00001
 1   IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
 2   JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
 3   FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
 4   CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: "AO"
 5   CASE NO.: 50-2018-CA-002317-XXXX-MB
 6   
 7   WALTER E. SAHM,
 8   CHARLES REVARD AS GUARDIAN OF THE WARD PAMELA A SAHM,
 9   Plaintiff/Petitioners
 10  
 11  vs.
 12  
 13  BERNSTEIN FAMILY REALTY LLC,
 14  ALL UNKNOWN TENANTS,
 15  BRIAN O'CONNELL,
 16  et al.,
 17  Defendant/Respondents.
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  WITNESSES: DR. STANLEY BLOOM
 22             KATHRYN LEWIS
 23             INGER GARCIA
 24  DATE:      JANUARY 28, 2025
 25  REPORTER:  FLOR LOPEZ
00002
 1                         APPEARANCES
 2   ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, CHARLES REVARD, AS GUARDIAN
     OF THE WARD PAMELA SAHM:
 3   Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire
     Cynthia Miller, Esquire
 4   Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.
     4800 North Federal Highway
 5   Suite 306D
     Boca Raton, Florida 33431
 6   Telephone No.: (561) 392-1230
     E-mail: pleadings@sweetapplelaw.com
 7   E-mail: cmiller@sweetapplelaw.com
 8   ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, BERNSTEIN FAMILY REALTY,
     LLC., ELLIOT & CANDICE BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY & AS
 9   NATURAL GUARDIANS OF MINOR CHILDREN, ALL UNKNOWN
     TENANTS:
 10  Inger M. Garcia, Esquire
     Postal Ctr
 11  7040 Seminole Pratt Whitney Road
     Suite 25-#43
 12  Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
     Telephone No.: (954) 451-2426
 13  E-mail: serviceimglaw@yahoo.com
 14  Also Present: John Parnofiello, Honorable Judge; Kathryn
     Lewis, Esquire, observing in court room; Candice
 15  Bernstein, Defendant; Hilary Hogue, Guardianship
     Improvement Task Force, on zoom; Zoraida Navarro, M.D.,
 16  Advocate for the Elderly, on zoom; Kathleen Bosse,
     Observing on zoom; Luanne Fleming, Observing on zoom;
 17  Ale Carrino, Observing on zoom; Danny Mojo, Observing on
     zoom; William Stransbury, Observing on zoom
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25  
00003
 1                             INDEX
                                                  Page
 2   PROCEEDINGS                                    6
 3   TESTIMONY OF DR. STANLEY BLOOM
     DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SWEETAPPLE          89
 4   CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. GARCIA              101
 5   TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN LEWIS
     DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SWEETAPPLE         121
 6   CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. GARCIA              123
 7   TESTIMONY OF INGER GARCIA
     CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SWEETAPPLE          203
 8   
 9   
 10  
 11  
 12  
 13  
 14  
 15  
 16  
 17  
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25  
00004
 1                           EXHIBITS
     Exhibit                                      Page
 2   PLAINTIFF
     5 - E-mail from Ms. Carcia To Mr. Raymond,
 3       Settlement Agreement                      10
     6 - Order from Bankruptcy Court               13
 4   7 - Request For Judicial Notice               13
     8 - Objection To Examine Committee            14
 5   9 - NOAPIN and Joinder                        27
     10 - Order Appointing Guardian                37
 6   11 - Final Junction Order                     19
     12 - Signed Settlement                        42
 7   13 - Sunbiz                                   48
     14 - E-mail's from Mr. Raymond               231
 8   
     DEFENDANTS
 9   7 - Death Certificate of Walter Sahm          24
     8 - Final Judgement                           25
 10  9 - Judicial Notice                           15
     10 - Retainer E-mail                          16
 11  11 - E-Mail from Morgan Weinstein             40
     12 - E-Mails Sweetapple                       42
 12  13 - Letter                                   49
     14 - Report of Examining Committee            49
 13  15A - PROM Note                               53
     15B - MTG                                     53
 14  16 - Affidavit Of AMTS Due & Owing            54
     17 - State Record UC Active                   55
 15  18 - SUGG of Bankruptcy                       56
     19 - Filing In MH Case (NOAPCIV)              57
 16  20 - NOAPCIV                                  57
     21 - Stipulation of Substitution of Counsel   61
 17  22 - 2nd MTG                                  62
     23 - Letter from Law Firm                     63
 18  24 - Statement Regarding Creditors            64
     25 - Executed Stipulation                     66
 19  26 - AGMT (Retainer)                          67
     27 - Entire Deposition of Eliot              149
 20  28 - 8 Different Court Hearing Transcripts   200
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25  
00005
 1                         STIPULATION
 2   
 3   The hearing was taken at Palm Beach County Courthouse,
 4   205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401,
 5   on TUESDAY the 28TH day of JANUARY, 2025 at
 6   approximately 11:05 a.m. (ET); said hearing was taken
 7   pursuant to the FLORIDA Rules of Civil Procedure.
