jonathan came to me, Jonathan
O'Boyle came to me, and said that Marrett Hanna had
expressed real reservations about being involved with
this. And when I talked to her and I --
Q. This you mean the foundation --
A. The foun -- doing public records litigation,
h, because her perception, I think understandably,
sort of oh, we're just going to be going around
ng -- engaging in got -you litigation. I mean I think
attitude was sort of this is like slip and fall
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stuff. And I met with her, just the two of us, at one
of the conference rooms of the Commerce Group and it was
the first real conversation we ever had. And by the
time I got done talking to her, I -- you know, I think
she was really sold on -- on the concept of what I do.
And she expressed to me that as long as I was involved
she wanted to be a part of it, that she -- I was very
flattered. She's -- you know, she said I want to
represent the white knight. I mean she felt like I was
really -- you know, what I -- the reason I was doing
it -- my motives were pure. She didn't feel like
everybody else's were, but she -- she was -- and we were
sort of joined at the hip at that point. I was very
happy with her representation and she and I exchanged a
er of e -mails I think beginning in February where
felt like she was being pressured by Jonathan to
nd -- make monetary demands and settle my cases
-- that were beyond reasonable --
Q.
Beyond
the
time
that was
spent?
A.
Yeah.
All
I was
asking
for -- I mean my
ement with the foundation is that I would not be
involved in any other money- making opportunities or any
money- making ventures, so I was not seeking anything out
of these lawsuits. I wanted nothing. I didn't want --
I didn't want a penny out of them. I --
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. The ones where you were plaintiffs?
A. Where I was a plaintiff, that's right.
Q. Right.
A. And so all I was asking -- and I always do the
same I -- I make three demands whenever I'm involved
with public records litigation or open government
litigation. First you got to produce the records
without further condition. Secondly, the defendant has
to take some kind of meaningful remedial action so I
don't have to sue you again. This isn't about seeing
how many times I can sue you. It's about you actually
ake the records available to the public. They have a
right to see it. And third, I want to be reimbursed for
y -- or be comp -- my attorney's fee paid. There are
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 119.12 --
Q. And that's -- that's their actual time and the
value of their services. This is not a contingency case
in terms of the -- there's no money being obtained from
the government. They just pay the fees, correct?
A. Yeah, I -- yeah, I -- yes, and I -- and I'll
even make a distinction here. There -- you know, I
personally, because this issue's going to play into some
of our further conversations today, you know, when --
when I've been the plaintiff in public records lawsuits,
when I have an attorney, you know, we will -- we will
m
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
make a demand, those same three demands, produce the
records, take some meaningful remedial action, and it's
surprising how reluctant public agencies are to do that,
which seems like sort of the -- you know, let me help
you fix the problem so we don't have to do this again,
and then I want to be reimbursed or my attorney's fees
paid. There have been instances where I have -- I
defendants, particularly State contractors who have been
very recalcitrant to correct the problems -- I'm not --
I may not make a demand for my attorney's fees. I just
may make a monetary demand, period, you know. I'll --
you want me to give up my right to be vindicated in
court. If you'll produce the records and take remedial
action, I'll dismiss the case for $2,500 or $5,000 or
whatever number --
Q. Where your fees are at least that much?
A. No, where my fees aren't that much. I mean I
have done this where I -- I have been pro se and I've
had defendants who have said we want you to dismiss the
case. Well, that's great, I want you to obey the law
and I want to be vindicated in court. We're having a
settlement negotiation and I'm very blunt. I'm asking
for money that I'm not entitled to. I want you to pay
ne $1,500. You want me to dismiss the case, pay me
$1,500. And defendants are like well, you're not
67
1
2
3
n
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
entitled to that. You're right, I'm not. That's why
it's called a settlement negotiation. We're talking
about things we're not entitled to. You're not entitled
to have me dismiss the case. The only thing either one
of us are entitled to at this point is due process. If
you're going to ask me for something you're not entitled
to, I'm going to ask for something I'm not entitled to.
I have no problem with that as long as that's what's
being communicated, as long as you're making it very
clear I'm not asking for something under the pretense
that I'm entitled to it, I'm saying, I'm acknowledging,
I'm not entitled to this. This is consideration.
You -- you want me to do something, then I want you to
do something for me. When it comes to --
Q. And that would go to the plaintiff, that money,
not to the law -- not to lawyers?
A. Yeah, well, I'm talking when I -- when I've
done that as a --
Q. Pro se?
A. -- pro se. You know, we're -- you know,
frankly, these -- these -- you know, I don't -- this is
not with public agencies, you understand, public
operated agencies because that's tax money. Those
are -- taxpayers are pay them money. I got a real
problem with -- with that. I mean you're talking about
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for - profit corporation that has a, you know, billion
llar contract with the State of Florida and they have
olated their contract and violated the public's right
know. I don't have -- I'm not even slightly bashful
out saying yes, you want me to dismiss this case, your
aim is, your defense is we didn't know. We didn't
alize we were subject to the Public Records Act. Well
guess what, I did you a big favor by bringing it to your
attention and I did it at my own personal expense. I'm
not completely unapologetic about saying yeah, pay me
$1,500 or 2 grand or 2,500. That's one thing. It's
something entirely different for an attorney to make a
demand and to suggest or outright claim that the demand
is for attorney's fees when it's something -- when
they're actually asking for more money than what they've
rned.
The issue that Marrett was having, and the
issue that I shared with her, we shared the same
concern, was if -- if the O'Boyle Law Firm, at $350 an
hour, has billed $4,000 and they've got $500 in
expenses, why would you ask for anything more than
$4,500?
Q.
Of
a government
agency?
A.
Or
of anybody,
of -- of anyone
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were -- where I was being represented were against State
contractors, it would be fine if you wanted to make a
monetary demand of, you know, $6,000 and your -- my
legal fees are $4,000 as long as you present it that
way, as long as you present it as my client,
Mr. Chandler, is willing to settle the case for a
monetary payment of $6,000 out of which you will cover
his expenses.
Q. And in that scenario, the plaintiff would get
anything beyond what the fees were I take it? That
wouldn't go to the lawyers?
A. Yeah -- well, you would think, right? I mean
that -- that -- that was -- and this was the -- and
thankfully this really didn't enter into the equation,
at least I didn't think because I wasn't seeking to get
anything out of it. I don't want any money out of it.
Q. As the foundation?
A. As an individual.
Q. As an individual, okay.
A. Right. And the -- and there were -- I think
there were three or four cases against these private
contractors. All I wanted was --
Q. And the O'Boyle Law Firm was representing you?
A. That's right.
Q. And they -- that was done through Hanna you
70 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said?
A. Marrett, yeah.
Q. Marrett Hanna.
A. And -- and Marrett --
Q. All of them?
A. I don't remember. I can't -- I think they
were, but I'm not 100 percent sure of that.
Q. Okay.
A. The -- the problem -- the pushback that Marrett
was getting, as I understood it, and she and I talked
about this on the phone a number of times, we exchanged
e -mails about this, was she was getting pressured to
make higher demands. And my response was why, that --
Q. Who was she getting pressure from, the --
A. Jonathan.
Q. O'Boyle?
A. Yes, to -- to --
Q. Now, was he in -- in the Commerce Group offices
full time whenever you were there working at the O'Boyle
Law Firm?
A. Yeah. He was living at his mom and dad's house
in Gulf Stream and he was there, yeah.
Q. Full time?
A. Yeah.
Q. So he worked out of the -- the Commerce Group
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
offices where the law office had its room?
A. Yes.
Q. On a full -time basis?
A. Yes.
Q. And she told you that Jonathan was putting
pressure on -- on her to ask for more in fees than had
been earned?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times did she communicate that to you?
A. Repeatedly.
Q. And that was in February?
A. Yes, and she -- she -- you know, my -- my
response to her was it's -- it's -- you know, I
understand that you guys want to get your reasonable
attorney's fees, and I'm all in favor of that and I'm --
and that's going to be part of our settlement
discussions. I couldn't care less about you guys
getting any -- a penny more than that. That's not my
interest. And it's frankly not your decision to make.
It's not Jonathan's decision to make. It's mine and
mine alone. I'm the client. I get to make that
decision. That's the way it works. And, you know,
frankly if I said that I was willing to settle the case
for -- for no attorney's fees, that's my choice to make.
It's not your's. You guys took this case on a
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contingency. It is what it is.
Q. Contingency meaning they wouldn't get their
fees unless they were awarded?
A. That's right and --
Q. Not a percentage of any recovery?
A. That's right.
Q. And there was no fee agreement on any of these
cases?
A. That's right, and which again I tried with
them -- about that repeatedly, look guys, we got to have
these fee -- because if you get to a fee hearing and we
don't have a fee agreement, if I were opposing counsel,
I'd be arguing that you're not entitled to anything
because the Florida Bar is really clear about this on
a -- any kind of a contingency fee agreement has to
be -- it shall be in writing. It's not -- you don't
have any latitude there.
Q. All right.
A. As a result of -- of Marrett expressing -- and
again, this is what she told me --
Q. So you told -- you made it clear to -- to the
O'Boyle Law Firm through Marrett that any contingency
had to be in writing?
A. Yes, and I --
Q. Which is clearly a Bar requirement?
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I -- I communicated that to Ryan, with mar -- I
communicated that to Jonathan O'Boyle. I communicated
that to Giovanni Mesa.
Q. And it was just ignored?
A. It was ignored. So as a result of my support
for Marrett's position, I think she was emboldant to --
to sort of stand her ground with Jonathan and as a
result of that, she was removed from the cases without
y consent, without my knowledge. I just found out
after the fact that she's been taken off the cases and,
you know, Ryan Whitmer -- Ryan Whitmer was going to
handle them and --
Q. And who told you that was being done?
A. Marrett.
Q. She told you she had been removed --
A. Yes.
Q. And by -- by Jonathan or by --
A. Yes.
Q. By Jonathan?
A. Yes.
Q. And Jonathan appointed Ryan to handle the
cases?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did -- what did you do when you
learned that? This was in February?
74
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
A. Yeah, I believe it was in February. I was -- I
as -- you know, I was -- I was annoyed by it. I was --
I was frustrated by it. I mean it wasn't one of those
things that you took -- it wasn't a complete deal
breaker for me. I -- it was -- my perception was this
is just young attorneys not thinking very clearly, not
arrett, I'm talking about Jonathan in particular. And
there -- I also kind of had the feeling that there was
sort of this little bit of a power struggle. I think
that he perceived that he was the one that was in charge
and if he want to be in charge, it's his law firm,
that -- more power to him, but I'm the one that's in
charge of the foundation and I'm the client. So when it
comes to the litigation -- and in these particular cases
where I -- it was me personally, I -- I know who's in
charge. It's me. It's not the attorney. I'm the one
that's calling the shots here. The attorney is a
technician who provides advice. That's it. I get to
make the decisions about litigation strategies and what
we're going to demand for settlement. And again, I am
far more interested in the first two settlement
conditions than I am the third. You got to produce the
records without further conditions and you have to take
some meaningful remedial action.
Q. So who were the defendants in these -- in
75 I
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
these -- you said about three cases that you were the
plaintiff in?
A. Yeah, there were -- and there were great facts.
Every one of the facts were just gold. First Coast
Advantage is one of them and the other one's --
Q. What county?
A. In Duval County.
Q. Okay.
A. There an AHCA contractor.
Q. AHCA is --
A. Yeah, I'm sorry, Agency for Health Care
Administration.
Q. Okay. And where was that?
A. Well, AHCA is in Tallahassee, but the -- First
Coast Advantage was in -- in Duval County.
Q. So all three filed -- filed in Duval County?
A. I think I -- it was First Coast Advantage and
then it was Memorial Healthcare Group --
Q. Where -- where was that case filed?
A. They're in Duval County. That's another one
with just -- just golden facts. Northwest Behavioral
Health. And again, I'll -- I stand by the facts of
these cases and to my knowledge, the cases are -- have
been -- are being handled ethically.
Q. Yeah, they -- they haven't been settled. You
76
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
didn't let them -- you didn't let them settle them for
more than the fees were?
A. That's exactly right.
Q. You stopped them?
A. Yeah, we -- we are going to do that. So that
led to --
Q. So all three of these are in Duval County?
A. I believe they are, yes.
Q. Okay. And you're the named plaintiff?
A. Yeah. Yeah, both of -- just, you know, these
are -- I would say that the facts of these -- of those
cases, that's very typical for the work that I do. I
can you walk in, you make the request. The contract
clearly says that they're going to have to produce the
records. You ask for a record that you know exists
because it's required to be created in the contract.
You ask for it. They tell you no. You know,
sometimes -- I mean I've actually been -- had instances
where they called the police to have you removed for
doing nothing more than politely making a public records
request. I love those facts.
Q. Right. Now, you don't have to disclose this, I
don't believe it's privileged communication, but
obviously you're the client and it's your call --
A. Yeah.
77
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. -- do you have an oral agreement with the
O'Boyle Law Firm as to what the hourly charge is for
different lawyers on these cases or do they just charge
what they think is fair?
A. I believe that Ryan is handling them now
because Marrett left the firm, largely over these
issues. I think he charges 250 an hour. Marrett, who
is a much more seasoned attorney, much, much more
seasoned attorney, I think was charging 350 an hour.
Q. So you agreed to pay 250 an hour for those
cases --
A. I didn't agree to pay it. I agreed that --
that --
Q. That was a reasonable fee?
A. A reasonable fee, yeah. Yeah.
Q. Okay. This --
A. Their fees for expenses.
Q. Are there any writings that memorialize that or
just a conversation?
A. It was part of my suggestion urging --
Q. Okay --
A. -- that we should have -- that we should have
it in writing. It hasn't been.
Q. SO --
A. So things -- things --
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. Back to -- you're starting to see a red -- some
red flags?
A. That was a concern for me.
Q. Right.
A. And it wasn't that big a deal to me at that
stage of the game as far as the involvement of the
foundation because the vast majority of the cases that
we had at that time were against publically operated
agencies or municipalities, State agencies, not
contractors.
Q. And as I understand it from your description,
you like Ryan. You considered him charming. And the
fact he took over the cases didn't -- didn't alert --
didn't offend you from the standpoint that you had
respect for him?
A. Yeah, it offended me that -- that Marrett had
been removed because I -- I liked what she was doing. I
thought she was very competent. More -- more important
even than me thinking that she was competent, which is
usually important, I felt that philosophically we were
aligned. I think -- I felt that we were after the same
thing and that's really important to me.
Q. Did you have to same kind of conversation with
Ryan, telling him what was important to you and public
records and open government?
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yeah, and I -- my sense of Ryan is that he is a
cent human being who's trying to do the right thing.
-- I -- you know, I think he is in a very -- was in a
ry difficult position. I think there is a tremendous
aunt of influence that Marty has over the firm. One
of the issues that came up repeatedly -- now, I
witnessed this. You know, I -- I would be there, you
know, for a day or part of the day to talk to attorneys
about cases or whatever and -- and a lot of my
interaction with the firm wasn't just as a client, it
was also hey, what do you think we ought to do or, you
know -- there were some procedural questions they had,
but mainly it was sort of really trying to understand
the lay of the land as far as public records litigation
is concerned because I obviously had done a lot more
than they had. And I was very happy to -- to engage in
that respect. But frequently when I was there, Marty
would come in and, you know, just sort of -- it was a
train wreck. I mean he was very opinionated about how
cases ought to be handled, which I found -- at first it
was a little charming, but then it just became really
annoying because it's like wait a minute, I understand
you're financing the foundation and you're financing the
w firm, but you don't have a voice here. This
n't -- the foundation is not your toy. You don't have
m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any standing to have any input here even if you are the
donor. You're -- you're not on the board. You're not
an employee. I'm the only person that has the
discretion about this.
Q. So he would come in and in front of the lawyers
and you try to direct the litigation?
A. I don't know if direct is the right word. He
would come back there and very much sort of, you know,
this is what I think ought to be done on these cases.
Q. Was this a regular occurrence while you were
there?
A. Oh, yeah, very regular. Yeah, I mean I -- at
least when I was there, yeah, it was very common.
Q. And you expressed your disappointment or
A. Yeah, I -- you know, I -- I never told him to
but out. You know, it was one of those -- you know, I
kind of rolled my eyes and, you know -- but this was a
real issue for Marrett and she was -- as far as the
escalation of her being marginalized to the point not
only she was removed from the cases that -- where I was
the plaintiff in spite of the fact I was very happy with
her representation, but then she was excluded from
conversations. She was -- you know, they would -- they
being Jonathan and -- Ryan would -- and sometimes
Giovanni even would go and -- literally go into Marty's
NM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
private office and exclude her from the conversations
about cases that she should have been involved with.
And she just felt more -- and you'll see this in the
e- mails. She felt more and more marginalized, and I
think she was, and eventually she -- she left. I think
it was sort of a mutual -- I don't know if she was fired
or quit. I think she was probably more fired than she
was -- than she quit.
Q. Okay. Let me ask this, when -- when you had,
in February, these conversations with her about Jonathan
trying to negotiate more in fees than had been earned in
your cases --
A. Uh -huh.
Q. -- did that ever, in February, result in you
having any direct communication with Jonathan on that
topic? And if there's a conversation later, you can
tell me that and we'll deal with that in --
chronologically.
A. Yeah, I -- well, I don't know that we had
conversations about that in January -- in February
specifically. I can't say that within -- within that
particular timeframe. We may have. Certainly this is
an issue that Jonathan and I really battled over
subsequent to this.
Q. Okay. We'll get to that. I don't want to keep
no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- let me let you get back to your --
A. So --
Q. -- your chronology of what you were relating to
A. Yeah, so things -- you know, for -- to the very
large extent I was left alone for most of February and
most of March. And then in -- in April, I believe it
as in April, let me look at my timeline here, I was
contacted by Denise DeMartini and -- let me find it
here. Yeah, it was in -- I'm sorry, it was in March
27th. That is when Marrett Hanna told me she had been
removed from the cases.
Q. What date?
A. It was in March.
Q. Okay.
A. So some of the other -- you know, where I
started seeing what I refer to red -- red flags, I got
a -- I got an e -mail from a woman named Jill Mohler,
M- o- h -1 -e -r --
Q. And who is she?
A. She is the secretary, receptionist, for the
Commerce Group, very sweet lady, very nice lady.
Q. She's -- she's an employee of Marty's company?
A. Yes.
Q. And has been for how long, do you know?
M
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
A. I -- not long.
Q. Okay.
A. A year or so maybe.
Q. Receptionist, okay.
A. Yeah, very nice lady. I found out from her
that -- and I had been completely unaware of this, that
she was actually making public records requests on
behalf of the foundation. This was in April.
Q. Without your knowledge?
A. Without my knowledge. I had no idea she was
doing it.
Q. She's not an employee --
A. No, she's not an employee. She's not an
employee or a volunteer or anything else. She's --
she's -- she has no affiliation with the foundation,
ne.
Q. How did you learn this?
A. She -- she -- I got an e -mail from her and --
is is what the e -mail says, "Hi, Joel, Marty requested
at I send you the attached records request from
sponses to review as well as the records requests cost
timate spreadsheet also attached, after review all,
rty would like to speak with you about them, I left
u a voicemail and" -- you know, and this was in
lationship to public records requests that had been
[R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ode to Gulf Stream and I was --
Q. In the name of the foundation?
A. Yeah, in the name of the foundation, which I --
there were a number of issues there for me. One was,
okay, you guys aren't being very clever about this
because you might want to take into consideration that
while you're sending this from a -- a Citizens Awareness
Foundation e -mail, you're transmittal sheet has the
Commerce Group phone number and address on it, so, you
know, it's pretty transparent who's really making the
public records request. Two, I didn't authorize you to
make the request. Three, the requests aren't well
written. They're -- they're defective in my opinion.
And four, why are we sending all these public records
request to -- to Gulf Stream? I --
Q. How many were there?
A. Well, at one point it came to my attention that
hundreds of have been made. It was well over -- I say
hundreds, well over a hundred. I think the number that
sticks in my head was like 160 or something.
Q. And these were made in what month or what time
period?
A. I don't know. I don't know.
Q. 2014?
A. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Since the foundation
[M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
got started, yeah.
Q. Okay. So they were made after January 22nd?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Over 100 and --
A. In the name of the foundation. I did not know
about them. I didn't authorize them. And part of
the -- part of the problem I had with this was the deal
I had with Marty sitting by his pool on Wednesday, I
think January 22nd, was no enemies list. I knew that
Marty had a -- sort of had an ax to grind with the
city -- with the Town of Gulf Stream and while I think
that the Town of Gulf Stream has had a remarkable series
of public records challenges, they in my opinion have
not been very compliant with the Public Records Act,
I -- I don't want to beat up on them. I mean how many
times do you need to sue somebody to make your point? I
can if I have to sue the same defendant ten times in a
row, fine, but I don't want to sue them ten times all at
once. And I didn't see any point in making all these
public records requests to a town with 500 people. I
mean there are all of these other agencies in the state
of Florida. There are -- there are 412 municipalities.
There's 67 counties, which means there's 67 school
districts and 67 sheriffs. There are over 100 State
agencies and there are 1,600 community development
rrv-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
districts. And there are probably 10,000 state -- state
contractors under the Public Records Act. There are
lots of other people out there besides just the Town of
Gulf Stream. And if we're making hundreds of public
records requests to one very small agency, it really
looks like we're picking on them.
Q. Like an enemies list?
A. Yeah, which was part of the deal, no enemies
list.
Q. And you knew that Marty had a bone to chew with
Gulf Stream, I take it, from your prior conversations
with him?
A. Yeah, sure. Yeah, I mean I knew about him
painting his house and -- and I mean I personally --
look I personally had sued Gulf Stream over a public
records violation, so I -- I knew that -- that the
public records issues there were very real and frankly,
it is remarkable to me that they have been slow, so
slow, to really get their house in order for
Q. It's a tiny, tiny local government
A. It's a tiny town --
Q. -- one or two employees --
A. Sure.
Q. Local employees?
A. Yes.
AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Let me ask you this, when you learned that Jill
Mohler -- when you learned in March that Jill Mohler --
A. April I think.
Q. April, April -- had at Marty's direction, sent
out well over 100 public records requests in the name of
the foundation to Gulf Stream without your permission,
what was your -- what did you do? What was your
reaction?
A. I was pretty upset and this led to
conversations that I had with Bill Ring as the president
of the foundation that we couldn't be doing this. This
is -- we can't have this. I -- I needed to be the only
person that's making public records requests, or if I'm
not the only person making public records requests,
then -- then I need to be the only -- I need to be the
person that approves them. By this juncture, there were
three employees for the foundation. I was the Executive
Director. I hired a woman by the name of Cathy Zollo,
Z- o- 1 -1 -o, who worked from her home in Sarasota, to my
knowledge. I don't think she's ever been to the office
in Deerfield Beach. I don't think she's ever met Marty
or any of the other -- I think she's talked to Denise
DeMartini on the phone, but she's never had any contact
with them. And then we had an intern, a guy named Dylan
Bouscher. And I directed them to make public records
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requests on behalf of the foundation. But I never
directed anybody else to make public records requests,
certainly nobody outside of the foundation.
Q. I take it you didn't even know who Jill Mohler
was at the time she was making --
A. No, I knew who she was. I mean I spoke to Jill
every time I walked through the door, hey, Jill, how are
u --
Q. So you -- you knew she was a receptionist for
the -- for the Commerce Group?
A. Yeah. What I found out was -- you know, it's
funny because she -- you know, we -- I walk in and
there's this big stack of paper and she's -- you know,
all the time doing something on the computer. I found
out later what she was doing on the computer was making
public records requests. I mean my understanding from
her and from other people in the -- at the Commerce
Group, this was like a full -time enterprise where she
was doing nothing but making public records requests. I
don't know --
Q. Making them to other entities besides Gulf
Stream?
A. No, Gulf Stream over and over again.
Q. But what about any other entities, did she do
anv other --
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay.
A. I mean I know one time on -- you know, for
Marty or the Commerce Group she's making lots of public
records requests, the State Attorney and other agencies
like that, but -- and I didn't care about that. The --
hat I was concerned about was that the -- that there
was somebody who was presenting themselves as being a
representative of the foundation and making public
records requests on behalf of the foundation without my
knowledge, without my authorization. And I had a
problem with that for the -- the first big issue I had
was it looks like an enemies list.
Q. And then the only -- when you learned about
being done in the name of the foundation through Jill
Mohler and Marty, was -- Gulf Stream was the target, no
others?
A. I think there was -- I think at one time I
found out about -- there's an engineering firm I think
that -- that worked for Gulf Stream, but they had --
they all related to Gulf Stream, the ones that I knew
about. And I found that very upsetting.
Q. And these were not authorized by the foundation
or you?
A. Not by me.
.m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
Q. And when you talked to Bill Ring, you
complained to him about this?
A. I sure did.
Q. And what did he say?
A. Sort of like, yeah, you know, okay, I'll talk
to Marty about it kind of thing and, you know -- and
I -- and the reason I didn't escalate this was each --
this came up over -- more than one time. Every time I'd
sort of get this pat on the head, yeah, you're right,
okay, we'll take care of it. And bear in mind I wasn't
there very much, right. I -- I showed up at the offices
in Deerfield Beach once a week, once every couple of
weeks. The rest of the time I was out on the road, you
know, being with civil rights groups and doing audits.
So I -- you know, I didn't really have a lot of contact
with them, certainly not -- not on a daily basis.
And then -- and in the -- during this period
in -- in April is when things really started to become
more unhinged. The -- yeah, on April 14th, I got an
e -mail from Denise DeMartini, who was a board member,
who I was ultimately directed by the board, meaning Bill
Bring and Denise DeMartini, that she was the person that
I answered to directly. She was my direct superior.
Q. And she's Marty's administrative assistant?
A. I think she's more than that. I think she -- I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
don't know what her official title is, but she's --
she --
Q. His right hand?
A. That's very -- I -- yeah, my sense is, and I
think that other people that are at the Commerce Group
would share this sense, that there's Marty and then
there's Denise and Bill and then there's everybody else,
way, way, way behind them. They -- she -- I don't think
anything happens at the Commerce Group of any import
without Bill and Denise being involved with it.
So I got a -- I got an e -mail from her and this
precipitated the conversation that I had subsequently
with Bill Ring and led to a whole series of other
conflicts with the board. She described her involvement
with the firm, and I'm reading from her e -mail, which is
April 14th, 2014, "My involvement with the firm ", the
O'Boyle Law Firm, "is primarily to get procedures,
priorities, expectations in place for the attorneys so
that things run smoother. The firm's priority is to
keep up with the intake of cases so we want you to run
with it, no holding back, so we can properly staff up.
Obviously there are going to be bumps along the way that
we can overcome." My concern was that it became --
Q. She -- is she writing -- she's -- as far as you
understood, she was on the board and she was an employee
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of Mr. O'Boyle's, Martin O'Boyle's, Commerce Group?
A. Yes.
Q. She sent you that e -mail. Did you understand
she was trying to now assist Jonathan's law firm?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that come as a surprise, surprise to you?
A. Yes, it did. It was shocking to me and I
objected to it vociferously.
Q. And she -- because your whole idea of
independence was out the window?
A. Yeah. Yeah, and -- and it was portrayed -- the
reason she's -- the reason she's giving this explanation
in an e -mail is I'm objecting to, wait a minute, what --
why is a board member involved with the law firm and
what I understood her to try to be saying is I'm just
kind of -- you know, I'm kind of helping them --
Q. Make sure they get business?
A. Well, no, that's not what I understood for her
to be saying. I'm just -- I'm just kind of helping them
figure out, you know, procedures, how to -- you know,
the work flow, just make things
Q. Consulting with them --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- to try to help them
A. Yeah. Yeah.
93 1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. -- staff up?
A. Which was utter nonsense and I raised this
issue with Bill Ring. I said look, you cannot have
Denise DeMartini, a board member of the foundation and
an employee of -- of Marty, involved with the operation
of the law firm. And my argument that she was involved
with the operation of the law firm is she was actually
managing the law firm meetings.
Q. You went to meetings at the law firm where she
as there?
A. She was -- no, she was -- wait, this was --
this is the creepy part, right. She's not even there.
She's on speaker phone running the meeting so --
Q. Who's present during these meetings?
A. The entire law firm. Now, I was there. I --
which I -- you know, I subsequently refused to go to
the -- the law firm meetings.
Q. How many of these meetings were you at?
A. Just the one.
Q. And she ran it from a speaker phone?
A. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
Q. What lawyers were there?
A. Giovanni Mesa, Nick Taylor, I think Marrett was
still there at this time, Jonathan O'Boyle, Ryan
Ahitmer, and Beth Canali(phonetic), who's the -- the
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paralegal. And I was uncomfortable with the meeting for
several reasons. The first and most obvious is that you
have a non - attorney who's a board member who I report to
directly who is clearly, clearly running this meeting.
That's the first thing that just struck me as beyond
bizarre.
Q. Did she was doing it on behalf of -- that she
was given direction from Martin O'Boyle?
A. No. It was simply just clear that she was
running the meeting.
Q. Okay.
A. And when I say running the meeting, it's --
it's sort of, you know, which cases do we have coming
in, which attorneys are these -- these have been
assigned to, what's the status of this case. And it
wasn't even -- when I say status of the case, just has
it been filed yet or not, not a -- any meaningful case
management, which I found very frustrating. There
didn't seem to be any comprehension on her part about
settlement risings or, you know, procedural issues, you
know, are we doing an immediate hearing, are we, you
know, going to go for summary judgment, just none of
that. It was just sort of --
Q. Every -- it sounds like everything was about,
tell me if this is correct, everything she was focusing
95 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on was about generating a number of lawsuits for the
O'Boyle Law Firm --
A. Yes. The second objection I had was that I
thought I was there because we were going to talk about
the foundation cases. It made perfect sense to me that
we would get all the attorneys together because it would
be much more efficient to do that. But what we ended up
doing is they -- well, while I was there, they ended up
having conversations about other clients, which I found
very troubling because I'm not a party to the
lawsuits --
Q. Public records cases?
A. Yes. I had referred to the -- the firm a
number of clients, people that had contacted me,
people -- some that I've known for years, some that just
contacted me out of the blue, you know, I have public
records issues and I'm not an attorney but I have a law
firm that --
Q. Can you give me names of those people?
A. Yeah, a guy named Jeff Gray, who gave them a
large number of cases, which in my estimation has been
terribly problematic.
Q. Where is Mr. Gray?
A. Jeff Gray lives in Saint Augustine. He's a
civil rights activist. We do a lot of work together.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
He's a good guy, very --
Q. Okay.
A. -- very reasonable --
Q. Later I may want to get his phone number from
you, but --
A. I'll be happy to give that to you. The problem
that he ran into was the cases that he was -- in fact,
he was the -- he was one of the activists that was
attending this seminar I did the first week of the
foundation. He had referred a number of cases too. I
think he gave a total of 42 cases to the firm and they
were not filing them in a timely fashion. It was very
frustrating and he didn't feel like they were
communicating with him.
Q. Were these cases in Saint Augustine or --
A. No, all over the state.
Q. All over the state?
A. Yeah. And I was frustrated because, number
one, Jeff and I are friends and I didn't feel like he
was really being treated very well. I didn't think he
was getting good customer service. But also just from
an advocacy perspective, my -- I feel, generally
speaking, that if you're going to file a public records
lawsuit, you need to do it pretty quickly after the --
the violation of your rights for a whole lot of reasons,
97 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not the least of which -- if you wait six months to do
it, it doesn't really look like -- look like you're all
that interested in the records. So that was one of the
issues. He didn't -- he just didn't feel like he was
being treated very well.
Q. And did they discuss Jeff Gray at these --
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. -- meetings in front of you?
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. Even though it was a different client?
A. Even though it was a different client, just no
consideration for privilege whatsoever.
Q. And who else -- who else did you refer to them?
A. A fellow by the came of Al Crespo down in
Miami.
Q. C- r- e- s -p -o?
A. Yeah.
Q. I may want his number later.
A. Yeah.
Q. Did they discuss him in front of you --
A. Yes.
Q. -- at this meeting too?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And -- and no protection of his privacy?
A. I mean I -- now, I knew about the cases because
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these -- Al had contacted me asking for a referral.
Jeff had contacted me asking for a referral. So I knew
the basic and I -- I guess one of the value -added things
I brought to the relationship was I have enough
experience in public records litigation and I can look
at the facts of the case and I have a pretty good sense
of whether I think they're worth doing or not. I don't
make that judgment and I don't share that judgment
with -- with the potential plaintiff, but I certainly
share that judgment with the attorneys. The attorneys
are going to ask me, is this a good case, yeah, I think
it is or no, I don't think it is. I mean do I think you
should take it, no, yes, you know, you should, whatever,
based on the facts. So I was very intimate --
adamant --
Q. Some of the lawyers at the firm would ask
A. Yeah, sure.
Q. -- at the O'Boyle firm?
A. Yeah.
Q. But Crespo and Gray had never authorized the
lawyers to speak to you about their case?
A. I don't know whether they did or not. I -- I
would assume they didn't --
Q. They never told you that --
WE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
A. Yeah, but I -- I was very uncomfortable with
this because it was very clear that Denise was running
the meeting. And then subsequent, she -- she started
demanding from me an accounting of how many cases I was
giving to the firm. And in fact, I received an e -mail
from her, just to kind of show that this was not a
one -time event -- you know, and again, Marty was still
very involved at this point, so for example, Marty was
approving the mission statement. And this is in -- on
April 16th I get an e -mail from Denise saying that
arty's approved the -- the mission statement.
I got a -- well, let me just shift gears a
little bit because we're going -- we're kind of all over
the map here. The -- just to kind of keep things in
chronological order. So on -- on April 14th, I get the
e -mail from Denise explaining her involvement with the
law firm. Then I get an e -mail from Jonathan saying
that he has assigned a case to himself.
Q. A Florida case?
A. Yes. So he -- he's asking me -- I got an
e -mail from him, I think it was on a Saturday --
Q. Do you know which case it was?
A. Yeah, it was a case against the Department of
Children and Families Services, DCF -- DFC -- I think he
.neant DCF.
13M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. Brought by whom?
A. The foundation and --
Q. He told you he was assigning that case to
himself?
A. Well, I'll read you the e -mail, "Hey, Joel ",
the says DFC, but I think he meant DCF, "the DFC link is
not working." And what he means by link is I would -- I
had set up a drop -box account and I would upload -- you
know, if I had video or if I had e -mail exchange,
whatever documents, whatever -- whatever I had to
support the facts of the case, I would upload those to
the drop -box and that's how I shared them with the
attorneys at -- at a distance --
Q. Let me -- let me just ask you this on this
topic --
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever direct Jonathan O'Boyle to take
over that case or did he just tell you he was taking
over the case?
A. I didn't direct him to do anything.
Q. Okay. Let's move on to the next thing then.
A. Yeah, well he said -- then he says "I have
assigned myself the case, any chance you can get that
link ", get the link to the video. So I mean that --
here he clearly seems to be saying that's he's not
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
He's
Then it's -- on the 16th of April I get the
e -mail from Denise DeMartini saying that Marty's
approved the mission statement for the foundation. Then
I get a very troubling e -mail on -- from Denise on April
28th. And the e -mail reads, this is April 28th, 2014 at
11:17 a.m., "Joel, I am in a law meeting now and have
been told that you have only provided eight new cases
for this week. We were expecting a minimum of 25 a
week." I pretty much flipped out after that. Number
one, I don't have a quota for cases. Any cases that --
that are the result of the advocacy that I do, or
however many we get, if it's a lot, it's a lot. If
there's none, there's none. My paycheck's not affected
by whether we get lawsuits. That's not what I'm being
paid to do. I'm not hired to go out and gen up
lawsuits. I'm hired to go out and do civil rights ad --
advocacy. And it's very clear at this point that she
thinks that my job is nothing more than to get lawsuits
and I was very disturbed by that.
I was also disturbed that she was continuing to
be a part of these meetings. So she's clearly in the
law firm meeting as, I guess a Commerce Group employee,
a member of the board, I don't know, working for firm,
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
who knows what the deal is. But I have somebody who I'm
reporting to while she's in a law firm meeting telling
me she expects 25 cases a week and suddenly this starts
to feel like something very different than what I signed
up for. And what it's feeling like is I'm really
getting paid to go out and get lawsuits, which is not
hat I agreed to do. It was not my job description.
Q. Well, were the lawsuits ever -- did you ever
try to send the lawsuits to some firm other than the
O'Boyle Law Firm.)
A. I did as a matter of fact. There was a case
t I tried to send to the -- to Thomas and LoCicero
presented me personally for a number of years. There
s actually a very good case with excellent facts. The
iversity of South Florida, Barnes & Noble College Book
llers, they operate the -- have the contract to
erate the book store at USF as well as a number of
her book stores around the state at State
iversities. And my brother and I went in there in
April, I think it was April 24th, to -- I made a public
records request on behalf of the foundation and he made
a public records request on his on behalf and they told
as no, we couldn't have -- we asked for the adoption
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forms, the -- the book store sends out a request to all
of the faculty asking which text books they're going to
need for the upcoming semester and they fill out these
adoption forms and we wanted copies of them. And the
reason we were making this request is -- Barnes & Nobles
got sued over this a number of years ago. In fact there
was a Fourth DCA decision and it said that they have to
make these forms available. They're clearly public
record because they're acting on behalf of the
university. And the facts that they got in that audit
were virtually identical to the -- I want it was a 1998
(case, Booksmart versus Barnes & Noble, virtually
identical facts to the -- an appellate decision started
to come down and I -- my brother continues to use Thomas
LoCicero. Thomas and LoCicero still represents me
onally. It's ongoing public records litigation.
we shared -- Robert shared with them, my brother
rt shared with them, what happened and they
ressed an interest in the case. It's interesting.
rued in Hillsborough County and Thomas and LoCicero
attorneys, and they had expressed an interest in it, I
thought well, this would be -- this is the one -- if
104
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're going to refer one to another law firm, this is
where I'd like to start.
And so I sent an e -mail to Bill Ring asking
his -- for his approval as chairman -- as president of
the board to do that and he responded by telling me I
couldn't do it. He and Denise had talked about it and I
can't -- I can't refer it to them, that he's not
inclined to let me refer any cases to any other law firm
besides the O'Boyle Law Firm.
Q. What was your reaction to that?
A. I was very unhappy about that. And a lot of
these things came to a head in May. I had a -- we had
tried to schedule a meeting -- it was the first and only
face -to -face meeting I had with the board the entire
time I was there, and this was in -- in May.
Q. Okay. Before you go to that --
A. Yep.
Q. -- help the reporter and me, the law firm was
Thomas
A. Thomas and LoCicero.
Q. T- h- o- m -a -s?
A. uh -huh.
Q. And?
A. LoCicero, L -- see, you're going to ask me to
spell it and I'm going to be embarrassed because --
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. LoCicero?
A. Yeah, L --
Q. Just get close. Where are they, in what town?
A. They're in -- they're in Tampa. Hold on a
second, if I was writing it out I could tell you. I can
look it up and tell you. I can give you the exact
spelling here --
Q. And they represent you currently and have
represented you --
A. For a long time. LoCicero, is capital L, lower
case 0, capital C- i- c- e -r -o.
Q. And in Tampa, okay.
A. Yeah.
Q. You were going to give me the names of other
clients that you had referred to the O'Boyle Law Firm.
A. Yeah --
Q. Al Gray -- Al Crespo.
A. I'd have to go back and look. I can't
remember.
Q. Okay. All right, now please, you were going
to -- you were going to go to May --
A. Yeah, so we --
Q. -- and then let's break. I'd like to get a
little lunch.
A. Yeah, sure. There were -- these issues that
106
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
were -- that were building, the first was -- they're not
in any particular order. It was the issue of -- of Jill
Mohler making public records requests on behalf of the
foundation without my knowledge or authorization. And
apparently a lot of them going to Gulf Stream, which I
found deeply troubling. Then I found out that a lawsuit
had been filed on behalf of the foundation against Gulf
Stream without my knowledge.
Q. Only one you learned of?
A. I think there was one.
Q. But you don't know now if there were more or
A. No, I don't -- who knows. I mean the problem
was no lawsuits were supposed to be filed without me
authorizing them and me supervising the -- the
litigation and making decisions about settlement. And
then I come to find out that now a lawsuit had already
been filed against Gulf Stream without my knowledge.
Q. Do you know which lawyer filed it?
A. I don't know. Somebody at the O'Boyle Law
Firm.
Q. Do you know if Jonathan O'Boyle had any
direction -- directed that?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. How did you learn that a lawsuit had
been filed by the foundation against Gulf Stream without
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your knowledge?
A. I want to say that -- I think Giovanni Mesa had
mentioned it to me because he didn't -- he was
expressing real concerns, ethical concerns, as well,
very much like what Marrett had -- Marrett Hanna had
expressed. So leading up to this -- this meeting, which
I believe we had on May 19th --
Q. This is the board meeting, the only board
meeting that ever occurred?
A. Yeah, and just kind of leading up to that, on
May 7th I got an e -mail from Denise DeMartini where she
is talking about having access to CLEO, which was the
firm's case management software. So she has direct
access to the firm's --
Q. The law firm's?
A. The law firm's, yes.
Q. You didn't have access to that --
A. No, I didn't have access. No.
Q. What was your reaction when you found out she
had access to -- CLEO is the firm's -- that's the --
that's the short name for the firm's
A. Yeah, it's their -- it's their -- yeah, it's
their case management software. The e -mail, this is May
7th, 2014, "I have attached Jeff Gray and Jeff Fraser's
report ", Jeff Fraser is another client, "are there any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other clients you need or is this just -- just the three
that you need ?" And then she later says to me -- later
that day I get an e -mail from her. She's -- I get
copied on this. This is to Beth Canali, who is the
paralegal, "Please review the cash report and tell me if
this matches your records? This is what came out of
CLEO, so it should be accurate." I mean she clearly has
access to --
Q. So the law firm has given her records regarding
all of the clients that she's giving you as the
foundation executive director?
A. Yeah. Why would I -- why would I -- I mean I'm
interested individually, and even as the executive
director of the foundation. I'm interested in -- in
general terms, getting a sense of, you know, if I've
referred Jeff Fraser or Jeff Gray or Al Crespo, are you
guying taking care of them, you know, how's -- you know,
as an advocate for open government, I'm interested to
hear the details generally --
Q. Right --
A. -- about -- about how things are going. And
her response is that she's been climbing around in CLEO
and she can give me the -- all the details.
Q. So not only are they discussing these clients'
cases in your presence at law firm meetings, but now
13M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yes.
Q. What was your reaction to that?
A. Well, what about attorney /client privilege
-- but more important to me than that is the -- why
it that the person that I report to, who is a member
the board, why is she involved with the day -to -day
erations of the law firm? This seems like a very
serious problem especially when this person is now
telling me that she expects me to generate 25 cases a
week. And then she and Bill are telling me you can't
refer cases to any other law firm. I mean it becomes --
now it's becoming clear to me that we are having a
lure to communicate. I understand that I work for a
tion that's independent of Marty's influence and
independent of the firm's influence. I understand my
job is to go out and do civil rights advocacy. And if
litigation results from that, I make the decision about
where that -- what law firm it gets referred to. I make
the decision about commencing litigation. I make the
decisions about settlements. I make the decisions about
litigation strategies. I'm the only person that
authorizes public records requests be made. That's my
understanding. And what I'm beginning to see is that's
110
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
not what's happening, that -- and I -- you know, in an
effort to try to not overreact, I sent a series of
e -mails about this. I sent memorandums to the board
about this. And it led to a meeting which I requested
which we ultimately had on May 19th
Q. Before you get to May 19th
A. Uh -huh.
Q. -- there's a couple little things I want to --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- clarify. If you -- if you authorized a
public records request be made, would you do that by
e -mail or orally? How would that be done and who on
your staff would make it?