 8   
 9   
 10  
 11  
 12  
 13  
 14  
 15  
 16  
 17  
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25  
00006
 1                  PROCEEDINGS
 2            THE COURT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  You all
 3       could be -- or I guess it's still morning.  Good
 4       morning, everybody.  You can be seated.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Good morning, Your Honor.
 6            THE CLERK:  Good morning.
 7            THE COURT:  Hold on one second.
 8            THE CLERK:  You want to give the name, Your
 9       Honor?
 10           THE COURT:  Sure.
 11           We're here on case 2018-CA-2317.  May I have
 12      the appearances of the parties, please?
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, Robert Sweetapple
 14      and Cynthia Miller here on behalf of the plaintiffs.
 15           THE COURT:  Good morning, Mr. Sweetapple, Ms.
 16      Miller.
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Inger
 18      Garcia on behalf of the defendants, BFR Limited and
 19      the five Bernstein individually.
 20           THE COURT:  Good morning, Ms. Garcia.
 21           MS. GARCIA:  I have one of my clients present,
 22      Mrs. Candice Bernstein.
 23           THE COURT:  Good morning, Ms. Bernstein.
 24           MS. BERNSTEIN:  Hello.
 25           MS. LEWIS:  And good morning, Your Honor.
00007
 1       Kathryn Lewis also on behalf on Charles Revard, the
 2       guardian.  Although I'm not counsel of record, I'm
 3       here in advisory capacity in this case.
 4            THE COURT:  Good morning.
 5            And let's see.  Let me just put everybody on
 6       mute.  Anyone -- any attorneys on Zoom that need to
 7       enter an appearance?  No?  Okay.
 8            All right.  So we had begun taking evidence on
 9       Mr. Sweetapple's motion.  And we bifurcated Ms.
 10      Garcia's motion.  Then we were -- we ran out of
 11      time.  We tried to call up the case for Hurricane
 12      Milton, tried to call up the case for Hurricane
 13      Helene.  And now we're here for the conclusion of
 14      the presentation of evidence on the two matters.
 15           I think when we broke, we were in the middle of
 16      Mr. Sweetapple's direct examination.  So Mr.
 17      Sweetapple, do you have any additional witnesses or
 18      evidence that you'd like to present?
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes, Your Honor, if it pleases
 20      the Court.  I showed Ms. Garcia a number of
 21      documents, most of which are for judicial notice,
 22      because it's my position, and this case is
 23      ultimately a matter of law. I did put in reports
 24      from the examining committee, but the Court was
 25      concerned about them being hearsay.  And even though
00008
 1       I believe this is a collateral estoppel argument,
 2       and that Judge Burton clearly ruled that he relied
 3       on those, the Court indicated, well, the date could
 4       be hearsay.
 5            So I indicated that I would call Dr. Bloom and
 6       Dr. Cheshire.  They're going to be 15 minutes each,
 7       half an hour each, but they're not available until
 8       1:30 and 2:00.
 9            THE COURT:  Okay.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So after I put in these
 11      exhibits, which I believe Ms. Garcia has no
 12      objection to, I won't have any witnesses to call
 13      until then, and she can proceed.
 14           THE COURT:  Okay.
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right, so if I -- if I
 16      may, the -- I'm going to move in and what exhibit
 17      number are we on now?