A. The only people I ever authorized to do that
would have been Dylan Bouscher, who's an intern, and
Cathy Zollo.
Q. So any that were made by people other than
those were not authorized by --
A. That's exactly right.
Q. Okay. And if you authorized the lawsuit to be
filed, would you -- how would you do that?
A. General -- it could be either verbally or in
writing.
Q. Okay. And who would you give the authorization
to?
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. The -- well, to the law firm, you know --
Q. Would you keep records of any lawsuits that you
did authorize for their --
A. No, that was one of the -- that was one of the
first -- that was one of the ongoing issues that we had,
was there were so many cases, so for example, on -- on
May 16th, I have an e -mail exchange with Denise and
she's really very, very eager to find out about how many
cases were filed. So I go back, and it was very
difficult to piece this together because the firm was --
would -- had great difficulty in generating any kind of
a report that would show me what cases had been
referred, what cases had been filed, what's the status.
So as best I was able to piece together, I gave her a
summary, which she then responded to me, "Joel,
according to the case management spreadsheet you sent
me, I come up with the following number of cases.
Please let me know if this is correct and whether they
include all your people, Jeff Gray, et cetera ", and I
assume she means the people that I referred to the
foundation -- or the firm. January, there were ten
cases. February there were 25 cases. March there were
35 cases. April there were 90 cases. And May thus far,
51 cases. And this was sent to her on May 16th. And
she expressed to me on more than one occasion her
112
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
frustration that I was not -- you know, like there
should be more cases. And my response is no, there
shouldn't be. There -- there will be however many there
e.
Q. Did you ever check to see if these cases had
all been authorized by you to be filed?
A. Well, what -- the numbers that I'm giving her
are ones that I -- that either I have referred to her
for -- on behalf of the -- not to her, referred to the
firm on behalf of the foundation or people that I have
referred to the firm that I thought were, you know,
meritorious cases.
Q. Okay. So these are -- these cases that you
looked at on this sheet are the cases that you either
referred or authorized to be commenced?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, so you know about that. So if there are
others that were filed --
A. I don't know about them.
Q. You didn't authorize them?
A. Right. So --
Q. Does this sheet list all the names of the cases
that you authorized to be filed?
A. Yeah, it should have. Yeah.
Q. Okay. All right.
113 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yeah. So I had gotten -- prior to this -- this
meeting with the board, Bill and Denise, I had gotten a
document from Jill Mohler that was sent apparently on
behalf of the foundation, the board, called Procedures
and Protocol. If you want to stop for lunch, this might
be a good time to do it before we get into more detail
Q. Okay, that's perfect.
A. Is that okay?
Q. That's perfect. So we're going to start --
that's May 19th?
A. May 19th, yes.
MR. SWEETAPPLE: We'll start at May 19th
when -- when I come back. All right, thank you.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the video record
at 1:04 p.m.
(A short recess was taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the video record
at 2:04 p.m.
Q. All right. Mr. Chandler, I think when we broke
you were at May 19 in your --
A. Yes.
Q. -- narrative.
A. Yes. So on -- after several weeks of trying to
schedule a meeting, what ended up being the first and
114 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e last face -to -face meeting with the -- with the
ard, I -- I drove down to Boca -- Deerfield Beach and
d a meeting with Bill Ring and Denise DeMartini.
for to that, I had received a memorandum from Jill
er on behalf of the foundation. And again, Jill did
entitled "Procedures /Protocol" and -- so I prepared a
memorandum which I use as my notes for the meeting that
I had with the board. So if you'll bear with me, I'm
going to -- it's a couple of pages. I'm going to read
this because it captures -- everything that's in this
memorandum I addressed with the board specifically. So
I wrote "I have read and thoughtfully considered the
protocol -- Procedure /Protocol memo, the memo that
received -- that I received from Jill Mohler on Friday,
May 16th, 2014. There are several points that I would
like to address." And again, I used what I'm reading
w as -- as my notes for my conversation with Bill and
nise. "Specifically, the items enumerated 1, 2, 7,
d 8, each of these deal squarely with the question of
o has the authority to make public records requests on
half of the Citizens Awareness Foundation and who has
the authority to authorize the commencement and
settlement of open government litigation on behalf of
the foundation. The memo expressly states that there
115
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
ement of settlement -- commencement and
ttlement of open government litigation, Bill Ring,
nise DeMartini, Brenda Russell, and Joel Chandler.
ditionally, the memo clearly states that each of those
rties has the authority or power to delegate to,
ote, anyone, end quote, the same authority. At this
point, I want to express in unequivocal terms my
disagreement with the aforementioned policies. In my
judgment, it is imperative that only one person be given
authority to make public records requests and to engage
in and settle open government litigation on behalf of
the foundation and that person should be me. It would
difficult to overstate the degree to which the
foundation will be scrutinized by defendants, opposing
counsels, the courts, and the legislature given the
number of open government lawsuit s we are presently
engaged in and the volume of cases we anticipate in the
future. Based upon my experience in open government
advocacy, I have estimated that we can expect to file
about 100 cases per month. That number includes cases
filed by the foundation and those the foundation has
provided some meaningful assistance in bringing. To put
t number in perspective, the top ten open government
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
litigators in Florida combined probably file less than
100 cases per year. We are, consequently, the focus of
various well- funded and politically powerful
adversaries. There are 412 municipalities, 67 counties,
66 sheriffs, Miami /Dade County does not have one, 67
school boards, more than 1,600 community development
stricts, 20 State Attorneys, 20 medical examiners,
re than 100 State agencies, and thousands, perhaps as
many as 10,000, State contractors. They are all subject
to Florida's extraordinarily broad open government law
and they despise what we do. More importantly, they are
extraordinarily well- funded and collectively the most
powerful political entities in Florida. Here I can
speak from long personal experience. They will do
whatever is within their power to stop us. They are
presently scrutinizing public records requests that we
make and every case we file. They are actively looking
for opportunities to exploit any weakness they can find.
And they communicate with each other to an extent that
is shocking to the uninitiated. From my personal
experience, they are willing to engage in threats of
civil litigation, criminal prosecution, and violence.
They're willing to launch criminal investigations and
unlawfully access both DMV and criminal databases.
They're willing to engage in criminal conduct as
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
idenced by the prosecution and conviction of the
neral counsel for the school board of Polk County and
iminal conspiracies. And they are most assuredly
lling to gut Florida's open government laws in order
to stop us. Because of that certainty, I believe that
we must employ every effort to deprive our adversaries
of any claims of misconduct on our part. In addition to
a series of very practical reasons that I would be happy
to articulate at another time, the fact that we live
with targets on our backs should be reason enough to
make us very concerned -- make us take a very
conservative approach to making public records requests
and engaging in open government litigation. This is
ground that I've successfully navigated for the last --
for the past eight years and I've done so at great
personal costs. Given my considerable experience in
this area, I believe that I am extraordinarily
well- equipped to help the foundation avoid the pitfalls
that lay ahead. I am equally convinced that if I'm not
given the authority and resources to do so, the efforts
of the foundation will -- will result in an erosion of
public's right to know. My goal is to sustain what
are doing and to continue to work with the foundation
promote open government. I am absolutely committed
the cause of open government and I'm willing to serve
118
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
at the pleasure of the board of directors and to be
accountable to it. If, however, I do not have the
confidence of the board to have both the resources and
the authority to act on its behalf, then I believe we
should now consider how best to bring to a close my
relationship with the foundation."
I did not read that in the meeting that I had
with Bill and Denise, but I did cover every point in
there and then some. And this was the result of the
series of concerns that I addressed earlier, the fact
that public records requests were being made by parties
that were not a part of the foundation that I did not
know about, I did not authorize them, the lawsuits had
been filed without my authorization, the fact that
Denise DeMartini was functioning both as a board member
of the foundation and she was involved with the
day -to -day operations of the law firm --
Q. And also worked for Mr. Martin O'Boyle's
y'
A. And she worked for Marty O'Boyle, that's right.
And my concern was that given the scrutiny that we were
going to be under, we really have to behave ourselves.
fie can't do things that would allow anyone to
legitimately claim that we were involved with things we
shouldn't be involved with. And that if I did not have
119 1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Denise DeMartini, her response was -- she was
incredulous that I would quit my job and her response
was something to the effect that, you know, there's no
way you're going to quit a job paying you $120,000 a
year. And my response to her was that if you don't -- I
think my exact words were if you guys don't stop this
nonsense, I'm going to fucking quit. She again
expressed her incredility that I would just quit and
that -- I think this was on a Monday and I had -- was
eduled to be there all week because I was scheduled
be deposed in some cases later in the week. And when
I went down on Sunday night, I checked into a hotel
right up the street from the -- the foundation. I got a
room for one night and I packed my bags on Monday
morning before I went into the office because I expected
I was going to be going home. I mean my expectation was
I'm -- I'm going to quit, and I told her that.
So we broke -- took a break in the meeting and
sometime later we reconvened and Bill and Denise
nounced to me that they agreed, that I would be given
le authority to make public records requests, no one
11 make public records requests without my knowledge,
120
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
at there would be no more cases filed without me being
Q. Now, did they tell you they called Marty in the
recess, during the recess?
A. They said they were going to talk to him. In
fact at one point during this conversation, Bill told me
that this is the way it has to be, all these things I
was objecting to. And I believe his exact words were
that's the way big daddy wants it, meaning Marty
O'Boyle, and he actually made a -- he said if -- if it's
not going to be this way, then big daddy is going to
turn off the spigot of money. And my response was well
this big daddy is going to turn off the spigot of cases.
And Bill says so this is just a pissing match between
you and Marty. I was like I guess so. I can tell you
who is going to win. And his response was, oh, yeah,
Marty. And I was like no fucking way. I guarantee I
win this fight. There's no way I'm going to continue to
be a part of this if we -- if we don't stop this
nsense.
And again, this was the most -- probably the
9rior to this and every time I sort of got the pat on
121
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the head, we're going to straighten up and fly right, we
won't do it anymore, we're going to do the right thing,
you're in control, we'll -- we'll, you know, defer to
your judgment. And I -- I actually left this meeting
somewhat optimistic that things were going to work out.
In fact I went back to the hotel and checked back in and
ended up staying for the week only to find out the next
day that a lawsuit had been filed against Gulf Stream
without my authorization and without my knowledge. So
they did the same exact thing the very next day.
Q. The next day they filed the lawsuit?
A. The next day they filed the lawsuit without me
knowing about it.
Q. On behalf of the --
A. Citizens Awareness Foundation.
Q. Okay.
A. Now, later that day, Marty called me into the
conference room and it was just the two of us and he
said to me I got your message loud and clear and I
understand this is the way it has to be. So I took from
that him to mean that -- that, you know, okay, you --
you win, we'll do it your way and we'll all behave.
Unfortunately that's not the way things played out.
So after the -- after that meeting on the 19th,
on the 21st I was copied on an e -mail exchange between
122 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ryan Whitmer and Jonathan O'Boyle where Ryan says, on
ay 21st, 2014 at 5:03 p.m., "John, do you have the
draft CAFI," it's an acronym for the Citizens Awareness
undation, "Do you have a draft of the CAFI fee
reement yet? We need one rather sooner rather than
guess I sound like a broken record. I kept telling them
have to have fee agreements, we have to have fee
reements, which to my knowledge they never did. I
rtainly never signed one.
Then on May 26th, things began to spiral out of
control. I got a -- I had a conversation with -- the
week that I was there, the week of the 19th, during that
week, Denise was there in the office in Deerfield Beach
and I had talked to her and the firm on a number of
occasions about trying to streamline the process of
drafting complaints. And because many of these cases
have very, very, very similar facts, it's unnecessary to
draft a complaint from scratch. You're -- you're
dealing with the same issues over and over again and --
in many instances. So for example, I had done an audit
of charter schools in Florida who are subject to the
lic Records Act and I had done that electronically by
mail, made the same exact request to each of these.
eir responses were very similar. Those that violated
123 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Public Records Act -- you know, there's a limited
number of responses you get; no, we're not going to give
you the records, who are you, why do you want it, you
have to make your request in writing, et cetera. And
because you have this very repetitious process, it
seemed foolish to me to draft complaints from scratch
each time because it's time consuming and because it --
it opens them up to making errors. And what the firm
had done a number of times is they had taken a
previously drafted complaint and gone in and just
changed the names of the defendants. And a couple of
instances they didn't make all the changes, so the style
of the case says ABC and the -- in the body of the
complaint they refer to a completely different
defendant, which is certainly something you can cure by
filing an amended complaint, but it looks foolish and
ecessary and I think terribly unprofessional.
So in an effort to try to avoid that, my
suggestion was that we -- that they use the -- Microsoft
Word's mail -merge functionality. And, you know,
basically you go in and you fill in some blanks and it
populates the fields and wa -la, 15 minutes later you
have a complaint. And I had asked them to do this over
and over again and they had just kind of dragged their
feet about it. And my concern was not so much the
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oductivity issue as it was I wanted them to eliminate
e possibility, or reduce the possibility, of having
So finally the week of the 19th, Denise seemed
to be on board with that and she seemed committed to
implementing that because she was apparently running the
day -to -day operations of the firm --
Q. But did you ever believe she was employed by
the law firm or just volunteer --
A. No, I don't -- no, I don't -- I don't think she
was ever paid by the law firm. She was being paid by
the same person who is financing -- she wasn't paid by
the foundation either to my knowledge. She was being
paid by Marty O'Boyle and her time is being spent
managing me and managing the law firm. And while she's
fulfilling both those responsibilities, she's demanding
that I produce more lawsuits and, you know, where are
the lawsuits, why aren't you giving me 25 a week, and
t sort of thing.
So during this conversation that happened the
week of the 19th, she asked me about helping the law
firm implement this mail -merge functionality. And
during that conversation, she told me that she wanted me
to draft a new template from scratch, a new verified
complaint from scratch that the attorneys would use.
125
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And she sent me a follow -up on the 26th and she says
"Would you please give me an estimated date on when I
can expect the form complaints. I have a very busy week
this week and have to go out of town at the end of the
ek, so I'm trying to schedule my days, thanks." And I
sponded to her -- that was at 3:04 in the afternoon.
7:10 that evening, I sent her -- excuse me, at 11:10
m. I sent her the following response: "Denise, after
long consideration and a discussion with my attorneys,
I've decided not to provide any verified complaints,
template or otherwise. According to my attorney, doing
so would constitute the unlicensed practice of law.
Simply put, a non - attorney may not draft legal
instruments for another person or entity unless he or
she is doing so at the direction of a member of the
rida Bar. Drafting complaints is something I was
e to do before because I was either working pro se or
the capacity as a paralegal." I'm talking about
ore I went to work for the foundation.
"Unfortunately, that's not the case here. I'm sorry
that I did not think about this more fully earlier last
week. It would have saved me many hours of work and
avoided disappointing you. By the way, I've added cases
to the drop box." So I basically just refused to -- to
draft the complaint because I really thought this was
126
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
unlicensed practice of law because she's not an
attorney. I'm not an attorney. It would have been one
thing for the attorneys to ask me to do it. It was
something all together different for a non - attorney to
k me to do it.
She responds the next day with "Please give me
call to discuss. I'm only looking for you to assist
with setting up the mechanics in Excel for the
mail -merge because you already have done it and I don't
have the knowledge. I'm looking for -- I'm only looking
for the template." And I had a follow -up telephone
conversation with Bill Ring about this and I again
objected thinking that Bill's a member of the Florida
Bar, he'll -- he'll get it, he'll understand what my
problem is. And Bill did not understand what my problem
S. He thought it was perfectly fine for Denise, a
legal instrument. And as I explained to Bil
Florida paralegal is sort of a catch -all for
- attorneys. There's no regulation of paralegals.
body that wants to call themselves a paralegal is a
alegal. And paralegals are not authorized to
plete any kind of legal instrument unless it's a form
is been approved by the Florida Supreme Court, and
t ain't this. Our -- you're asking me to draft
127
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something from scratch, that is absolutely prohibited.
And his rationale was I don't see the big deal, just do
it. And again, I refused to do it.
Q. At this time Mr. Ring is not a member of the
law firm, he's --
A. He's president of the foundation.
Q. And an employee of Mr. O'Boyle's company --
A. Right.
Q. -- Commerce Group?
A. Right.
Q. Or partner?
A. Right. So, you know, now I'm beginning at
this -- but at this stage of the game, you know, I've
had this blow -out with the firm -- with the foundation
board. They seemed to have gotten on board and then the
next day I find out that they really are still filing
the lawsuits without my authorization. And as soon as I
caught them doing that, it was sort of like, well ghee,
that one slipped through the cracks, we're sorry.
But -- and that was also sort of the response --
Q. Do you know which lawyer filed that?
A. I don't. It would have been --
Q. We can look and see.
A. Yeah, I don't -- I don't remember which one it
128
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. But it filed -- if that's the day, it will have
that date on the --
A. Yeah, I think it would -- I think it would have
been filed on the 20th.
Q. Okay.
A. Or it may have been filed the 19th. I didn't
find out about it until the next day. But, you know,
things just seemed to be escalating because we've gone
from things that I -- were problematic for me because of
the perception that it creates to what I perceive as
ethical issues to what I perceive as potential Bar
violations to now I'm being directed by my direct
superior, Denise DeMartini, both the president of the
foundation who is a lawyer, not acting as an attorney,
to draft lawsuits on behalf of the law firm. Well, I'm
not a lawyer and I'm not really in a position to draw
legal conclusions, but somehow that just didn't feel
right. And I had talked to a couple of my own personal
attorneys and the consensus was universally that that's
UPL, it's unlicensed to practice law. It's a felony.
You can't do it. And I have been very, very circumspect
over the years about making it very clear to people that
contact me through my website or, you know, in newspaper
article or TV or a story comes out about something that
I'm doing, and inevitably I get a barrage of phone calls
129
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
from private citizens wanting help, and I have been
religious about, you know, giving my profunctory
disclaimer I'm not an attorney, I'm not authorized or
qualified to give you legal advice. I can tell you what
I would do if I were similarly situated, but I'm not an
If you go on my website, both the website that
had before the foundation, and I've resurrected that
website since then, it very -- it very clearly states on
there I'm not a lawyer. I'm -- I'm very, very careful
about UPL. And it really concerned me that not only are
they asking me to do that, but even after I explain --
expressed my concerns and explained my reservations,
they still were pushing me to do something that I
believe would constitute a criminal act. And they just
seemed to have a total disregard for my concerns there.
Then on May 28th, I get an e -mail from Denise
because she's very frustrated and Jonathan O'Boyle are
frustrated, both, because I'm insisting that every
lawsuit that gets filed on behalf of the foundation be a
verified complaint. And the reason I want these cases
be verified -- there are two reasons. One is I want
be sure the facts are right. Secondly, that seemed
me to be a pretty solid way of eliminating the
sibility that -- that lawsuits are going to get filed
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
without my knowledge. If every one of them is verified,
and I'm the only person that's verifying them, it's
going to require my physical signature before it gets
filed. And Denise sent me an e-mail on the 28th --
Q. And again, she's not an employee of the law
firm at this time?
A. No. "Joel, I understand that we are back to
you certifying the complaints before they are filed. I
also understand this requires a notary. John," Jonathan
O'Boyle, "and I would like to discuss this procedure
with you to better understand your thoughts of doing it
upfront whereas John thinks it can be done just as
easily after the filing ", which I just was completely
baffled by that. I mean you can't verify a complaint
after it's been filed. It certainly sounds like John is
involved with giving legal advice to Denise DeMartini
who is the board member that I report to and is wanting
to give me legal advice as executive director of the
foundation, trying to explain to me why I need to be
verifying complaints.
Q. And he's not a lawyer in Florida?
A. To my knowledge, he is not a member of the Bar
in Florida.
Q. All right.
A. Then moving on, I, on June 2nd, we talked about
131
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
this a little bit earlier, on June 2nd I traded e -mails
with Bill Ring. I was seeking authorization for the
board to refer the Barnes & Noble case to Thomas and
LoCicero and I got an e -mail from Bill -- well,
here's -- here's what I asked him on June 2nd --
Q. You're writing him as --
A. I'm writing him --
Q. -- president of the --
A. I'm writing -- I'm writing him as the president
of the foundation, "Going back to a phone conference
that Marty and I had with Bob Twill ", who's a tax
attorney in West Virginia, "the issue of using a law
firm other than the O'Boyle firm has come up. The
rationale is that if we use the O'Boyle Law Firm
exclusively, it will appear to be self - dealing by the
IRS. Although there may not have been any concrete
suggestions as to how many cases should be referred
elsewhere, the consensus has been we should refer at
least some elsewhere. With that in mind, I would like
the board to authorize me to engage Thomas and LoCicero
to take one case, CAFI v. Barnes & Noble. My brother
Robert was with me when I visited the USF campus book
store. The book store is operated by Barnes & Noble.
Robert mentioned the facts of the case to one of the
attorneys that Thomas and LoCicero and they have
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pressed an interest in the case. I've not yet
scussed this with Thomas and LoCicero. Thomas and
LoCicero is a preeminent open government law firm in the
state. Greg Thomas, the firm's senior partner, has
argued many of the landmark public records cases, many
of which are regularly cited in briefs written by the
D'Boyle Law Firm. I would ask them to take the case on
the same terms as the O'Boyle Law Firm, contingency with
the firm bearing all litigation costs. I suspect that
T -Lo ", Thomas and LoCicero, "is interested in the Barnes
& Noble case because it is in Tampa and because Barnes &
Noble is -- was sued over virtually identical facts in a
case that was made that made its way to the Third DCA a
number of years ago. I think an appellate decision is
what T -Lo is most interested in. Let me know if there
are any questions or concerns. I think we need to refer
something to someone other than the O'Boyle Law Firm and
this would be a good case to use for that and T -Lo would
always be my first choice. It will enhance the standing
of the foundation." And what I meant by that is Thomas
and LoCicero, Greg Thomas in particular, is so highly
regarded on open government issues, having him represent
the foundation would have elevated our stature. And I
des hoping that this would be the first of many cases
that I would be able to refer to other law firms.
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And Thomas and LoCicero has always been very,
very picky about the cases they take. They're not
really interested in run -of- the -mill simple public
records violations. They're not interesting to them.
They want something that's going to be -- typically
things that are going to lead to appellate decisions,
and Greg has a lot of them.
Bill's response later that day was "Denise and
I are speaking with Mr. Twill of Jackson Kelly again
this week, most likely Wednesday or Friday, however at
this point I am not inclined to authorize CAFI to engage
another law firm based upon my last conversation with
Twill. We will be -- get back to -- to you with a
definitive answer after that conversation." And, you
know, the -- what I got back from him was no, we can't
do it, the only firm we're going to give cases to is the
O'Boyle Law Firm, which again had been one of the
conditions I laid down with Marty in the very beginning,
that we have to be able to use other firms.
Q. So all of the cases that were filed by Citizens
Awareness were filed by the O'Boyle Law Firm?
A. To my knowledge, yes.
Q. Ones either you authorized or that were not
authorized by you?
A. Correct.
134 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Okay. And they -- were they all filed -- were
they all contingency fee cases, in other words they only
got paid fees if they recovered them from the defendant?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And there was no written agreement
discussing how filing fees were to be covered or
reimbursed or who was responsible?
A. Well, the fine -- no, the -- in practice what
happened was the -- the firm, the O'Boyle Law Firm,
would pay all the litigation costs, filing fees --
Q. But there was no written agreement discussing
who's going to be responsible for those or --
A. I've never seen a written agreement.
Q. -- or how the fee was going to be determined
A. No.
Q. -- what rate would be used by what lawyers?
d there was no written agreement of a contingency
ntract that said anything like that?
A. Correct. So that was -- that exchange was on
ne 2nd. So my mindset at this point was I have other
ople outside of the foundation that are making public
cords requests without my knowledge or consent,
thout my authorization, lawsuits are being filed
thout my authorization, cases that shouldn't have been
135 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
filed in the first place. They were defective cases,
meaning that the facts weren't good. My -- my standard
for cases that I would approve of is very, very high and
y brother Robert and I have a running joke. It's WWGD,
What Would Greg Do, Greg Thomas. You know, he's sort of
the standard that we use. And just so we're clear, he
has -- has never had any affiliation or anything to do
with the foundation or the O'Boyle Law Firm. But he's
the -- has been my attorney for many years and I hold
him in very high regard. He's the standard by which all
attorneys are measured in my book. And, you know, my
view of this is that bad facts make bad law and I don't
want adverse decisions because that doesn't support what
I'm after, which is more access, not less access.
And I -- so I was very frustrated that he had
these cases that were being filed that shouldn't have
been filed. In addition to that, I'm being told that I
have to produce 25 cases a week. I'm being told that
I'm not allowed to refer cases to other law firms. And
this is really at this point -- by early June it's
really beginning to feel like this is not something I
can continue to be a part of.
Q. And -- and no one's doing what they're telling
you they're doing, they're not --
A. Right, I'm repeatedly -- yeah, and it's --
136 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it -- and, you know, sort of the grand scheme of this is
the thing starts in January. We're very -- I'm very
busy in February trying to get things lined up, get the
ebsite up and business cards and, you know, get things
going. I mean meeting with the legislature and in
February I'm meeting with Barbara Peterson in
Tallahassee. In February I'm all over the state meeting
with civil rights groups. And more or less I'm left
alone until towards the end of -- of April, Denise
becomes very involved and that's when things take a
very, very radical shift and there's the -- there's just
one problem after the other. It seems about every week
or two there's some major issue that comes up.
Q. And did you conclude that what Denise was doing
was at the behest of Martin O'Boyle?
A. There's no question in my mind about that.
Q. And at the behest of Jonathan O'Boyle?
A. There's no question in my mind about that.
Q. Okay.
A. So on June 11th, at this point I -- I've just
come to the -- I'm concerned that I'm not going to be
able to continue to be a part of this. I recognize that
I'm sort of predisposed to -- as Greg described -- Greg
Thomas describes it getting up on a ledge. You know,
I'm concerned that maybe am I -- am I exaggerating the
137 1
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
significance of these things, is it -- is it my ego, is
it -- am I just pissed off because I'm not getting my
ay. So I really wanted to talk to somebody to kind of,
you know, get -- get a gauge on what's going on.
So between June 2nd and June 11th, I spoke with
11 different attorneys that I've worked with over the
years. Some of them currently represent me. Some of
them represented me in the past. Some of them I knew
socially. And I presented to each of them the basic
facts of what were going on --
Q. What you described to me but --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in a synopsis?
A. And of those 11 attorneys, all 11 of them had
the same reaction, and that is what's happening is --
certainly there are a series of very serious Bar
violations, what may -- was going on may very well rise
to a criminal act and you need to get out.
So the -- the litmus test I had was Greg
Thomas. So I -- I scheduled an appointment with Greg
and I met with Greg and two of his associates and I
expressed to him what was going on. I remember right
after I took the job at the foundation, I met with Greg
and laid out the arrangement and these safeguards that I
put into place and he cautioned me, you know, as long as
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything is independent, then this could be a
wonderful thing for -- for the public. And now four or
five months later it's very clear to me that things
aren't what we thought they were going to be, so I want
to get his take on it.
So I met with Greg on June 11th in his office
in Tampa and he echoed this -- the reaction of the
previous 11 attorneys that I spoke with. I think his
exact words are, you know, why are you still there.
Now, he did also say, you know, this -- because this has
the potential to be such a wonderful benefit to the
public, you know, can you try to fix it, is there -- is
there any possibility of trying to fix it, you know, try
one more time to fix it, but if you can't, you need to
aet out.
Then the next day I met with Barbara Peterson,
who is the president of the First Amendment Foundation.
She's also an attorney. She and I are very good friends
and you'll recall earlier in our -- in my narrative I
met with Barbara right after the creation of the
foundation. She's the person that actually introduced
me to Marty O'Boyle. And I was very concerned about how
this might impact her because the -- the Citizens
Awareness Foundation I had with the approval of the
board and Marty O'Boyle's direct approval, I had agreed
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sponsor the First Amendment Foundation's Sunshine
rs, which they do each fall and they do ten of
these around the state and they're very well attended,
in fact they're approved by the Florida Bar for CLE.
It's a big deal. And we were going to pay for
everything. We were going to -- we were going to
provide box lunches for all of the attendees and give
away Sunshine manuals. We were going to pick up the tab
for everything. And as part of that, we were going to
get, you know, acknowledgment that we were paying for
it. And this was very important to me because the First
Amendment Foundation is so highly regarded by the
legislature. I mean if a -- if there's new legislation
that affects public records, the first thing the
legislators do, they call Barbara and find out is this
good or bad. It's a big deal. She is taken very, very
seriously. In fact she was a chairwoman of the
governor's commission, open government reform. I mean
she's a big deal. And the idea that we would be able to
aligned with her -- and during this time by the way,
actually participated in a press conference with equal
lling with Barbara. I mean I had really worked very
rd to affiliate the Citizens Awareness Foundation as
as I could with Barbara Peterson --
Q. And with legitimate officials and legitimate
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public interests?
A. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, and not
in a manipulative way --
Q. No.
A. -- in a -- in a we're -- you know, we're on the
same side. And I was concerned that as -- you know, I
had worked so hard to do that and Barbara had been in --
I think allowed me to do that because of me, not because
of the foundation, because of my relationship with her.
I was concerned that I may have put her in a position
fight cause her some embarrassment.
So she was meeting with her board in Tampa on
June 12th and she was kind enough to -- to meet with me
at the hotel in Tampa. And I started describing to her
what was going on and she had almost the -- verbatim,
why are you still there, you need to go. But again,
with the same sort of, you know, this has the potential
to be such a wonderful thing, is there any chance of
fixing it, maybe you ought to take one more crack at
fixing it, but if you can't, you need to go. And I
think her exact words were if they won't do what you
want them to do, you need to tell Marty O'Boyle to go
fuck himself. She cusses like a sailor, delightful lady
and a very dear friend.
Ironically, I when I was meeting with her, I
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
got a phone call which I did not take and when I got up
to the parking garage of the hotel, I returned the phone
call and the phone call was to Bill Ring. And Bill put
Denise DeMartini on the phone and Jonathan O'Boyle, so
it was a conference call with the four of us. And this
is at the Intercontinental Hotel in Tampa. That's when
the conversation began. And the conversation did not
end until I had almost gotten all the way home in
Lakeland, so we were on the phone for about an hour.
And the conversation resurrected an issue that had come
up once we started getting involved, we the foundation
started getting involved, with litigation against State
contractors. While we were litigating against
publically operated agencies, municipalities and State
agencies, the firm had been pretty good I think about
just asking for their actual hourly billable's and
expenses --
Q. Now, this is not a conversation with -- at the
law firm regarding any legal advice --
A. There wasn't a single lawyer on the -- the only
people that were on this phone was Jonathan O'Boyle, who
is not a lawyer in the state of Florida, and Denise
DeMartini --
Q. And your board?
A. And Bill Ring as president of the board. So
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there's nothing privileged here. And what had started
happening was once they started litigating against
contractors, who are notoriously bad actors when it
comes to public records access, what they were doing was
demanding flat monetary settlements. When I say flat, I
mean just pick a number. The problem that I saw with
this, and I raised this issue repeatedly with the board,
and this was the -- the purpose for this conference
11, if the O'Boyle Law Firm's actual fees and expenses
are at $250 an hour, let's say are $1,500, and they
demand $5,000 from the defendant and the defendant
agrees to pay that, what happens to the windfall, the
difference between their hourly billable's and expenses
and the total number. My reading of the Florida Bar
rules is that that would constitute a contingency fee
arrangement and that a percentage, not less than 60
percent, has to go to the client. The problem is I had
told State Legislators and reporters that the foundation
was not profiting from the litigation. We don't get any
of the money. Well, Jonathan's solution to that is
fine, we'll keep it. Well --
Q. That's what he said to you?
A. Yeah. Oh, yeah, we got -- we got into it over
is. In fact, this issue had come up before. There
re several instances where Giovanni Mesa, one of the
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attorneys at the O'Boyle Law Firm, was engaged in
settlement negotiations and would call me. He was a
good attorney, straight arrow, trying to do the right
thing. And he would call me and say look --
Q. Don't get into any -- is this lawyer /client or
is this with the foundation where in your --
A. Yeah, it might be. Yeah.
Q. Then don't --
A. Let me just -- suffice if to say, this wasn't
the first time this issue had come up and I had made my
views on this very, very clear, that the -- if you're
going to claim attorney fee and expenses, it really has
to be your attorney's fees and expenses. You can't be
getting more than that. And what I have told attorneys
is if you've got $1,200 in fees and expenses at this
point, I think it's perfectly fine to tell opposing
counsel, you know, today I'm at $1,200, it's going to
take us probably another hour to draft this up, so I'm
going to add, you know, another two hours to this and I
will -- you know, I'm estimating we're going to close
this out at $1,700. I think that's perfectly fine as
long as you're communicating to them what you're doing.
What I'm not okay with is suggesting in some way that
your fees and expenses are $5,000 when they're really
only $1,200 --
144
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. And that's what you believe was occur --
A. I believe that they -- I believe they were
either -- either suggesting that, if not outright saying
it, or they were not saying that and just saying this is
a monetary settlement for $5,000 and keeping all the
oney. Either -- either one would be a serious Bar
violation.
Q. Did they provide the foundation -- when you
were there, did the law firm provide you with any
closing statements?
A. I have never seen a closing statement.
Q. Had they --
A. Ever.
Q. Had they ever provided you with any
documentation showing how much they collected in fees on
cases that were settled?
A. Never.
Q. Have they ever sent you, while you were at the
foundation, a schedule of any expenses that they
incurred?
A. Never.
Q. So you've had no financial reporting from the
law firm at all?
A. No. No, and I made it very clear to them
that -- that my understanding, and I feel very strongly
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about this, is that they have a very clear obligation to
have a written fee agreement and at the close of every
single case, I would have to see a closing statement --
Q. And sign it, right?
A. That's correct, that I would have to approve
the closing statement and then it was -- it was a
serious, a very serious Bar violation, to disperse any
funds without the client agreeing to the closing
statement. They can't pay themselves. They can't pay
anybody until they presented a closing statement and
I've agreed to it.
Q. And did you tell Jonathan O'Boyle --
A. I did. I told Jonathan that. I told Ryan
that. I told Giovanni Mesa that. I told Marrett Hanna
that. Marrett Hanna and Giovanni Mesa I think were very
uch in agreement with me. I think that Ryan, to a very
large extent, was in agreement with me. There was a --
it would be privileged. I can't say that.
Q. Let -- I appreciate that. Let me ask you this,
who -- who was the bookkeeper that ran the accounts at
the firm?
A. It would have been Carla Bucletchen (phonetic).
Q. Okay. And when the firm advanced costs, were
those monies put in trust from the -- from the
foundation?
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. No.
Q. Did the foundation give money for the --
A. No.
Q. They came from the firm itself?
A. Yes.
Q. Or from Mr. O'Boyle, you don't know?
A. I -- not from the foundation that I'm aware of.
Q. Okay. So they were --
A. I mean I'd actually -- I had actually suggested
at one time because -- you know, think of Marty as the
bank. You have one guy. He's either loaning money to
the foun -- to the firm or he's giving contributions to
the foundation, but the money is coming from the same
place either way. My suggestion at one time was that
instead of Marty loaning money to the firm to be used
at -- for filing fees, that he simply give that money to
the foundation and then the foundation would make
litigation grants. I proposed that because I thought it
would be -- it would add some validity to what we were
doing and that I would be in a position to be able to
make those grants on behalf of citizens who wanted to --
to litigate, which I thought was useful for a number of
reasons. One is there are lots of people out there who
simply don't have the means to litigate. I thought it
would make the whole thing that we were doing seem much
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has six clients and the Citizens Awareness
undation represents 95 percent of their caseload, that
ght look, if not -- if not inappropriate, it might
ok fishy. We'd be far better off if -- if we were
Twilling to help individuals and other organizations,
other civil rights groups, to be able to do litigation
by giving them the grants. And I didn't get any
traction with that suggestion.
Q. Okay. So -- so after you had this one -hour
conversation where you were, I take it, arguing as to
how the firm was attempting to pay itself, or paying
itself, or Mr. -- how Jonathan O'Boyle thought the firm
should be paid, what occurred?
A. Well, I was pretty near apoplectic. I mean I
was really animated about this because this was a
really, really big issue for me. Partly because if the
foundation was going to get any of the money, you know,
it's going to damage my credibility with -- with
reporters and with legislators who I have assured this
not what we're doing. If on the other hand the
undation -- the firm is just keeping this windfall, I
ink that's a very serious Bar violation. You just
n't do it. And they kept telling me that they had
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a -- an ethics opinion
Q. Okay, don't -- don't -- there was a
A. Well, this isn't privileged because -- what I'm
going to say is not privileged because --
Q. Okay.
A. -- Jonathan O'Boyle, who's not an attorney in
Florida, said this to me and to the board of the
foundation, so I don't think this is in any way
privileged. In fact, they sent me a copy of it, so I
know it's not privileged, that there was an opinion
letter from an attorney, Kevin Tynan (phonetic), who
they kept talking about as being this amazing,
wonderful, highly regarded ethics attorney, who said all
this is okay. And my response was I've talked to 13
attorneys who say that it's not. Well, our guy knows
what he's talking about and he knows what he's doing, to
which I responded well, I could paint any hypothetical
to any attorney I want and get the answer that I want.
I mean, you know, it depends on how you ask the
question. I suspect that if I were to -- if I were to
describe to this guy what I believe is going on, I think
I'd get a very different answer than what you're
getting.
Q. Right.
A. And they were really adamant that's not the
149
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
case, that this is okay, we want you to agree to do
this, and I was like there's no way I'm going to agree
to do this. And I -- the way I left it with them is I'm
willing to be -- the way -- I think my exact words were
I'm willing to be disabused of my opinion, but until I
am, we're not doing it.
Q. And were any cases on behalf of the foundation
settled by the O'Boyle Law Firm?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. How many?
A. Well, I have no idea because they were engaging
in settlement negotiations without my authority.
Q. Okay. And --
A. So -- so -- I mean --
Q. And you've never seen any closing statements,
you've never signed any closing statements while you
were there, and while you were there they were settling
cases on behalf of the foundation and not accounting to
the foundation?
A. Right. And what I told them -- and just so I'm
clear I -- you know, I've worked with many, many, many
attorneys over the years on public records litigation
and as I said, Greg Thomas, who is not in any way
involved with any of this nonsense, is the -- you know,
the standard by which I measure all other attorneys. I
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ould trust Greg with a million dollars cash. I'd trust
im with my life. I think he's just -- is as honorable
f a man has ever been a member of the Bar --
Q. It's nice to know there are attorneys like
that.
A. There are -- there are a few of them out there.
But even with Greg, as high as my regard is for Greg and
for his firm, I insist that I see every communication.
If you're going to communicate with opposing counsel, I
ant to see it without exception. I want to know what's
going on. I -- and part of it is intellectual
curiosity. I -- I mean I -- one of the reasons why I
think I have some expertise in this -- on this field is
because I've taken that approach. I want to see what's
going on. If there's a hearing, I want to go. I want
to be involved with every step of the process. And I
communicated that same expectation to the O'Boyle Law
Firm yet they did not do it and that becomes very clear
when they were engaging in -- I mean not only have
they -- they -- settling cases without me knowing about
it, but they're not even telling me that they're engaged
in it. I haven't even authorized a settlement.
Q. And they're asking for more in fees than
they're entitled to and not even agreeing with you in a
written closing statement what's happening with the
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
money?
A. Right. Bill Ring told me on more than one
occasion, and this is a quote, it's none of your fucking
business how much money they're getting.
Q. So that's what he told you when he was
president of the foundation?
A. Yes, it's -- it's none of our business what
they're getting. They -- if they can get $10,000 for a
case where they only have $500 worth of work in it, so
what, good for them, why -- why should you care. And my
response was I care because number one, if it's a public
agency, there's -- there's tax dollars that are being
spent and, you know --
Q. Maybe defrauded?
A. Potentially. And even if it's contractor who's
a for - profit corporation who's getting rich on the backs
of taxpayers by screwing them and not delivering on the
contract like they're supposed to, who I'm not very
sympathetic towards, I -- I don't want to cheat. I win
fair and square. When I go into court and I kick the
shit out of some attorney over a public records issue, I
do it fair and square. I don't have to cheat. I have
really good facts. I don't file unless I have great
facts. And -- and that is a very important part of how
I operate. If -- if opposing counsels figured out that
152 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I had crappy facts and I was, you know, playing on the
margins, they'd figure it out very quickly and nobody
would -- would take me seriously.
Q. Okay. So -- so by this point, after this
one -hour conversation, and all of the lawyers you met
with, did it occur to you that Martin O'Boyle and the
O'Boyle Law Firm were engaging in illegal conduct?
A. I was concerned about that, yes. I -- I am --
I am very confident that if I were to draft a legal
instrument for someone who was not an attorney, that
that would be a felony. That would be unlicensed
practice of law. And I have no doubt --
Q. What about if you as a law firm ask a
government entity for $10,000 in legal fees when you've
done $500 worth of work?
A. Again, I think it would depend on how it was
presented. I think if you said these were -- our fees
are $10,000 when you really only did $500 worth of work,
I think that would --
Q. Any time you get money for work you didn't
do -- you're only entitled -- the law firm is only
entitled to attorney's fees. There's no money damages
in these cases.
A. Right, I think that -- I think the -- and not
to put too fine a point on it, I think the issue is
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether you're presenting it as entitlement. I agree
with you. If you say I'm entitled to $10,000, you have
to really be entitled to it.
Q. What if you say I want 10,000 to settle the
case? You're only allowed to collect, as an attorney,
your attorney's fees per the statute. How could you
possibly collect more than your fees under any
circumstances?
A. I -- I think that -- that the -- I think --
here's the distinction.
Q. Okay.
A. If we're engaged -- if you and I are on the
opposite sides of this and you represent --
Q. The government entity, I represent Gulf
Stream --
A. Okay.
Q. -- and you've sued --
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And you've -- you've got -- you're the
attorney and you have $500 worth of time. You just
filed a template. You call me up. I call you. We
admit we did wrong. How can you even say I'll take
$10,000 to settle the case?
A. I would -- I would agree with you. I think
that would be unethical to do that.
154 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Why wouldn't it be criminal? Why wouldn't it
be defrauding the government of money?
A. I -- again, I think if you were to -- if the
attorney were to claim entitlement, I think it would be.