 18           THE CLERK:  We're onto 5.  So 5 would be the
 19      next one.
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you.  And I can hand
 21      these to your clerk of the Court?
 22           MS. GARCIA:  I'd like to also take them.
 23           THE COURT:  Just -- I -- just show them to Ms.
 24      Garcia first, if there's any objections.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes.  Well, I showed her
00009
 1       earlier.  So you want me to just hand it to the
 2       clerk to mark?
 3            THE COURT:  Let me see if Ms. Garcia has an
 4       objection.  So that's --
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  For identification, at least.
 6            THE COURT:  Sure.  Sure.  So Plaintiff's
 7       Exhibit number 5.  What is the -- what is that
 8       document?
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is an e-mail from Ms.
 10      Garcia to Mr. Raymond, and a copy of a settlement
 11      agreement that she transmitted to him prior to the
 12      one that was executed in this case.
 13           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, do you have any legal
 14      objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit number 5?
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Oh, I -- well, I have the
 16      objection that he -- he's redacted the first page
 17      that I have.  I guess for completeness, I have my
 18      chain of e-mails I would move in, I guess, without
 19      objection.
 20           But also, he's got an attachment here, but I
 21      don't see an attachment referred to in the e-mails,
 22      unless that's it.
 23           MS. MILLER:  If you look at the top e-mail, it
 24      shows that there is an attachment.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So I can tell the Court that
00010
 1       the -- this was transmitted to me by my client.  I
 2       responded to my client.  So this was actually -- was
 3       all communication with my client.  If she wants to
 4       put that in for the Court to review on camera, I
 5       have no problem. But I'm not waiving the privilege
 6       by adding her e-mail to Mr. Raymond.  And the
 7       document she sent to Mr. Raymond was forwarded to me
 8       by my client, and then I responded to my client.
 9       That's the only redaction.  And you'll see that if
 10      you see her -- I don't think she even has that.
 11           THE COURT:  Do you have an objection to the
 12      exhibit?
 13           MS. GARCIA:  No, Your Honor.
 14           THE COURT:  Okay.  Then I will receive it into
 15      evidence, without objection as Plaintiff's Exhibit
 16      5?
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  5.
 18           THE CLERK:  Yes, Your Honor.
 19            (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 5 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, number 6 is an
 21      order from the Bankruptcy Court dated April 14th,
 22      2023, which was three days before the filing of the
 23      petition.
 24           I'm asking the Court to take judicial notice of
 25      that.  I've shown this to Ms. Garcia, she was
00011
 1       involved in this proceeding and is the subject of
 2       the sanction finding --
 3            THE COURT:  Sir --
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- or my Motion for -- or my
 5       Motion for Sanctions.  Exhibit 6.
 6            THE COURT:  Is there any legal objection to
 7       Exhibit number 6?
 8            MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor, he did not file a
 9       proper or timely motion for a judicial notice, so I
 10      object on that basis.
 11           THE COURT:  How are you procedurally prejudiced
 12      by his introduction of this?
 13           MS. GARCIA:  Procedurally, Your Honor?
 14           THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Like I say, I've seen it before,
 16      Your Honor.  So --
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  She was a party.  She's filed
 18      this proceeding, Your Honor, and was the counsel --
 19           THE COURT:  I believe this was attached to the
 20      motion originally.  So I hear that -- your objection
 21      that you weren't given proper notice.  I'm asking
 22      procedurally, how are you prejudiced by the lack of
 23      proper notice?
 24           MS. GARCIA:  First of all, I don't think it's
 25      on this original exhibit list.  And you limited us
00012
 1       to our original exhibit list.
 2            THE COURT:  Is it, or --
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Unless there was documents
 4       discovered that I -- was produced to him during
 5       depositions, because I produced many documents to
 6       him during deposition that you intend to use.
 7            Secondly, had I known he was going to be moving
 8       this in today, I would've called the attorney who
 9       drafted this order, because --
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, this is Exhibit J
 11      to our motion to strike at your hearing.  This has
 12      been --
 13           THE COURT:  This is an order signed by a judge,
 14      is it not?