Q. Well, if -- the only thing the attorney is
entitled to ask for -- on monetary relief is his fees
and costs. So whatever he asks for is --
A. Yeah, you're -- you're asking me to draw a
legal --
Q. That's a legal conclusion, yeah, I understand
you're not -- but I just -- I'm sure you didn't really
analyze that because they're telling you the whole time
this is a contingency agreement, this can be done, but
I'm curious
A. Well, here -- here's the thing, my -- my
issue --
Q. But that's not -- this isn't for you to figure
out or understand --
A. Yeah, my -- my issue with what we were doing
here -- what they were doing here is that I -- I don't
think it's legal. I am confident that -- that it
constitutes a very serious Bar violation. But even if
you were able to satisfy -- and this is what I told them
in this conversation, even if you were able to satisfy
ny concerns with respect to -- I mean if you got -- if
155 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you showed me an opinion letter from the Florida Bar
saying that what you guys are doing is completely
legitimate, I would still object to it. And the reason
I would object to it is because it creates the wrong
perception. We're not doing this to create a -- an
economic enterprise. We're -- the foundation cannot
function in that role. The foundation is here to defend
the public's right to access
Q. Right.
A. This is -- you know
Q. You're against it -- you were against it on
principle separate and apart from any ethical or illegal
consideration --
A. But did I -- yes, but did I -- did I believe as
a lay person that there was a very strong likelihood
that this was illegal, yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And so did you, after that conversation,
decide to ultimately disassociate yourself?
A. Well, the next day I got a phone call from two
of the attorneys at the O'Boyle Law Firm and they told
me that Bill Ring, Denise DeMartini, and Jonathan
O'Boyle called a meeting of the firm and told the
attorneys that I had in fact agreed to this windfall
scheme. And those are two --
Q. They called you and said this, that -- repeated
156 1
7
L
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
that you had agreed to it?
A. Yeah. Yeah, what happened was the next day
after -- after being really vociferous in my objection
to it, I mean unequivocal --
Q. Apoplectic -- apoplectic you called it?
A. Apoplect -- yeah, I mean just -- just really
almost unglued in my objection to it. Bill, Denise, and
Jonathan convened a meeting of the firm and told the
other firm -- told the other members of the firm, the
other lawyers --
Q. Was Bill a member of the firm?
A. No.
Q. And was Denise?
A. No.
Q. And Jonathan's not a lawyer?
A. Right.
Q. Okay.
A. They -- they tell the other attorneys, Giovanni
Mesa, Nick Taylor, and Ryan Whitmer, that I had agreed
to this scheme. And two of the attorneys, who I won't
ention their names at this point, but two attorneys
called me separate from each other. One attorney didn't
know the other one was calling me. They called me
within ten minutes to each other to tell he that -- that
they had -- had said that I had agreed to this and I was
157 I
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
livid. And the reason they called me was because they
were like this doesn't sound like you. You've been --
you've been objecting to this all along. I -- you know,
this doesn't sound like something you would have agreed
to. And I was like, hell no, I didn't agree to it,
absolutely not I didn't agree to it.
So yeah, at that point, you know, I -- I have
this input from Greg Thomas, Barbara Peterson, and all
these other attorneys that I talked to. Things are just
getting worse and worse and worse and now the board and
Jonathan have -- I can't imagine there was any
isunderstanding about what I said and where I stood on
this issue. They lied to the other members of the firm
and told them that I'm okay with this. So yeah, at that
oment I think I probably knew that I was going to have
to leave.
Q. What did you do?
A. Well, I kind of check ed out a little bit.
I -- I decided that I wanted to kind of think about my
departure. Barbara's counsel, which I took to heart,
and Greg's too, was that if I resigned that I needed to
do it pubically so I could disassociate myself from the
foundation. You know, I feel like one of the greatest
assets I have as a civil rights advocate is my
credibility. I know a lot of people don't like me. I
158 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can I was described in one newspaper article as the
most hated man in Florida, which I don't mind, but I
think that I have a reputation for being a
straight- shooter and playing fair and --
Q. Being respected?
A. Yeah. I mean that's the reason I get to sit at
the table with the legislature.
Q. And that's why lawyers often say I don't care
if I'm loved, as long as I'm respected.
A. Yeah, I -- I -- you know, once you loose your
credibility doing what I do, it's over. So I -- I
didn't want to make a rash decision. I -- I wanted to
give some thought about how I was going to depart and I
very much had the sense that there were other members of
the -- there were members of the firm who would probably
be leaving as well. And so I --
Q. You had heard from other members of the firm
that they were leaving?
A. They were very concerned, yeah.
Q. Because of what was going on?
A. Yeah, over the -- over these same exact issues.
I mean everything we talked about today, yeah, same --
same exact issues, and chief among those would have been
Denise's involvement with the firm. You know --
Q. And I take it from your descriptions that Ryan
159 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hitmer was one of the people that told you he was
leaving, that he was not --
A. He had actually announced his -- yeah, he
publically announced his resignation. Giovanni Mesa has
announced his resignation as well --
Q. And Marrett --
A. They hadn't at this point.
Q. But -- but you knew that they were not
tolerating this conduct?
A. They were -- they were objecting to it, yeah,
absolutely.
Q. And Mr. Ring, did he ultimately become a member
of the law firm?
A. He did.
Q. When did that occur?
A. I'll come to that in just a moment.
Q. Okay.
A. So back to your question, what did I do, I said
I checked out. What I mean by that is I decided that I
was going to, you know, occupy my time doing advocacy
stuff and, you know, just try to kind of -- you know, I
guess the way some people play tennis or go boating or
whatever to -- or dance to find some distraction from
their work, I -- I went on the road and -- and was
working with some civil rights activists and just kind
160 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
f, you know, not really -- trying to minimize my -- I
as trying to minimize my communications with the --
ith the foundation and with the board. I was still
rking for the board and still doing what I was being
going to leave.
And then they actually ended up making it real
easy for me. I -- on -- just to kind of give you some
ore things that happened after that, during this --
after the -- this telephone call on this June 16th and
on the 19th, I get -- I was in Jacksonville on this day
working with some civil rights activists. I got an
e -mail from -- from Bill and Denise saying that they
were resigning from the board of the foundation and that
I was going to be appointed as a board member and I
could become president of the foundation. Nobody had
lked to me about this. Nobody had asked me if I
nted to be on the board. Nobody asked me if I was
lling to serve as president. I just got an e -mail
saying that's the way it was going to be. And so I
called Bill and for a moment I -- I had a little hope.
I thought maybe, maybe they -- after me just kind of
going silent for a few days and -- I mean I was working
the whole time, but not really communicating with them,
161
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
ybe they kind of got the message I was not happy. And
thought, okay, well maybe they're going to finally let
do things the way they needed to be done. And so I
lled Bill and that's when Bill told me that -- I asked
im, you know, do I have a say in this as far as
ecoming president of the foundation, and he just kind
f like no, not really, and then he explained to me why
hey had resigned. And why they resigned was because
enise was going to go to work full time for the firm.
Q. The law firm?
A. Yeah. And Bill was going to become a partner
the law firm. And that was just one more nail in the
ffin, just like you guys just don't get it. I mean
member, I had objected to us using this preexisting
t- for - profit that Marty had created because Jonathan
s on the board of it and because I thought that looked
ible. And now they have the guy who's -- the
esident of the foundation resigns to become a partner
the law firm, a law firm that he told me I had to use
clusively, and Denise DeMartini is resigning from the
board to go to work for the firm, the same woman that I
reported to and kept demanding that I produce more and
more lawsuits for the firm and that I could not refer
es to other firms.
Then on the -- the same day, I got an e -mail
162
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
from Jill Mohler, the receptionist to the Commerce
Group, with more public records requests that she was
making on behalf of the foundation without my knowledge
or consent --
Q. So you learned that when?
A. Same day, on June 19th.
Q. That Mohler was again making -- the
receptionist is again making public records requests?
A. Yes, and I --
Q. On behalf of the foundation --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- without your knowledge?
A. Yeah, I got -- I got two e -mails from her that
day acknowledging that. Then on the 23rd of June, they
actually file an amendment with the Florida Secretary of
State naming me as -- as a board member and as president
of the foundation, again without my knowledge or without
y consent.
Then on June 25th, Jill Mohler lets me know
that again she's making -- and she's telling me about
these public records requests after the fact. It's not
like hey, I'm going to make this, is it okay. It's we
made the request, oh, yeah, here it is.
Q. And you tell her you have no authority to do --
A. Yeah. Yeah, you can't be doing this. And I
163
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
don't blame her. She's just doing what she's told.
She -- I want to be clear, Jill, she's a receptionist.
She's just doing what she's told --
Q. By Marty?
A. I assume by Marty. I mean I don't know who
else would be telling her --
Q. Or Denise?
A. Then -- then I get a phone call and I get a
hone call on June 26th and it's just really unusual. I
get a phone call from a guy named George Ellis who is
the executive director of a State contractor called
Miami's River of Life and they were being sued by the
foundation in a lawsuit that I had signed off on. And
the facts of the public records violation were very
clear and I, to this day, will stand by the facts of the
case. And it stands out in my mind because there's only
been a handful of times in my career of doing this
that -- that a defendant's actually contacted me
directly, not their attorney, just the defendant. And
George, it turns out, he and I are connected about 20
different ways. We -- he's an African American fellow
and I'm very active in several African American
communities, worked with black churches and the black
civil rights groups, and it turns out we know a bunch of
the same people. There's some African American
1 • M
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
nisters that I'm good friends with that he's also good
iends with. And this just kind of came up in the
urse of our conversation. And he said, look, I -- I
ignored your public records request, I should have
handled this differently and I'm sorry. And then he
went on to say I -- you know, we don't have very much
money, you know, as fast as we get a grant from the
State, it gets spent, but, you know, I'm willing to try
to resolve this with you. And on top of that, would you
be willing to work with me to help me better understand
what my responsibilities are and how I can do a better
job of responding to public records requests in the
re.
nothing I'd rather hear from a defendant. I mean I
don't know what else I can ask a defendant to do than to
say I -- I blew it, I'm sorry, will you help me not do
it again, and let's resolve this. What more can you
ask? And he said I -- so I asked him, I said what
are -- what are you -- you know, what's going on. Now,
bear in mind I did not even know that they were -- that
de were in settlement talks to these folks. I didn't
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thorize any settlement discussions, didn't authorize
any monetary demands, or any other settlement demands
for that matter. And George told me that the O'Boyle
Law Firm had demanded $4,300 and I expressed to George
y shock at that number because I asked him, I said has
there been any hearings, no. I said did you guys file
an answer to your -- to the complaint, no. He said the
only thing that's happened up to this point is they
filed a verified complaint, is that right, yeah, that's
it, that's all that's done --
Q. You had signed the verified complaint?
A. I believe it was a verified complaint. And he
said that they -- that he had authorized his attorney to
offer to the O'Boyle Law firm a settlement of $500,
which the O'Boyle Law Firm rejected. And I didn't tell
him -- I said look -- I told George, I said look, you
know, I -- I can understand them -- number one, their --
they're not authorized to accept or reject anything
because I -- I haven't agreed to it, but I understand
that $500 a probably not reasonable because that would
just cover their filing fees and service and summons
and, you know, they -- I'm sure they do have, you know,
actual hourly's in it. He said, well, after they
jected our $500 offer, I -- I offered $1,500. I'm
ing to have to borrow the money. I'm going to have to
166
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
scrape it up. I mean somebody is not going to get paid
this week, but we offered $1,500 and they rejected that
and countered with a demand for 3,800. This was on a
Thursday. So I told George, I said well, look, let
e -- let me call the firm, let me find out, and Nick
Taylor was the attorney of record, I said let me call
and talk to Nick and find out what's going on and if I
can help you, I will.
So the next day, on Friday, I called Nick and I
asked Nick about this and he said yeah, we're engaged in
settlement negotiations. We demanded $9,300. They
countered with 500. We rejected that. They countered
with 1,500 and we've now demanded $3,800. So then my
question was well, what are your actual fees and
expenses? And Nick told me that the fees and expenses
were $1,200, at $250 an hour plus the filing fees,
process service, and summons, $1,200. So my question
was why in the hell are you demanding 3,800, well,
because that's what Jonathan told me to do, well, I
don't agree with this. And I was very adamant with him
about this and told him, I said, in a few minutes I'm
going to send you an e -mail memorializing our telephone
conversation and I want you to acknowledge receipt of my
e -mail and I want you to confirm the contents of my
e -mail.
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So this is what I wrote to Nick, this is
iday, June 27th, 2014 at 11:05 a.m., "Nick, I'm
iting this e -mail to memorialize our telephone
sation this morning. As we discussed, I was
ntacted by the defendant in the case referenced above.
expressed his regret in his failure to properly
spond to CAFI's public records request and asked for
our help in better understanding his obligations under
the Public Records Act. He also explained the dire
financial condition of his organization and said that he
d instructed his attorney to offer to settle this
matter for $1,500. In our conversation this morning, I
understood from you that the O'Boyle Law Firm has about
$1,200 in costs and fees in the case up to this point.
I also understood that you have been instructed by
Jonathan O'Boyle to demand $3,800 to settle the case.
If such a demand is accepted by the defendant, that
would create a windfall of about $2,600 beyond actual
fees and expenses. During our telephone conversation, I
expressed in unequivocal terms my objection to such an
arrangement. Until I received a telephone call from the
defendant yesterday, I was unaware that any settlement
discussions were taking place with the defendant. I did
not authorize any discussions, nor did I approve in any
way the demand for payments of any kind, much less the
HMO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mand for payments far beyond the actual fees and
penses billed by the O'Boyle Law Firm. In sum, I
derstand that you were directed to make the
aforementioned settlement demands by Jonathan O'Boyle
and I have not and do not approve of such demands.
Please confirm your receipt and understanding of this
e- mail."
And at 11:19, Nick Taylor responded by saying
"This e -mail is to confirm our conversation today and to
reiterate that all offers for settlement are made
rsuant to the policies of the O'Boyle Law Firm." That
s on Friday and at 11:19 and about 11:00 on Monday I
signed.
Q. And then how did you resign?
A. I -- the foundation -- originally they were
ing to buy a new car, but that never happened. We --
decided it was cheaper, because of the miles I was
iving, to rent cars. So I turned in my rental car on
nday in Lakeland and I packed up what few things I had
at belonged to the foundation, a couple of harddrives
d a scanner and a couple of thumb drives and a few
Sunshine manuals and drove my 19- year -old Volvo down to
Deerfield Beach and walked in and walked into Bill
ng's office and I said here are all the things that I
ve that belong to the foundation and here's my letter
169
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of resignation and inside is the foundation credit card,
thank you, and I left. It took about 30 seconds.
And Bill didn't act surprised. And frank --
frankly I kind of figured that he knew it was coming
after everything that had happened. And in fact, I -- I
kind of half expected that I was going to get fired
before I got there. I had hoped to meet with Marty
because I wanted to thank him for, you know, the
opportunity and I'm sorry things didn't work out, no
hard feelings, and I just can't be a part of this, but
he wasn't there.
So after I exited Bill's office, I stepped
across the hall to Brenda Russell's, Marty's secretary
and also a member of the board, and asked her to have
Marty call me. And then I walked over to the law firm
and announced to the lawyers that I had resigned and
then I left.
Q. What happened next?
A. Before I got out of the parking lot, Marty
tried calling me. I didn't take his call. I was -- I
wasn't angry. I just frankly didn't feel like talking
to him at the moment. So I waited until, I don't know,
I was driving back and called Marty and then Marty got
Denise and Bill on the phone, so it was the four of us,
and they expressed their surprise and shock and didn't
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know it was coming and, you know, I tried to disabuse
them of that notion and said I, you know, warned you in
writing that I was going to quit and I -- I warned you
guys on May 19th that I was going to quit. I actually
had a telephone call -- call with Jonathan back in June,
earlier in the month, I think it was June, and the
reason I remember this is because I was on my way to
meet with one of my attorneys in Sarasota to talk to him
about this whole ethical dilemmas and what he thought I
should do, and just before I -- I ended up being late to
that meeting because I had this phone call with
Jonathan. And I, you know, sort of in sum, all of the
things we talked about today, the -- all this nonsense
going on and I told Jonathan at least six times I'm
ing to fucking quit if you don't stop this, I'm going
fucking quit if you don't stop this, you know, Denise
ing involved. And Jonathan was like, you know, yeah,
ah, we'll fix this, we'll take care of it, so again I
s really annoyed that they were now claiming that they
dn't know that I was going to quit. But it -- the
tone of the conversation wasn't particularly
adversarial. It was just sort of, you know, we -- we
re surprised and we can't believe you are really upset
out all of this stuff. And Bill kept going back to
is whole, you know, we have this ethics letter that
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ays that you -- it's okay for us to do this and I don't
ee why you care and, you know -- and I was like, you
now, I'm -- I'm not -- well, I'm not debating this with
ou. I mean I -- I think they kind of thought maybe
hat I was bluffing about quitting or that somehow I was
Ding to get talked off the ledge or I was just, you
iow, throwing a fit or whatever. And I was like, it's
aer. I mean there's -- there is no going back. I mean
iere's no amount of money, no -- nothing you could tell
now would make me come back. And I said to Marty --
told him, I said the reason I asked you to call me --
reason I asked Brenda to have you call me is I just
(wanted to thank you for the opportunity and, you know,
no hard feelings and you guys go your way, I'll go mine,
and, you know, I'm willing to just now move on with my
life. I'm going to go back and do what I was doing
fore.
And then Marty demanded that -- he said what
e you thinking when you wrote that e -mail to -- to
k. I said well, I think you know exactly what I was
nking. He said well, you need to retract that
ail. And I was like, no, well why not, because it's
truth. And then Marty proceeded at least five
172
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t the Locks on Highway 60, Lake Kissimmee, and I pulled
ver there to look at the water while I was having this
npleasant conversation. And Marty proceeded at least
ive times to say that he was going to make my life very
npleasant, that your refusal to withdrawal this e -mail
going to force us to respond and our response will be
leasant and it will bring great unpleasantness in
your life. He used that word, unpleasant or
unpleasantness, at least five times. And of course as
soon as I heard him say it the first time, I perceived
that very much as a threat and I said well, you know,
what do you mean by that, what do you intend to do, oh,
well, you'll see. And I told him I felt that he was
being threatening and my response was, you know, bring
it on, do what you want to do. And he said I don't
think you understand how -- how unpleasant this is going
to be and I remember saying to him, Marty, I'm the guy
that shows up at offices unannounced and uninvited to
demand to look at public records knowing there's a good
chance that somebody is going to call the police and
threaten to have me arrested. I live in a world of
pleasant. I don't -- you know, I don't care --
threatening unpleasantness, okay, all right, great, I --
I deal with that every single day. I was really
puzzled. It surprised me that he decided to -- to take
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I was surprised that he didn't know me
Q. And so what happened after those conversations?
A. That's the last time I've -- I think that's the
last time I talked to Marty. I believe it was the last
time we spoke on the phone. We have traded e -mails
since then, a few. I have gotten a bunch of e -mails and
phone calls, which I have not taken, from Bill Ring and
Denise DeMartini, from their IT guy at Commerce Group.
I gave them all the data that belonged to the
foundation. I put them on harddrives. They were
encrypted harddrives. I gave them a password and they
were having trouble accessing them because they were
formatted for Mac and they used PC's.
They have been pretty animated in their demands
that I come down there and meet with them and they want
me to help them identify all these un -filed lawsuits
that they're convinced are on these hard - drives, and
there probably are. There probably would be, I'm
essing -- you know, if somebody were to go through
ose hard - drives, I could probably identify 200
wsuits that are -- that are worthy of being filed, but
am not about to help them do that.
Q. So that's what they want -- they want you to do
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yeah, they want -- yeah, I found this really
remarkable and -- and, you know, I -- I am convinced
that I made the right choice to leave and I believe that
I did it the right way. The next -- in fact that night
when I got home, I actually sent out a press release to
more or less the same people that I had sent the first
release out to in January announcing that I went to work
for the foundation, to make it clear that I had left
Q. Okay. Now, on that topic, I did not know who
you were and I received a copy of that press release.
A. Yep.
Q. How many people got that press release?
A. About 100.
Q. Okay. And was that done to make it clear you
were disassociating yourself from anything to do with
the foundation or the O'Boyle's?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Because it was clear from that press
release that that was the case?
A. Yes.
Q. Which is -- I guess that was your intent?
A. Yes, and the next day I gave a -- you know, one
of the reporters, a guy that called me, and I actually
gave a very blunt interview --
175 1
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Q. What did you say?
A. A lot of what I've said here today. He didn't
publish a lot of that --
Q. Who was the interview with?
A. It was with the Lakeland Ledger. Rick Russo is
the attorney -- I mean, not the attorney, the reporter,
somebody that I -- he's their investigative reporter I
know very well.
Q. And in these contacts from either Marty or his
associates --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- after you left, the sole desire was to get
you to help them identify more lawsuits --
A. Absolutely. There -- you know, it's -- it's
very telling from my perspective. There has not been a
single query about anything other than ac -- getting
access, which by the way, they have access to the data
and what I delivered to them I explained in great detail
in an e -mail. The -- I probably looked
obsessive /compulsive to an IT guy when you look at the
file structure. I mean it's -- it is neat and tidy and
the file structure and the nomenclature of the -- the
file name and -- I mean all that is just, you know,
very, very simple, very straight- forward and anybody
with half a brain could get in there and find it. So
176 1
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
it's not that I in any way gave them back -- I didn't do
anything deliberately to try and make it difficult to
access the data. In fact the exact opposite, I made it
Having said that, the only thing they have
ressed an interest in is help us get the data so we
file more lawsuits, which I find puzzling because I
ught it was really clear from my letter of
signation. I thought it was very clear from my
lephone conversation with Bill, Denise, and Marty.
d I thought it was very clear from my interview with
the Lakeland Ledger that I wanted no part of helping
them file more lawsuits. In fact I think that what
they're doing is terrible. I think it hurts the cause
that I have fought for for a long time and sac --
sacrificed a lot for personally. It's terrible and it's
very telling to me that I made the right choice by
virtue of the fact that all they had asked about are the
wsuits. They haven't asked a single time about are
ere any civil rights events that are coming up that we
ed to be prepared for, are there any seminars that we
ed to be prepared for, is there anybody that's
pecting to get copies of the Sunshine manual, are
ere any meetings we need to plan to go to, are there
y civil rights activists that we're supposed to be
177
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
helping. There's not a -- are there any, you know,
citizens that -- that need our help, nothing to do with
the stated purpose of the foundation, nothing to do with
what I believed my job to be. It's only and all about
we want more lawsuits to file.
Q. Generating lawsuits?
A. That's it.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, I need to change
the tape. You have about one minute left.
Q. All right, let me just wrap up before he
changes the tape. When you contacted me, how did you
know who I was? When you sent me the -- the letter of
resignation --
A. Your name had -- your name had come up many
times at the O'Boyle Law Firm as being a hired gun for
Gulf Stream.
Q. And what did they say about me?
A. I don't remember anything in particular, but --
Q. But my name was mentioned?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. So you located me through the Bar --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- Journal?
A. Yeah.
MR. SWEETAPPLE: Okay. Well, let me go ahead
178 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and change the type.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the video record
at 3:25 p.m.
(A short recess was taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the video record at
3:28 p.m.
Q. Have -- have you gotten any contacts from
anyone relating anything Mr. O'Boyle has said since --
A. Yeah, I've been told repeatedly by various
people that -- that we've kissed and made up and I'm
coming back and that I was just -- you know, I needed to
take a few weeks off to kind of collect my thoughts and,
you know, that I'm just -- was throwing a fit. And I
understand that Jonathan's told people it was just a
power struggle.
Q. That you'll be back?
A. That I'll be back, I'm -- I'm coming back,
there's no way I'm walking away from that much money.
Q. What's your reaction to those statements?
A. You know, when I started doing this, I don't
know, about 2008 is the first public records lawsuit I
filed -- before I started doing this, I -- I think the
last high -water mark economically for me was, I don't
know, about $240,000 gross in a year, and that would
have been I guess about 2007. In 2012, my total income
179 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from all sources was $4,963. That's for a family of
four. I lost count of the number of yard sales that
I've had. I mean, you know, the first yard sale you get
rid of the stuff you haven't used in five years and the
second one you -- you know, stuff you haven't used in
the last couple years. By the time you get to the tenth
one, you're deciding what furniture you really need to
sit on. I have lost count of the number of times my
electricity has been turned off. I -- you know, the
first thing I did when I started running out of money
was I used up the cash that I had. Then I cashed in my
children's college funds. That will show where my
priorities are. Then I sold my boats, including my
power boat and my sailboat. And then I sold my Van
Staal fishing gear. And then I sold my collection of
Taylor guitars. My point is, I don't care about the
money. I -- I went broke doing this.
Q. So there's no way you're going back to this
enterprise?
A. Yeah, the -- look, the -- the -- here's the
thing, it was nice getting $120,000 a year. That was
really nice. I liked that. That -- that was -- it was
great because my wife and my kids -- you know, my wife
wasn't worried about buying groceries for the first time
in, you know, seven or eight years. You know, I was
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
able to send my -- my kids, you know, got to go to camp
this summer. They haven't been able to do that in a
while. But I don't care about the money. I cared about
the resources to do more advocacy, but I was doing
advocacy before I got hooked up with Marty and I've -- I
can I quit on June 30th and on July 1st I was right
back to doing advocacy so -- now, there's no chance,
there's no possibility that I'm ever going to go back.
In fact, in response to one of Marty's numerous e -mails
asking me for help, you know, getting access to these
records, I close -- I won't read you the whole e -mail,
but I close the e -mail -- this is addressed to Marty and
this is on July 7th, "I bent over backwards to make this
as easy as possible for the foundation to access data.
have delivered in good repair in a well- organized
shion what belongs to the foundation. As I stated in
my letter of resignation, I have severed "all ",
italicized, bold, underlined, "all" connections with the
foundation. Because my time and attention must be
directed preparing for the unpleasantness you promised,
I am unable to lend further assistance." And his
response -- and if the deal wasn't already sealed, then
it was, this really did it, "Joel, the unpleasantness I
mised, I don't understand." I -- I found that
rmously insulting. I mean if you're going to be
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t, you know, whatever.
Look, it's clear that they're going to keep
doing what they're doing. The fact that they want all
these un -filed lawsuits makes it clear to me they
don't -- they're going to keep doing this. And I really
believe that what they are doing is going to hurt the
public's right of access because this is going to become
the poster child of what the Florida League of Cities
talks about when they discuss abuse of litigation. And
I think what they're doing to Gulf Stream -- and I
don't -- just so we're clear, I don't have an
adversarial attitude towards Gulf Stream. I would love
to help them. I would love to help them sort out their
public records issues. I think --
Q. Did you ever offer to Mr. O'Boyle to help --
A. I did, I actually -- I actually proposed to
Marty -- I said, you know, instead of filing another
lawsuit against Gulf Stream, how about if I just call
Bill Thrasher and, you know, offer to go over there and
have a meeting, just to two of us, and, you know, maybe
talk to him about working with him to, you know, come up
with some way to fix this. And he was very dismissive,
it will be a waste of your time, don't -- don't even
182
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
bother and I'm -- you know, I've only -- I've met Bill
Thrasher a couple of times. He seems like a nice guy.
He seems, you know, reasonable.
Q. He just wanted to continue this pattern of
conduct?
A. Yeah, I think so, you know.
Q. Were you familiar with -- did you become
familiar with Mr. O'Boyle's background while you were
working at the foundation in terms of his activities in
New Jersey, Tennessee, with the State Attorney in -- in
Palm Beach County?
A. I knew a little bit about -- I knew sort of the
high points of the -- of his disagreements with Dave
Amber, the State Attorney. I knew that he had staged
some protest where he -- I understood he had hired
actors to basically stage a phony protest and that he
was either flying a blimp or banner planes or something
around downtown West Palm Beach. I understood it was a
limp and I don't know if that was the case. I know he
has a blimp. They actually offered to donate it to the
foundation. Yeah, I've seen videos of these banner
planes that he's flown in New Jersey and --
Q. He's shown you videos of --
A. Oh, I've seen the videos, yeah. He described
it as -- he said -- the way he put it was it looked like
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pearl Harbor. There was so many planes coming in. He
hired a whole bunch of planes. It wasn't just one. It
was -- it was -- the number that sticks in my head was
like 40 planes or something. It was a lot of planes. I
can I -- I remember when he described it, wondering how
they didn't all run into each other.
You know, when I hear stuff like that -- I knew
about him painting his house, which frankly I thought
was, you know, actually funny. Because at the time -- I
don't even remember all the facts now. At the time I
thought, well, you know, I think maybe -- maybe the
guy's got a legitimate beef with Gulf Stream. You know,
I -- as far as the -- the nonsense like in Tennessee, I
did not know about that until very recently. In fact, I
didn't -- I think the first time I read about it was
after I left the foundation. I didn't know --
Q. Where did you read about that?
A. I went online and found an article about it
that had been -- I think it was 1.6 million dollars in
legal fees and 1.2 million in sanctions.
Q. Did you ever see any of the motions I filed in
any cases involving the O'Boyle Law Firm or for
sanctions?
A. No.
Q. Okay --
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
A. Well, no --
Q. So you never seen those?
A. No, your name came -- you asked me earlier
about your name coming up. The -- the time where your
name was mentioned where I was most involved in the
conversation about you was in connection with a public
records request where there had been some redactions on
billing statements and on a check. And there was --
Q. That's what the -- that was with the law firm
or with Mr. O'Boyle?
A. Well, it was actually -- again, I can remember
where I was when I had the conversation. There was a
very nice little park that you should enjoy on your
drive back on the south side of I -- of 60 after you get
past Lake Wales. I pulled over there so I could --
because I had good reception. It was Jonathan, Marty,
and me. I think it was just the three of us.
Q. This was a case I'm involved in now probably?
A. Well, they wanted to file -- the issue was do
we file a petition for Writ of Mandamus and
Q. Yeah, let's -- that's getting into -- let's not
get into legal --
A. Okay.
Q. -- discussions about that case. So you heard
ny name through Marty?
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Yes.
Q. And that's why you sent me the -- the press
release?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay --
A. And partly because, you know, a -- because of
arty's apparent obsession with Gulf Stream, a lot of
the issues that we've talked about today, all these
public records requests that Jill Mohler was making,
cases getting filed without my knowledge, had to do with
Gulf Stream and I knew that you represented Gulf Stream,
at least in some matters, so I wanted to reach out to
you and let you know that I was no longer associated
with the foundation.
Q. Let me just look through my notes and see if I
have anything else. Why don't we take a five - minute
break --
A. Sure --
Q. -- so you don't have to sit while I look
through my notes.
A. Sure.
Q. Thanks.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the video record
at 3:38 p.m.
(A short recess was taken.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the video record at
3:46 p.m.
Q. Okay. Mr. Chandler, I asked you to look online
to see if you're -- if you're listed as being affiliated
with the Citizens Awareness Foundation.
A. Yes.
Q. And are you listed?
A. Yeah, hold on a second, let me pull it up
again. Yeah, on Sunbiz.org, I'm still listed as being a
board member, which I did not agree to do, to serve as a
board member. I'm also listed as president of the
foundation, which I've never agreed to.
Q. How long have you been listed in that capacity?
Is that what they listed you --
A. Yeah --
Q. -- as executive director?
A. Yeah, this was filed on June 23rd, so seven
days before I resigned.
Q. Okay. And they did not take it off after you
resigned?
A. No, it's still there.
Q. And then when did Bill Ring show that he
retired from the board?
A. It was the same filing.
Q. And what about Denise, when did she resign?
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. Same, it was the same filing date.
Q. And then the new members of the board allegedly
are Peter DeLeo?
A. Yeah, Peter DeLeo and Cathleen Laca.
Q. L- a -c -a?
A. Yeah. Now this -- now this says -- yeah, it
was filed by the -- by the Citizens Awareness Foundation
on June 23rd, 2014.
Q. By whom? Who signed it?
A. By Brenda Russell.
Q. Okay. And is she affiliated with the
foundation? On that date was she affiliated?
A. She was the secretary, but she's not listed on
the -- the -- she's still listed on Sun Biz as -- as a
member of the board, but on the amendment she's not.
She's just -- she's -- it says that she's secretary, but
her name is no longer on the -- on the add, change, or
Q. Okay. So --
A. She's the only -- I think she's still there --
point, I think she's still the secretary of the
undation.
Q. Okay. And Cath -- Cathleen Laca, is she a
rty O'Boyle --
A. Yeah, she's --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. -- employee?
A. -- an employee of Marty O'Boyle and Peter DeLeo
is not an employee, but has been a long -time business
associate.
Q. Okay. And I have your permission to use this
statement for any -- any purpose, any proceedings --
A. It's the truth. Knock yourself out.
Q. All right. And is there anything that you want
to correct in your statement? Do you want -- is there
anything that you want to clarify? I know we've been
here for some time. Anything you want to add?
A. No, I think that pretty much covers it. I
guess if -- you know, at some point I think my
motivation for being willing to reach out to what I
affectionately refer to as the dark side, the other side
of the public records community -- you know, I -- I will
stand by the facts of every case that I signed off on.
Having said that, you know, my ambition is not to milk
defendants out of money. And my ambition is not to beat
defendants. I -- I hope that I -- I'm sure I'm not
consistent in this, but I would -- my ambition is to
approach this civil rights issue, and for me this is
very much a civil rights issue, with the same
graciousness that Martin Luther King did. And what I
mean by that is, you know, he repeatedly made the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
observation that this is -- when he was talking about
the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's, this
is not -- this a not about beating our adversaries.
This is about reconciliation. This is about getting on
the same side. I think I'm on the right side. My goal
is not to beat up people. My goal is not to win. My
goal is to make sure that the public has virtually
unfettered access to public records without needing --
and if litigation is a part of that, that's fine. If
having conversations is a part of that, that's fine. If
stopping the Citizens Awareness Foundation and the
O'Boyle Law Firm is part of that, fine. And I feel very
much like that's the case. I think that what they're
doing is counter - productive. I think that it's -- it
persmirches those of us who are involved in legitimate,
sincere advocacy and I think that what they're going to
do -- if they -- if they continue to do what they're
doing unchecked, I think it will severely injure the
public's right to access, so that's the reason I'm doing
S.
SPEAKERI: All right. All right, thank you
very much.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the video record
at 3:51 p.m.
1•M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Statement concluded at 3:56 p.m.)
STIPULATIONS
IT WAS STIPULATED by counsel for the respective
party, with the consent of the witness, that reading and
signing of the foregoing statement by the witness be
waived.
THEREUPON, the statement of JOEL CHANDLER, taken
the instance of the Town of Gulf Stream, was
cluded at 3:56 p.m.
NOTE: The original and one copy of the foregoing
statement will be held by Mr. Sweetapple.
191 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER OATH
OF FLORIDA
OF OSCEOLA
I, the undersigned authority, hereby certify that
Ind he witness named herein personally appeared before me
was duly sworn on the 23rd day of July, 2014.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day of
ugust, 2014.
JULIE KELLEY, FPR f ✓��
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA
MY COMMISSION NO. EE874232
EXPIRES: MARCH 23, 2017
SCLAFANI WILLIAMS COURT REPORTERS, INC.
192 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
OF FLORIDA
OF OSCEOLA
I, Julie Kelley, Florida Professional Reporter
and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at
large, hereby certify that the witness appeared before
e for the taking of the foregoing deposition, and that
I was authorized to and did stenographically and
electronically report the deposition, and that the
transcript is a true and complete record of my
stenographic notes and recordings thereof.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither an attorney,
nor counsel for the parties to this cause, nor a
relative or employee of any attorney or party connected
with this litigation, nor am I financially interested in
the outcome of this action.
DATED THIS 4th day of August, 2014, at Kissimmee,
Osceola County, Florida.
JULIE KELLEY, FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL REPORTER
SCLAFANI WILLIAMS COURT REPORTERS, INC.
193
Kelly Avery
From:
Postmaster
Sent:
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:20 AM
To:
Local Recipient
Subject:
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions.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
Defendant's Motion for
Sanctions.pdf
File Size
11955245 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.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE, CASE NO.: 502014CA004474XXXXMB
DIVISION: AG
Plaintiff,
V.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF MARTIN E.
O'BOYLE, COUNSEL OF RECORD, THE O'BOYLE LAW FIRM P.C., JONATHAN
O'AND WILLIAM RING, ESQUIRE
Defendant, Town Of Gulf Stream, moves this Court for the imposition of sanctions against
Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., its President,
Jonathan O'Boyle, and William Ring, Esquire, for unprofessional, unethical and abusive litigation
tactics, and as grounds therefore would show the Court that:
I. On May 30, 2014, Defendant, through its counsel, Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L., and
Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A., tiled Defendant's Motion to Disqualify the O'Boyle Law
Firm, P.C., Inc., or in the Alternative, for an Evidentiary Hearing (hereinafter the "Motion ").
2. This Motion has been withdrawn without prejudice as Defendant is seeking other remedies
with regard to the matters addressed in the Motion.
3. Significantly, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., registered as a Florida foreign profit
corporation on February 10, 2014, claiming its principal office as 2146 E. Huntingdon Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
4. Upon information and belief, at the time of registering the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc.
(hereinafter the "O'Boyle Law Firm "), as a Florida foreign profit corporation, the O'Boyle Law Firm
LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
20 S.E. 30 STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream
CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
appears to have had no real business presence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although it was
registered as a Pennsylvania Corporation on November 14, 2013, it further appears that:
a. The O'Boyle Law Firm did not own or lease any commercial space there.
b. The O'Boyle Law Firm did not have a business telephone line.
c. The O'Boyle Law Firm had no employees and paid no salaries.
d. The O'Boyle Law Firm did not pay city, state or federal taxes because it had no
employees.
e. The O'Boyle Law Firm did not obtain an occupational license to conduct business
in the City of Philadephia.
f. The O'Boyle Law Firm's sole principal, officer and director, Jonathan O'Boyle,
used his Florida cell phone number (561- 758- 1223), as the firm telephone number.
g. Jonathan O'Boyle is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, but not of the Florida Bar.
h. Jonathan O'Boyle advised the Pennsylvania Bar that he is an out -of -state attorney
with an address in Florida.
i. Jonathan O'Boyle advised the Pennsylvania Bar that his address is in the Town of
Gulf Stream, Florida at 23 N. Hidden Harbour Drive, his parent's home address.
j. At the time of the opening of the O'Boyle Law Firm in Florida, Jonathan O'Boyle
resided and was domiciled in Florida.
k. When the O'Boyle Law Firm opened in Florida, it was operated out of his father,
Martin O'Boyle's, office at West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida.
It is still operated out of this building, which is owned or controlled by Martin
O'Boyle.
2
LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
20 S.E. 30.0 STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream
CASE NO.502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
1. Since opening the O'Boyle Law Firm, Jonathan O'Boyle has had a constant
presence in the State of Florida handling legal matters for his father and his
father's businesses, including at least four (4) pro hac vice appearances.
m. Jonathan O'Boyle has misrepresented his residence as part of his filings with the
Court and/or the Bar.
5. Immediately after Defendant filed "the Motion ", Plaintiff, Martin O'Boyle (hereinafter
"O'Boyle ") and his counsel, William Ring, requested a meeting with Joanne M. O'Connor, John C.
Randolph and Sidney Stubbs of the Jones Foster law firm.
6. On June 4, 2014, O'Boyle, William Ring, Joanne O'Connor, and John Randolph met in the
offices of Jones Foster. Mr. Stubbs was not in attendance.
7. O'Boyle indicated the meeting should be confidential in nature as it was called for the purpose
of arriving at a settlement. However, Plaintiff then proceeded to issue implicit threats, stating that as a
result of the Motion, which was directed at O'Boyle's son's law firm, O'Boyle intended to take steps
against opposing counsel and their children. O'Boyle also made an implicit threat of physical
violence stating, "You know I've never been a violent person. These hands have never touched
anyone." O'Boyle inquired regarding opposing counsel, Joanne O'Connor's, marital status and
threatened to hire investigators to "watch counsel's daughter to see if she slips up."
8. O'Boyle further stated that he was going to open sober houses throughout the Town of Gulf
Stream.
9. These statements were made for the purpose of intimidating counsel, including undersigned
counsel. The above conduct has caused undersigned counsel's co- counsel to become witnesses with
regard to these events and this motion.
3
LAw OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER $ VARKAs, P.L.
20 S.E. 3fl° STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream
CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
10. Following the meeting, John Randolph wrote a letter to William Ring informing him that the
meeting did not involve settlement discussions and therefore it would not be treated as confidential,
Exhibit 111".
11. After the meeting, O'Boyle commenced to have airborne banners flown on a daily basis over
Palm Beach County. Some of the banners read:
DATE TIME ACTIVITY MESSAGE
06/05/14
@ 2:00 pm
Banner Plane
"JONES FOSTER CLIENTS, CHECK YOUR
BILLS"
06/06/14
@2:00 pm
Banner Plane
"JF DON'T DRINK & DRIVE — WE'LL BE
WATCHING"
06110114
@2:00 pm
Banner Plane
"HAS JONES FOSTER EMBRACED A BAD
APPLET'
06/13/14
@11:10 am
Banner Plane
"JONES FOSTER — YOUR BILLS MAKE ME
PUKE"
06/20/13
@11:00 am
Banner Plane
"SWEET APPLES ARE ROTTEN APPLES
RIGHT JF"
06/24/14
@10:38 am
Banner Plane
"SWEET APPLES ARE BEST BOILED IN
OTL"
12. On June 6, 2014, O'Boyle had his attorney and business associate, William Ring, Esquire,
form a Florida limited liability company called "Sweet Apple Sober Houses, LLC ", Exhibit "T', an
obvious reference to a defense counsel's surname.
13. In addition, on June 13, 2014, O'Boyle appeared before a meeting of the Gulf Stream Town
Commission and made false and defamatory allegations against Gulf Stream's co- counsel, Robert
Sweetapple, stating that a Judge of the First District Court of Appeal had found that "Mr. Sweetapple
consistently misrepresented testimony and failed to acknowledge well - established case law,
including Supreme Court precedents." (Exhibit 113 ") This statement is patently untrue, and was made
to undermine the Town's confidence in its attorney.
14. The above threats and conduct have occurred with the knowledge, cooperation and complicity
of William Ring, Jonathan O'Boyle and the O'Boyle Law Firm. Specifically, this misconduct is being
LAW OFFICES OF SWEErAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
20 S.E. 3RD STREET, BOLA RATON, FLORIDA 33432.381 I
Martin E. O'Boyle V. Town of Gulfstream
CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
undertaken to pressure and intimidate defense counsel into not pursuing the issue of whether the
O'Boyle Law Firm is a bona fide Interstate Law Firm.
15. The issue of whether the O'Boyle Law Firm is a bona fide Interstate Law Firm is one that
should be resolved according to law. It should not be the subject of harassment, intimidation and air
raids by opposing counsel and their client.
16. The misconduct is unprofessional, unethical and it constitutes an egregious example of
litigation abuse. These tactics go beyond zealous representation and are designed to interfere with
defense counsels' ethical obligation to their client. Such conduct undermines society's commitment
to the resolution of disputes in courts of law, rather than in the streets or in the sky.