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay, this is -- this was
 16      signed by --
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 18           THE COURT:  Hang on, Mr. Sweetapple, I -- I'm
 19      -- Ms. Garcia is --
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 21           THE COURT:  -- articulating to me her
 22      procedural prejudice, so --
 23           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah, it's -- it is signed by the
 24      judge, Your Honor.  And it will be taken up in that
 25      court for fraud.  So he can use it how he wants
00013
 1       today, and we'll deal with it there.
 2            THE COURT:  All right, then I'm going to
 3       receive Exhibit 6 over Objection, as Plaintiff's
 4       Exhibit number 6.
 5             (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 6 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Number 7, Your Honor, is the
 7       request for judicial notice I filed, in this case
 8       filed.
 9            And Ms. Garcia was e-served with this on, I
 10      believe April 18th, 2023.  It was mentioned in my
 11      case, but I have not asked the Court to take
 12      judicial notice of this.  It's been shown to Ms.
 13      Garcia.
 14           THE COURT:  That's Exhibit number 7?
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Do you have a copy, sir?
 16           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, what is your position
 17      with respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit number 7?
 18           MS. GARCIA:  No objection.
 19           THE COURT:  All right.  I'll receive this into
 20      evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit number 7.
 21            (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 7 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Exhibit 8, Your Honor, is the
 23      objection to the examining committee, filed by Amber
 24      Patwell (phonetic) as counsel for Patricia Sahm, in
 25      case number 50-2023.
00014
 1            Some of these that -- have mental health -- may
 2       have been filed under seal, so they -- that.  I've
 3       shown this.  This was in the underlying case, the
 4       Purager (phonetic) case.
 5            THE COURT:  What's your position, Ms. Garcia
 6       with, I believe Plaintiff's Exhibit number 8?
 7            MS. GARCIA:  No objection.
 8            THE COURT:  It'll be received into evidence
 9       without objection as Plaintiff's Exhibit number 8.
 10            (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 8 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And then Your Honor, I have
 12      Ms. Garcia's appearance in the underlying case where
 13      Judge Burton issued his order, which I'm asking the
 14      Court to take judicial notice of.
 15           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia.  What's your position
 16      with respect to Plaintiff's Exhibit number 9?
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Same objection for the record,
 18      Your Honor, that he didn't properly file for the
 19      judicial notice, timely?
 20           THE COURT:  I thought that at the -- at the --
 21           MS. GARCIA:  But there's no objection.
 22           THE COURT:  Okay.  So there's no -- if there's
 23      no objection, then I'll receive it into evidence
 24      without objection.  But I thought that initially
 25      there was a request for the Court to take judicial
00015
 1       notice of the entire mental health --
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 3            THE COURT:  -- and guardianship court file at
 4       the --
 5            MS. GARCIA:  I think so, Your Honor.
 6            THE COURT:  -- at the first hearing in August.
 7       So --
 8            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 9            THE COURT:  -- I don't find that there's -- I
 10      don't find that you weren't given proper notice, but
 11      there's no objection.  So I'll receive it into
 12      evidence as 9?
 13           THE CLERK:  Yes, Your Honor.
 14            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 9 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And Your Honor, I did put in
 16      that --
 17           MS. GARCIA:  So that was 8, right?
 18           THE COURT:  9.  That was 9.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  What was 8?
 20           THE COURT:  8 was the lack of -- or --
 21           THE CLERK:  Objection to the examining
 22      committee --
 23           THE COURT:  It was the objection to the
 24      examining committee report.
 25           MS. GARCIA:  Okay, that's 8?
00016
 1            THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I already put in
 4       Judge Burton's order determining a capacity, but I
 5       did not put in his order appointing under a guardian
 6       of the person who properly entered
 7       contemporaneously.  So I'm moving for the Court to
 8       take judicial notice of that order as well.
 9            THE COURT:  What's the date of that order?
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  It is June, I think, 22nd. Let
 11      me -- June 27th, 2023.
 12           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, what's your position
 13      with respect to --
 14           MS. GARCIA:  No objection.
 15           THE COURT:  I'll receive it into evidence
 16      without objection as Plaintiff's Exhibit number 10.