17. While citizens enjoy the constitutional right of free speech, that protection is afforded to
truthful speech, and while attorneys must zealously represent their client's interests, they are also
officers of the court, and are prohibited from disparaging witnesses and attorneys, or otherwise
undermining the administration of justice.
18. It is well settled that the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to sanction parties and their
counsel for litigation abuse. In this instance, Plaintiff and his counsel have sought to cease any
litigation or determination of the bona fides of the O'Boyle Law Firm by threatening and instituting
reprisals against counsel, their client and families.
19. While O'Boyle has the right to continue to make a spectacle of himself, he, with the assistance
of counsel, cannot impugn, malign and attempt to extort opposing parties or their counsel as part of
the litigation process.
20. Abusive conduct is not a novelty for O'Boyle, who has left a historic trail of abusive litigation.
5
LAW OFFICES OF S WEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
20 S.E. 3° STREET, BocA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream
CASE NO.502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
21. O'Boyle has abused the legal system in several states by overwhelming local municipal
governments and a State Attorney's office with the filing of thousands of public records requests and
abusive litigation.
22. The case of Martin E. O'Boyle v. Peter Isen, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.), issued by the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on appeal from case no. L- 2341 -08, is attached
hereto as Exhibit "4 ". The Court noted,
From September 2007 through early July 2008, plaintiff and members of his
family filed multiple requests pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA),
N.J.S.A. 47:1A -1 to -13. Longport's only clerk worked part-time, and she did
not address the requests within the time required by statute. At one point, the
clerk went to the emergency room because of the stress she attributed to the
flood of OPRA requests. And, in February 2008, the Borough's solicitor notified
plaintiff that it would not accept any additional OPRA requests he filed,
explaining that the numerous requests were substantially disrupting
governmental services. The solicitor claimed that Longport had received 190
requests on October 16 and 17 and thirty filed October 31, 2007.
In the Isen case, O'Boyle sued a resident of Longport for claiming O'Boyle was "the enemy of
Longport". The suit for defamation was dismissed by summary judgment and affirmed by the
appellate court. '
23. Similarly, when his daughter was being prosecuted for driving under the influence, O'Boyle
inundated the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office both individually and through companies
he controls with over 1,300 requests for public records. (attached hereto as Exhibit "511).
24. In an interview with the Palm Beach Post discussing his dealings with then candidate Dave
Aronberg, O'Boyle stated,
My view in life is: Take whatever shots you like at me, because I'm a big boy
and I can handle them. But don't mess with my kids, my wife or my home. Don't
do it. Don't. Because I'll come at you with every resource I have. And there's a
lot. (attached hereto as Exhibit I ).
LAw OFFicEs OF SwEETAPPLE, BROaER @ VARXAs, P.L.
20 S.E. 3RD STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream
CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
25. In litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Mr. O'Boyle
received an adverse summary judgment ruling on a legal malpractice claim against a law firm, arising
out of a representation where O'Boyle defaulted on an $8.9 million mortgage. The Court ordered
O'Boyle to pay fees and costs to the defendants, and additionally sanctioned O'Boyle. In so ordering,
the Tennessee court noted that: "More than seven years of frivolous litigation, litigation spawned by
the zealous temperament of O'Boyle, has placed an extreme burden on the Clerk of this Court over
and above the everyday course of business... The Court believes and finds that O'Boyle's conduct is
the result of intransigence and stubborn litigiousness on his part, which the Court is not willing to
tolerate." See O'Boyle v. Shulman, Rogers, et. al., 436 Fed.Appx. 449, 2011 WL 3510250 (C.A.6
(Tenn.) (attached hereto as Exhibit "7).
26. O'Boyle and his counsel fail to recognize that a Plaintiff and its counsel are subject to the
Rules of Court. The fact that the bona fides of his son's alleged interstate law firm are being
challenged is not justification for his use of intimidation, threats, extortion or slurs.
27. O'Boyle's counsel must be careful not to advise or condone conduct that interferes with or
illegally exploits the legal system. An attorney must control the client or, under certain circumstances,
subject himself to a claim of complicity.
"[A] lawyer is ... an officer of the legal system, and a public citizen having
special responsibility for the quality of justice." Preamble, Chapter 4, Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar.
An attorney has a duty to refrain from advocacy that undermines or interferes
with the functioning of the judicial system. See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir.1993)
"An attorney's duty to a client can never outweigh his or her responsibility to see
that our system of justice functions smoothly. This concept is as old as common
law jurisprudence itself. "); see, e.g., rules 4- 3.5(c) ( "a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal "), and 4- 8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not "engage
in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the
LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
20 S.E.3' STREET, BOCA FUTON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of GuMtream
CASE NO.502014CA004474XXXXMH?
BEACH
administration of justice, including to knowingly ... disparage ... witnesses ... or
other lawyers on any basis..... .. ), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
When professional judgment does not restrain a lawyer's zealous advocacy,
however, the courts must act to assure that aggressive advocacy does not
frustrate or disrupt the administration of judicial proceedings. See In Re
Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 302, 9 S.Ct. 77, 79, 32 L.Ed. 405 (1888); Sandstrom v.
State, 309 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 336 So.2d 572
(Fla. 1976); see also Louis S. Raveson, Advocacy and Contempt: Constitutional
Limitations on the Judicial Contempt Power, Part One: The Conflict Between
Advocacy and Contempt, 65 Wash.L.Rev. 477, 539-40 (1990).
Carnival Corp v. Beverly, 744 So.2d 489 (Fla. I" DCA 1999)
28. The O'Boyle Law Firm and William Ring have continued to represent O'Boyle in
perpetrating these unethical and abusive activities. That conduct should also be sanctioned.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this Court enter appropriate sanctions for litigatioh abuse
against Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, his Counsel of Record, the O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc.,
Jonathan O'Boyle, President of the O'Boyle Law Firm, and William Ring, Esquire, including striking
Plaintiff s pleadings, entering an order prohibiting Plaintiff from exploiting his right to litigate in a
manner that impugns and threatens opposing counsel. Defendant also seeks an award of attorneys'
fees and costs for bringing the motion.
Respectfully submitted,
SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, PL
Co- Counsel for Defendants
20 S.E. 3rd Street
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Telephone: (561) 392 -1230
E -Mail :pleadings @sweetapplelaw.com
By: �'-/ /lam ---- - - ---_
ROBERTA. SWEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
LAW OFFICES OF SwEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VAAKAS, P.L.
20 S.E. 3AO STREET, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
Martin E. O'Boyle v. Town of Gulfstream
CASE NO. 502014CA004474XXXXMBAG (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the
E- Filing Portal this 3`d day of July, 2014 to: Giovani Mesa, Esquire, Nick Taylor, Esquire, The
O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
(Telephone:)- 954 -574 -6885; E -mail: gmesa @oboylelawfirm.com, ntaylor@oboylelawfirm.com);
Jonathan O'Boyle, Esquire, President, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., 1286 West Newport Center
Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 (Telephone:)- 954 -574 -6885; E -mail:
joboyle @oboylelawftrm.com); Joanne O'Connor, Esquire, John C. Randolph, Esquire and Ashlee A.
Richman, Esquire, Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West
Palm Beach, Florida 33402 -3475 (Telephone:) -561- 659 -3000; Email: joconnor@jonesfoster.com;
jandolph@jonesfoster.com; arichman@jonesfoster.com); and William Ring, Esquire, Commerce
Group, Inc., 1280 West Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33224 (Telephone:
1- 954 -570 -3510; Email: wring @commerce- group.com).
By:
ROBERT A. S WEETAPPLE
Florida Bar No. 0296988
9
LAW OFFICES OF SWEETAPPLE, BROEKER & VARKAS, P.L.
20 S.E. 3 " STREET, BOLA BATON, FLORIDA 33432 -3911
JOI- 1ESFOS ER.
fOhW S I ON & S I UMIS. RA.
June 4, 2014
VIA EMAIL (wrinaCa?commerce- oroup.com)
AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL
William F. Ring, Jr., Esquire
1280 West Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
RE. Meeting of June 4, 2014
Dear Mr. Ring:
John C. Randolph
Attorney
561.650 -0458
Fax: 561- 650 -5300
jrandolph @jonesfoster corn
Yesterday you requested a meeting between you and your client, Martin E. O'Boyle,
and me and my partner, Joanne O'Connor. We represent the Town of Gulf Stream. I
inquired as to the subject matter of the meeting, but you would not disclose it in
advance.
At the outset of this afternoon's meeting, your client requested that our communications
be treated as privileged settlement communications regarding pending litigation. We
agreed that our communications would be treated as such only to the extent that they
were, in fact, communications regarding the settlement of pending litigation. We
specifically advised you that the privilege would not apply to any discussions relating to
future litigation or threats of future action.
Please be advised that because none of today's discussions concerned the potential
settlement of any pending litigation between our clients, we do not consider them to be
privileged settlement discussions under Florida law.
Sincerely,
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A
By
John C. Randot h
JCR:mtm
p:ldomM f 47100051111x11117155 dace
Shure 1924 1 West Patin Ucach 1 Jupiter
:EXHIBIT
I lacl.rt nvtr Ihorr
i0i Snulh I I'+ola I lrit'c SMIL IIIII)
%V ,l Palm 11' ,ch I'With 4: i01
tr ww.1 an"rnst,:r.e a nt
Detail by Entity Name
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Limited Liability CompanV
SWEET APPLE SOBER HOUSES, LLC
Filing Information
Document Number L14000091296
FEI /EIN Number NONE
Date Filed 06/06/2014
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 06/06/2014
Principal Address
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Mailing Address
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Registered Agent Name & Address
RING, WILLIAM F, JR.
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Authorized Person(s) Detail
Name & Address
Title MGR
O'BOYLE, MARTIN E
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed
Document Images
06/06/2014 -- Florida Limited Liability I View image In PDF format
Page 1 of 2
a �}
3 CC
http: // search. sunbiz. org / Inquiry/ CorporationSearch /SearchResultDetail /EntityName /flat -I1... 6/11/2014
Excerpt from the meeting of the
Town Commission held on 6 -13 -14
listed on Agenda as Item VII.
Cammmications A.2, from Residents
(5 minutes maxim=)
Martin O'Boyle: Good morning everyone. I have a few things I would like
to go over, but first I just want to give an explaination to the Commission
and the public. You will notice that I no longer stand for the flag
salute, and the reason (don't know what made it do that .... cell phone signal)
and the reason for that is - -- -when I woke up this morning I was an American.
When I walked thru those doors, that did it. This is no longer America and
here the flag salute means something and in this chamber it means nothing.
I just wanted to make that explanation so that if anybody asks they will
have the explanation from the horses mouth.um- -the Mayor sent a letter
out about litigation and boy it sure is expensive- -um - -I didn't see Mr.
Randolph pull up in a Roles Royce so I know he is not getting all the money
although his firm as of Feb. to Feb, billed close to §300,000. um-- frankly
looking at the bills, and we looked at them, makes me puke. To my
knowledge, the Town has never won- a case.since Jan. 13th in a hall of
justice. And, by the way, I have no issues with Mr. Randolph, I think he
is a good attorney, I think,His price.is sensational and I think he
represents this Commission in the best fashion he knows how and one that
this Commission should be very pleased with. Thats my opinion. Then, you
brought in Mr. Sweetapple whose clearly the fair haired boy. I don't
know why a firm like Jones, Foster isn't enough, but I guess the Mayor
doesn't have any buddies at Jones, Foster. Thats the only solution I can
come to. ah --- Mr. Sweetapple's clearly a hot shot lawyer-- um-- thaMayor
gave the Commission and the residents a build up that was, frankly exciting,
$500 an hour, charging us $350 an hour and he had experience in public
records law. Well, there has been another law suite filed against the Town
and the law suite that was filed against the Town was based upon Mr. Swe-
etapple's noncompliance with the State Statute Chapter 119 for public
records. He redacted portions of his bill and anyone who knows anything
about public records knows if you are going to redact, you have to
tell under which exception, if thats the right word, under which exception
you are redacting. Mr. Ganger could say I am redacting my Social Security
number in accordance with this section. That would be proper. Mr. Thrasher
has done redaction the same way. Here he didn't, here you got a law suite.
Also on his bill he talks about the Sunshine Law, well there's a document
called the Sunshine Manual which teaches you how to navigate through the
records act. So, where this guy came from, I guess it will always be a
secret to me. We -- ugh - -one of my lawyers was in the court house and
learned a little bit about Mr. Sweetiapple. He had a case in the 1st Diet.
Court of Appeals before Judge Benton, the Judge found that Mr. Sweetapple
consistently misrepresented testimony and failed to acknowledge well
established case law including Supreme Court precedence. There was another
case in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, the Judge Elizabeth Moss says
that Mr. Sweetapple'.s filing was a slander
Mayor Morgan: I've got 5 minutes Mr. O'Boyle.
O'Boyle: Yes, you do don't you. You want to let me - --
Mayor: That concludes your public comment. EXHIBIT
O'Boyle: Pardon 3
Mayor: That concludes your public comment.
O'Boyle: Well, I know. Do you want to let me finish is my question.
Mayor: No, I don't.
O'Boyle: I can understand why Mayor.
Mayor: You have 5 minutes. Make your point in 5 minutes. Thank you
Westlaw.
Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.SuperA.D)
(Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.))
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT
RULES BEFORE CITING.
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
Martin E. O'BOYLE, Plaintiff — Appellant,
V.
Peter ISSN, Defendant— Respondent,
Argued Dec. 11, 2013.
Decided Jan. 31, 2014.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L- 2341 -08.
Jonathan R. O'Boyle, of the Pennsylvania bar, ad-
mitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant
(Jacobs & Barbone, P.A. and Mr. O'Boyle, attorneys;
Lucille A. Bongiovanni, on the brief).
David W. Sufrin argued the cause for respondent
(Zucker Steinberg Sonstein & Wixted, P.A., attorneys;
Mr. Sufrin, on the brief).
Before Judges GRALL, WAUGH and ACCURSO.
PER CURIAM.
*1 Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle appeals from a
grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant
Peter Isen on a complaint alleging defamations"[ For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FN I. We do not detail the complicated pro-
cedural history of this case in the trial court
because it is not material to the issue raised
on appeal. It suffices to note, this complaint
was consolidated with others for a time and
several of plaintiffs claims were dismissed.
Page 1
This claim of defamation by defendant was
ultimately severed, and the grant of summary
judgment is the only matter before us.
Plaintiff and defendant are both residents of the
Borough of Longport, and plaintiffs cause of action
rests on a single statement made by defendant. The
events preceding defendant's statement provide con-
text. In 2006, Bruce Funk, the assistant chief of
Longport's fire department and an employee of its
building department, responded to a call received by
the fire department about plaintiffs property. While
there, Funk observed alterations of the ground level of
the premises that, in his view, violated the Borough's
building code. That December, plaintiff was issued a
notice charging him with violations of the zoning
ordinance.
Defendant was a member of Longport's planning
and zoning boards between January 2007 and January
2010. He was a long -time and year -round resident
of Longport, and for about four years he was plaintiffs
neighbor. Although plaintiff resided in both Longport
and in Florida, he and defendant had both worked on
the mayoral campaign for the candidate who was the
mayor during the relevant time period.
FN2. Defendant issued a public statement on
January 12, 2010, advising that he was re-
signing from the boards. In that notice he
indicates that he held the position for the past
three years.
In August 2007, Funk pursued the zoning viola-
tion charges he had levied against plaintiff. Funk
notified the federal and state offices of emergency
management, and he made an inquiry to the Depart-
ment of Homeland Security about canceling plaintiffs
flood insurance because of the zoning violations. In
Funk's estimation, violation of floodplain regulations
0 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
E IT
Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.)
(Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.))
would increase flood insurance premiums for the
community of Longport.
From September 2007 through early July 2008,
plaintiff and members of his family filed multiple
requests pursuant to the Open Public Records Act
(OPRA), NVS.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 re-
quests. And, in February 2008, the Borough's solicitor
notified plaintiff that it would not accept any addi-
tional OPRA requests he filed, explaining that the
numerous requests were substantially disrupting gov-
ernmental services. The solicitor claimed that Long-
port had received 190 requests on October 16 and 17
and thirty filed on October 31, 2007.
In April 2008, plaintiff filed a civil complaint to
compel Longport's compliance with OPRA. And in
June, Longport retained NFC Global, an investigative
firm, to uncover any prior difficulties plaintiff may
have had with federal and state agencies. The firm
completed its report later that month. On July 2, 2008,
the Press of Atlantic City reported on the numerous
OPRA requests. There is no dispute that Longport
incurred significant legal fees in defending against
plaintiffs suit.
Plaintiffs OPRA suit was pending when de-
fendant made the allegedly defamatory statement on
July 5, 2008. That day, plaintiff was walking and
conversing with Leonard Sylk and Fred Kremer, both
residents of Longport, near an entrance to the beach by
defendant's home. According to plaintiff, defendant
said, "what are you guys doing with him, he's the
enemy of Longport." Plaintiff further asserts that
defendant made the same comment to William Simon,
when Simon stopped his car to talk to the men. Ac-
cording to Simon, defendant, referring to plaintiff,
said "he is the enemy of the people of Long -
port[,][s]tay away from him."
Page 2
*2 Those present had different views of defend-
ant's comment. Defendant said he was joking, and
Sylk thought the same. According to Sylk's testimony,
defendant was "sort of laughing" and "sounded like he
was joking" when he and Kremer were asked "why
[they were] consorting with the enemy." Sylk also
noted that plaintiff laughed. In contrast, Simon
thought defendant was angry and serious.
While insisting that he made the remark about
plaintiff being the enemy in jest, defendant admitted
that he believed plaintiff was fairly characterized as
the enemy of the residents of Longport. He based that
opinion on plaintiffs conduct, which in his view, led
to Longport's unnecessary expenditures for legal fees.
In plaintiffs opinion, defendant made the remark
intending to have the residents of Longport ostracize
and isolate him and succeeded. He based that opinion
on subsequent municipal actions singling him and his
friends out for unfavorable treatment and affording
defendant favorable treatment. In plaintiffs view,
defendant's comment was the cause of his
ill- treatment.
Plaintiff gave several examples. Days after de-
fendant made the comment, Longport s mayor called
the County Health Department, which subsequently
directed plaintiff to remove portable toilets from his
property on the beach. In August, plaintiff filed a
complaint against another resident for threatening his
life, which the police did not investigate. Moreover, a
friend of plaintiffs asserted that in May 2009, a police
officer, who had detained him for forty minutes
without proper cause, admitted that he had been di-
rected to give him a hard time because of his friend-
ship with plaintiff, who was an enemy of the people.
Plaintiff also had evidence of defendant's favorable
treatment Another police officer admitted that he had
not issued defendant a ticket when he saw him violate
the law prohibiting use of a cell phone while driving.
0 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Not Reported in Aid, 2014 WL 340104 (NJ.Super.A.D.)
(Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.))
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging defamation on
July 15, 2008, while his OPRA complaint was still
pending. One month later, the Law Division ruled on
one issue in the OPRA action. The court directed
Longport to accept future OPRA requests from plain-
tiff. In that decision, the court did not address the
merits of plaintiffs claim that Longport's disposition
of the OPRA requests it had accepted violated the law,
and the record does not include the final order in that
action.
The zoning violations were resolved in plaintiffs
favor later in August 2008. Longport and plaintiff
reached an agreement under which the municipality
dismissed the charges based on plaintiffs alleged
non - compliance.
Summary judgment in favor of defendant on
plaintiffs defamation claim was not entered until
September 23, 2011. Judge Higbee determined that
defendant's statement describing plaintiff as "the
enemy of Longport" cannot, as a matter of law, sup-
port a finding of defamation, because the asserted
description is an opinion, not a fact.
•3 In reviewing a grant of summary judgment in
favor of defendant, this court applies the same stand-
ard as the trial court The question is whether de-
fendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
because a jury giving the plaintiff the benefit of all
favorable evidence and inferences could not return a
verdict for plaintiff. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Ain., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). Applying that stand-
ard, we agree with and affirm Judge Higbee's deter-
mination.
Plaintiff contends that the judge erred in con-
cluding that defendant's comment was incapable of
having a defamatory meaning. That is a question of
law for the courts, DeAngelis v. Hill, 180 N.J. 1, 14
(2004), which we must review de novo. Toll Bros.,
Page 3
Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 173 N.J. 502, 549 (2002).
Judge Higbee, in our view, correctly resolved this
question.
Liability for defamation is imposed based upon
publication of a false statement that injures the repu-
tation of another. Salzano v. N. Jersey Media Grp.,
Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 512 (2010), cert. denied, — U.S.
-, 131 S.Ct. 1045, 178 L Ed2d 864 (2011). The
tort recognizes that people should be free to enjoy
their reputations without suffering false and defama-
tory attacks. TurfLawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen
Record Corp., 139 N.J. 392, 409 (1995), cert. denied,
516 U.S. 1066, 116 S.Ct. 752, 133 L Ed2d 700
(1996).
Thus, to establish defamation, a plaintiff must
show that he or she suffered damages as a result of a
statement of fact made by the defendant concerning
the plaintiff, which was false and which was commu-
nicated to a person other than the plaintiff. Singer v.
Beach Trading Co., Ina, 379 N.J.Super. 63, 80
(App.Div.2005). A statement is not defamatory unless
it is false. W.J.A, v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229, 238 (2012).
In determining whether a statement is capable of
defamatory meaning, courts consider three factors: the
content, the verifiability and the context of the chal-
lenged statement. DeAngelis, supra, 180 N.J. at 14. To
analyze the content of the statement, courts consider
the fair and natural meaning that the words would be
given by persons of reasonable intelligence. Ibid.
Although "epithets, insults, name- calling, profanity
and hyperbole" may be offensive, they are not ac-
tionable as defamatory. Ibid. Thus, courts must dis.
tinguish defamation from offensive "obscenities,
vulgarities ... and other verbal abuse." Ibid.
Plaintiff relies on Milkovich v. Lorain Journal
Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.CL 2695, 2706, 111 L.
Ed2d 1, 18 (1990), a case involving an expression of
the writer's opinion that a coach committed perjury.
0 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.)
(Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.))
Recognizing that opinions cannot be "false," the Court
stressed that there is no "wholesale defamation ex-
emption" for any statement that might be labeled an
opinion. Id at 18, 110 S.Ct, at 2705, 111 L. Ed2d at
17. The Court explained that if a reasonable
fact - finder could conclude that the speaker implied
plaintiff committed perjury, then the implied assertion
of fact would amount to defamation, if proven false.
Id. at 20, 110 S.Ct, at 2706 -07, 111 L. Ed2d at 19.
*4 The Court's opinion in Milkovich points out the
difference between the statement at issue in that case
and this one. The Court stated: "unlike a subjective
assertion[,] the averred defamatory language [here] is
an articulation of an objectively verifiable event," 1. e.,
whether the plaintiff had actually committed perjury.
Id at 22, 110 S.Ct. at 2707, 111 L Ed2d at 20. But in
this case, defendant's characterization of plaintiff as
the town's enemy, while arguably insulting, does not
imply any particular conduct or event that could be
verified as true or false. For example, defendant did
not refer to the zoning violation or the number of
OPRA requests. He simply indicated that plaintiff was
an "enemy" of Longport.
It is well - settled that a statement is not actionable
when it has an imprecise meaning. Buckley v. Litiell,
539 F.2d 882, 893 (2d Cir.1976) (holding that the
terms "fascist," "fellow traveler" and `radical right"
were too imprecise, loose and insusceptible of proof to
be considered defamatory). When the meaning of an
insulting assertion —here the enemy of Longport—is
not settled, its truth or falsity cannot be proven. On
similar reasoning, this court has held that a statement
that could be understood to describe another as one
who is not "a decent resident" cannot support a def-
amation claim because it does not state or imply
something amounting to slander per se, such as
criminality. Taurus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 381
N.J.Super. 412,427-28 (App.Div.2005), ajf'd in part,
rev 'd in part an other grounds, 189 N.J. 497 (2007);
see also Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. 282, 291
(1988) (discussing slander per se).
Page 4
Like a statement implying that one is not "de-
cent," a statement that one is an "enemy" of a mu-
nicipality does not imply any verifiable fact. Relying
on the various contexts in which the phrase public
enemy has been used over time, plaintiff argues that
defendant's statement could be understood as calling
him a traitor, an outlaw, a criminal or a pirate. That
may be, but it could just as easily be understood to
describe a person who disapproves of the town's
leaders, the way they do business or their goals.
We reject plaintiffs attempt to equate this state-
ment of uncertain meaning to a "false attribution of
criminality," which is deemed slanderous as a matter
of law. Romaine, supra, 109 N.J. at 291. As previously
noted, statements alleged to be defamatory or slan-
derous must be assigned the " `fair and natural
meaning' " that would be assigned by "reasonable
persons of ordinary intelligence.'" Id. at 290 (quoting
Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 48
NJ.Super. 420,431 (App.Div.). afpd on rehearing, 49
N.J.Super. 551 (App.Div.1958)). So viewed, defend-
ant's labeling of plaintiff as an enemy of Longport or
its people could not be understood as anything other
than name calling.
Because defendant's statement did not imply any
verifiable conduct or event and simply voiced his
opinion, it cannot be proven false. Even if every res-
ident of Longport other than defendant deemed plain-
tiff to be a friend of the municipality, it would not
make defendant's opinion false, because he did not
imply that his view was universally held or was based
on a verifiable event.
*5 Our resolution of the case on the ground that
this statement is not, as a matter of law, defamatory
makes it unnecessary to consider the arguments ad-
dressing plaintiffs status as a public figure.
Affirmed.
® 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104 (N.J.Super.A.D.)
(Cite as: 2014 WL 340104 (N..I.Super.A.D.))
N.J.Super.A. D.,2014.
O'Boyle v. Isen
Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 340104
(N.J.Super.A.D.)
END OF DOCUMENT
® 2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
Millionaire deluges state attorney with public records requests after daughter's DUI convi... Page 1 of I
Government Law
Millionaire deluges state attorney with public records requests after daughter's
DUI conviction
Posted Mar 26, 2013 3:10 PM CDT
By Martha Neil
Corrected: At one time, Martin E. "Marty" O'Boyle was a political ally of Florida state attorney Dave Aronberg, helping
him position himself to get elected.
But after Arenberg refused to take a position concerning the 2011 misdemeanor driving- under - the - influence conviction o
O'Boyle's daughter, Sara, the two parted ways. They still have regular dealings, however, due to the deluge of public
records requests regularly submitted by O'Boyle, whose daughter has performed community service and paid a fine but
is also appealing her conviction, reports the Palm Beach Post.
Florida has one of the broadest public records laws in the country, allowing citizens to access material such as emails
and texts. And Marty O'Boyle, determined to help his daughter reverse her conviction, is seeking to take full advantage c
it, according to the newspaper. In a single month, a company he controls submitted 1,328 requests for public records to
Aronberg and the office for the prosecutor overseeing Sara O'Boyle's case, after Arenberg recused his own office from
doing so.
The problem is, the public records requests submitted by O'Boyle's company— which, altogether, are among the most
massive in state history— require review and redaction of records before they can be turned over, the newspaper explain.
"I have been, and am, a supporter of the public records law," said State Attorney Bruce Colton of the 19th Judicial Circui
whose office is now overseeing Sara O'Boyle's case. "But I think the law can be abused. When you look at the number c
requests ... these requests could amount to an abuse of the public records law."
Related coverage:
Palm Beach Post (July 2012): "Dave Aronberg, millionaire ally behind stealth attacks in state attorney's race"
Updated on March 27 to correct Aronberg's job title.
Copyright 2014 American Bar Association. All rights reserved
EXHIBIT
http: / /www.abaj oumal.com/ news / article / millionaire _deluged_state_attomeys_wi th_ l3 28
Follow us on
Thursday, July 3.2014 112:23 p.m.
Subscribe I Todays paper I Customer care
Sign M I Register
r` f Ir r��l I r_fI IJ`�,Ir- I I
Breaking news starts here
Search
Pcshco 1013 a.m, Sunday, July 22, 2012
Dave Aronberg, millionaire ally behind stealth attacks in state attorney's race
SYItt' !f YRu iklk[ kg;rY Hr,Ut1fFF I
Related
By Joel Engelhardt and Adam Playford
Palm Beach Post Stag Writers
Yi EXHIBIT
A
Waving handmade signs and grasping yellow balloons, a small group marched last fall outside Stale Attorney Michael McAallfie's office, angrilymlling for him to resign. MWdige
had lust negotiated a plea deal that meant Paul Michael Whigs. who killed four relatives an Thanksgiving Day2009, would escape the death penalty.
But most of the protesters weren't there out of outrage. Theywere them because theywere getting paid.
Theywere golfing paid because the man who wanted McAuliffe's Job, Dare Aronberg, wanted a protest, but didn't want his name linked to it. Since he could not deliver enough
protesters himself, he asked a newfound ally, Gulf Stream millionaire Marty O'Boyle, to help.
An O'Boyle assislantlined up a parry planner. And thers haw a protest trumpeted an the nightly news as an outpouring of comm unity anger actually staffed a half-down aclars
more accustomed to playing pdnmsses, downs and dinosaurs.
That was onlythe start. Over four months, Aronberg and O'Boyle learned up for a campaign ofatadrs against McAuliffe, cautiously s kirfing Florida laws designed to assure
transparency in elections, according to InteMews and documents obtained byThe Palm Beach Post.
Theyworked In strict secrecy. Aronberg — now the frontrunner far state attorney —had not yet declared himself a candidate, so he took help tam O'Boye without disclosing to the
public what otherwise would have amounted to donations.
For O'Boye, It was Just one actin his relentless Quest to wipe a DUI conviction off his daughters record. For Aronberg, Awas an opportunilylo take advantage of a millionaire's
displeasure to undermine a rival. Theymoved assertively, running advertisements, payng protesters and digging up dirt .
At stake: one of Palm Beach Countys most Important elected lobs. The state atomeyhas enormous discretion In deciding which criminal mass to pursue, Including political
corruption.
Aronberg, then a statewide prosecutor, guided O'Bo he's efforts, occaslonallyon taxpayer time. He smelled Instructions to O'Bo he's assistant tram his BlackSany during work
hours, a potential violation of state rules. Once, he accepted a round-trip ride to Tallahassee on O'Boyle's privme plane.
Throughout. Aronberg toyed with running. In one rare Instance, an small reveals Aronberg's Intent Justsix days before he announcad, he urged an O'Boyle employee to payfor
Facebook ads, sayng.1 think theyneed to run before I become a candidate'
Aronberg's collaboration with O'Boyle tapered off after Jan. 17, when McAuliffe— influenced in pad, he said, bythe nasty campaign swirling around him — announced he would
not seek re-election. Aronberg declared his candidacy three days later and within six months had raised 3471,000, none of it fain O'Boye.
But In enlisting O'Boye, Aronberg miscalculated. After months together, O'Boyle turned on him, misusing to The Post hundreds ofemalls — Including about 100 written by
Aronberg— documenting thelrmntacts In the time before Aronberg announced.
Ultimately, O'Boye would Wm on The Pastas well. After reporter told O'Boyle the newspaper was checking whether one of his exchanges with Aronberg could be viewed as an
Maur) pled bribe, he Old the paper that he was "revisl Ong' the Information he had pmNded'to confirm Its wlidity' and that the paper was not authorized to use the Information or to
attach his name O IL 6perts later told the paper that O'BOyte's actions likely did not meet the legal definition ofaftempled bribery.
Aronberg, a Dom ouat, refused repeated requests for an InleMew O discuss his actions, addressing through his campaign manager only four of more than 80 questions asked
in writing by The Post Sent hundreds of pages of his own em ails and asked O wrl them,Aronberg didn't respond.
Ina one - paragraph statement, he blamed O'Boyle's revelations on one of his opponents: no- partycandidate Robert Gem hman, a criminal defense attomeywho represents
O'Boyle's daughter.
"This is a dishonest pollfical attack cooked up bymyopponent, W. Gershman —full ofmisrepresenlations and gross emilgeratons; Aronberg said.'As special prosecutor,I
haw always acted according to the letterand spidtof the laws ofthe stale of Florida and the policies of the OMca of the AOomey Genami. I'm proud ofmyrecord ofprown ethical
leadamhlp as an assistant attomey general, special prosecutor end stale Senator.*
The never- before-Old story of what happened when Dow Aronberg met Marty O'Bayle, and whythey broke apart offers a rare window Into how power and money intersect to
s hope politics — and lives —in Palm Beach County.
'Myv/ewln this Is, Take whatever shots you like at me because Int abl bo and l can handle them. But dont mess with my kids, my wile or my home. Don do It
on cauself / come at you wer every resource l have. And mere ao'
— NN >aevp N.wm NlmMw
ftwas March 2011 and In downtown West Palm Beach, a spectacle filled the sky.
Dayafter day, a plane circled the courthouse, trailing banners:'Seware thug prosecutors: 'Prosein lorlal perjury is tyranny.* 'Dump McAuliffe for prosecutor, vote for Elmer Fudd.'
The planes were a remarkable reaction O a common event O 2008 In Delray Beach, a police officer Sawa woman driving 5 mph on a residential street at
323 a.m., with half her car on the grass. The 19- year -old Old him she had had two cocktalls and a beer. She failed a breath lest and was charged with misdemeanor DUL
O Palm Beach County, prosecutors file an average of nine DUI cases swryday. But that woman was Marty O'Boyle's daughter, and WrIyO'Boyle is an unusual man.
The son of a seamstress and a cabby, O'Boyle said he grew up Ina tiny rowhouse In Woodland, N.J. At 17, he said, he dropped out of high school. By 18, he was married and had
areal estate license. By24, he had Our kids and his first million.
That million grew Into many more. Starting in the 1970s, he built hundreds of stores, including construction for the growing Color Tile and Pears Vision chains. Now he is 60 and
says his businesses —run from a 14pamon office In Deerfield Beach — Include shopping centers and stores in about 25 stabs, including Florida.
in a tight over business Interests, O'Boyle rarely backs down. Ina fight for his family, rarely turns Into never.
The traffic court case spawned a thick volume full of motions and counlennotions, with Gershman arguing the use was tainted by police mistakes and faulty breath-test
equipment. It led to a three- dayjury trial. Sara O'Bge was found gulltyln March 2011. She was sentenced O 75 hours ofcommunllyserAce, a sl> month lose or her driwr license
and a 8500 fine.
After the Mal, MartyO'Soyle called the stale attorneys offica and asked O speak O McAuliffe about the case. O'Boyle said he Old the woman who answered the phone: "Iwanl O
see If I could just spend a few moments with him and see if theta's anything that could be worked out.' O'Boyle wanted W_4uliffe to drop the DUI charge, own after she serwd the
sentence, O dear her permanent record, he sold. j
O'Boyle was Old that McAuliffe wasn't awilable.
W–Auliffe Old The Post he didn't know of O'Boyla's request until after the banners began b Sy. The legal Issues in the case didn't rise O his level, MY/wllffe said.
But the rejection angered O'Boyfa. "1 just said O myself,'ihe guywon't give me the coudesyof 15 minutes of his life?" O'Boyle recalled. "Wall, let me show him what kind of
courtesies I can give him.
O'Boyle had brawled with authortyberore. in 2006, a permitting dispute threatened his Longport NJ., wafedrenthome. O'Boyle struck back with lawsuits. Planes trailing banners
—one called the mayors "popper —flew owrLongporl's beach Or months.
'Unfortunately when you're dealing with a body politic, theyhow a lot of resources," O'Scyle said. "Sometimes you haw O enter the area ofunconwntional warfare."
Almost five years later In West Palm Beach, gowmment once again stood In O'Boyle's way. He started a Twitter account under the name'BannerMan' and began flying planes.
It didn't help with McAuliffe. But the stunt drew attention.
South county political operaliw Made Horenburger, who sat on a chadtyboard with O'Boyle's wife, gave him a call.
She asked: Would he like O most Dow Aronberg7
O'Boyle replied: "Who's Dew Aronberg7"
'Dave— do you want me to take you — plenty ofroom and no problem? Well getyou there by 6pm or". If Hill be easy and you will be fresh. Advise'
—o losg .n ."a oN.n ., t. T.W,.ww N ose .,M.e. Hirt.
Daw Aronberg, too, faced an obstacle in Mchael McAuliffe.
In 2002, fuariberg entered politics as a 31- year -old rising star —a charismatic, Harvard - educated stale senator. But he left mid -term town for attorney general in 2010 and lost in
the Democratic primary.
He found work quickly. Pam Bondi, the Republican who ultimalelywon the atlomeygeneml's job, made a spot for him as a 592,000- a- yearspedal prosecuOrinwstigafing plll
mills.
But Aronberg was eyeing another elected job: McAuliffe's. Again, he faced a Democratic primary he might not win.
True, McAuliffe had angered some Influential Democrats by prosecufing Oemocrallc County Commissioner Jeff Koons on corruption charges theythought were weak. Local
atbmsys, both In the criminal defense bar and within his own office, chafed at his style and decisions. Monberg seemed a logical choice O oppose him: Popular with Democratic
miens, he had long - standing political connections and could be a ravenous fundraiser.
But manyprominent Democrats remained pledged to the incumbent. McAulifte. Some urged Aronberg not O run, hoping to amid a divisive primary. He was warned that'itwould
be the end of mypolitiwl career; Monberg said In a May TV appearance.
O'Boyle, though, had plenty of money —and, with the banners, had shown a willingness to spend it tormenting McAuliffe.
Aronberg reached out to Gem hman, O'Boyle's daughter's attorney and now Amnberg's rival for state attorney. Back then, Gem hman had no plan to run, but it seemed to him that
Aronberg did. 'His pitch was he wanted financial support for his run and he Mewed Many in that fashion; Gem hman said. Gem hman Mkt O'Boyle he had talked to Aronberg.
The political courtship between Aronberg and O'Boyle began In late July over lunch at The Office, a Delray Beach hotspot.
They started exchanging em ails. Aron berg peppered O'Boyle with links to stories about McAuliffe. O'Boyle gave Aronberg a cryptic heads -up to 'enjoy your lunch" at "Banner's
Coffee Shop around the Court House.' Two days later, as promised, a plane flew the banner. "Smile if you think Mkey McAuliffe is a pub'
Aronberg asked O'Boyle to take a trip with him to Tallahassee. On OcL 3, they drove to Fort Lauderdale, loaded Into O'Boyle's sing le- englne Cessna and flaw north.
The nezl morning, they met with a political consultant. O'Boyle said that with Aronberg out of the room, consultant Screven Watson talked to him about paying $180,000 for four.
page mailers targeting Palm Beach County Democrals.O'Boyle wasn't buying.
Watson said he was sizing up O'Boyle at Amnberg's request Watson's conclusion: The guy had money but never would be a reliable contributor. His real Interest lay in messing
with McAuliffe.
While theywere there, Aronberg took O'Boyle around the Capitol. They lunched, O'Boyle said, at Andrew's Capital Grill — home of the "Aronberg -er Spicy Veggie Burger; named
during Amnberg's Senate days.
Theyreviewed polling results with a police union lobbyist that showed Aronberg leading McAuliffe In a hypothetical malchup. They discussed whether Aronberg should declare his
candidacy.
Theyvisiled the state Commission on Ethics to pick up a complaint against McAuliffe. Aronbarg pressed the commission director to eiplain whythe complaint had been dropped,
O'Boyle said.
On the flight back, O'Boyle said, Aronberg confinuouslyralumed to a point he had made on the wayup.'Ies Justsowmmg whaltheydid to yourdaughter; O'Boyle recalled
Aronberg saying.'I Just can't believe theywould do such a thing."
Protesters assembled outside the Palm Beach County state eftomeyk office Thursdaymominp fn opposffion M a plea deal fhof sent Thanksgiving massacre killer
Paul Michael Marhige to prison Ior11Ie. More than a dozen people stood outside state adomey Mchael MoAullNe k office holding signs...'
— WPBF <xmndE W <rrpwl onNw.10
A few weeks later, a news story caught Aronberg's eye.
M the end of October, McAuliffe agreed to a plea deal with Mertilge.In 2009, MMrhlge had killed four relatives — including 6- year -old Makayfa Sition —over Than Ike giMng dinner In
Jupiter. The plea would put Merhlge away for life and bring clasure to one of Palm Beach County's most horrific crimes.
But Jim Billion, Mekayla's father, detested th a deal and begged the Judge not to take it. He wanted a trial and then the death penalty.
Aronberg saw an opportunity.
After they first met. O'Boyle assigned one of his ass Istants to work with Aronberg. Trained as a paralegal, the assistant, Denise DeMortinl, was one of O'Boyle's bes L "She'll m ove
a mountain with one hand; O'Boyle said.
Aonberg asked DeMarfinl to organize a protest of the deal outside the state attorneys office.
DeMer6nl began moving mountains.
She and O'Boyle consulted lawyers to find outwhere pmtesters could stand. She directed another O'Boyle employee to make filers and to orderbright yellow balloons Imprinted
with "DUMP MCAULIFFE.'
Theydrew up signs. Aronberg proposed several slogans, DeMartinl wrote In an email, including: "McAuliffe coddles killers; "Resign, McAuliffe, Resign; "Oemocrals Against
McAuliffe" and — more strikingly — "Justice for Makayla'
The protect was almost ready. Onlyone thing was missing: protesters.
Initially, Aronberg told DeMOrMi he would find them. But he came up empty. "He was of the mind.'We gotta get It done, we gotta do It. You guys gat contacts —you guys can gel it
done; "O'Boyle recalled.
Dahbrfinl got It done.
She called Kids Felrlyand, a CoconutCreek companythatthrows children's parties.
Acontractcalled for'10 people to participate in Rally Protest.'The cost $1A00 forfour hours. Afnv protesters left early, so O'Boyle got a $500 discount.
On Nov. 10, a videographerhired byO'Boyle captured the scene. More than a dozen protesters walked in a loop In honlcf the state anomeys office.Almostall were either O'Boyle
employees or paid actors. O'Boyle himselfwore a cap thatsaid Drexel —his daughter's school —and a sandwich board: "McAuliffe Accept This Plea Resign:
Almost Immediately, Arenberg asked for a second protest —this time outside M cAuliffe's campaign kickoff partyat E.R. Bradleys Saloon on the Flagler Drive waterfront. The flmt
one was so much work and money, O'Boyle wasn't eager to do It again. But Aronberg pushed, O'Boyle said. On Nov. 18 it happened, with six actors for $600.
As theyprepared, O'Boyle smailed a workerwho had put Arcnberg's name in an email: "Aronberg's name is not to be mentioned;And In both cases,Aronberg was nowhere to
be seen.
But Aronberg's presence was fell. He drove bythe first protest several times, sending gleeful leA messages to O'Boyle and DeMarfinl, they said.
And his hand was evident. Theyused several orhis slogans, Including "Democrats Against McAullge" and "Resign. McAuliffe, Resign."
OBoyle:'Dave —being the smafeurthat l am, I do nctsee a malehal difference In the ads. So I can nolglve you Intelllgentinput'
Aronberg.•'Fairenough.... III send u the one 1 prererfn a separate email.... Happy Thanksgivingl'
N o r . U c o w l n n l L Y C W W / 1 g t q w t . . F t h . J h . m
E v e n a s t h e y p r e p a r e d t h e p r o t e s t s , A r e n b e r g w a n t e d O '