 17            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 10 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And lastly, Your Honor, is an
 19      order granting filing for protection against
 20      exploitation of a vulnerable adult, entered in the
 21      guardianship by Judge Burton.
 22           The date is dated -- it's dated September 22,
 23      2023, Your Honor.
 24           THE COURT:  Uh-huh.  Ms. Garcia?
 25           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Missing as to
00017
 1       relevance.
 2            THE COURT:  What is the relevance, Mr.
 3       Sweetapple?
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  There's findings in this order
 5       that Judge Burton made regarding -- and I can read
 6       it to the Court.
 7            The respondent, who was is the younger sister,
 8       Patricia Sahm, Jr. -- this is on Page 4 of 14.  "The
 9       respondent further testified that in March of 2023,
 10      a female notary arrived at the residence, then
 11      occupied by respondent and the vulnerable adult.
 12      Although the respondent suspected that the Bernstein
 13      family with whom the vulnerable is currently
 14      litigating against, or Kevin Hall (phonetic), an
 15      attorney involved in that litigation, sent the
 16      notary to the residence, the respondent claims that
 17      she took no action while the notary notarized the
 18      vulnerable adult's signature on documents that
 19      revoked the Power of Attorney in favor of the
 20      vulnerable adult's then-acting agent and trustee,
 21      Joanna (phonetic)."
 22           So this relates specifically to conduct that
 23      occurred at the time of the guardianship, that this
 24      Court is reviewing.  And even though it -- even
 25      though there is a legal argument being made as to
00018
 1       why the Court, as a matter of the collateral
 2       estoppel has defined incapacity, I'm also making a
 3       record, factually, through the experts and the
 4       testimony, to show the improper conduct.  Because I
 5       have asked for sanctions against Ms. Garcia,
 6       including for her client's conduct at her direction.
 7            THE COURT:  All right.  Anything further, Ms.
 8       Garcia?
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Again, objection to relevance. The
 10      time frame, 9-22-23 is after the fact.  This is a
 11      hearing that was not concluded.  I'll testify, I
 12      guess, to broadly perpetrated today, and I'll deal
 13      with any other courts.
 14           THE COURT:  What -- I'm sorry.  You gave -- you
 15      handed me a 14-page document, I think.  What's the
 16      -- is this a permanent file injunction, or is it
 17      time-limited?
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Pardon me?
 19           THE COURT:  Is this a permanent file -- I
 20      apologize.  I'm --
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is an order that has not
 22      been appealed or vacated, of Judge Burton.
 23           THE COURT:  No, but some injunctions are safe
 24      for a period of six months or eight months.  Is
 25      this --
00019
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Oh --
 2            MS. MILLER:  I think it lasted 60 days, Your
 3       Honor.  That's my recollection from the
 4       guardianship.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  It was an agreed final injunction
 6       that the Court made no findings.  They put it in the
 7       order anyway.  And I have the transcript.  I'll do
 8       it with the other Judge now that they're using it
 9       here in front of you.
 10           MS. MILLER:  That's not correct, Your Honor.
 11      But that's, I suppose, an issue for Judge Burton to
 12      take up.
 13           THE COURT:  All right.  I'm going to receive it
 14      into evidence over objection, subject, of course, to
 15      Ms. Garcia explaining why it's not relevant for the
 16      Court's consideration -- ultimate consideration.
 17      But for the purposes of the hearing, I will admit it
 18      into evidence, and you can tell me why I shouldn't
 19      give it any weight.
 20            (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 11 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right, but you're going to
 22      take judicial notice of it?
 23           THE COURT:  Yes.  I'm admitting it into
 24      evidence over their objection.  But she's certainly
 25      free to tell me why it should not bear in my
00020
 1       decision-making.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And I'll be then calling Dr.
 3       Bloom and Dr. Cheshire.  I don't anticipate any
 4       other witnesses unless there's some rebuttal
 5       message.
 6            THE COURT:  And you said Dr. Bloom and Dr.
 7       Cheshire would testify at --
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  1:30 and 2:00, I have them on
 9       stand-by on Zoom.
 10           THE COURT:  Okay.
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I tried to get them this
 12      morning and I couldn't.
 13           THE COURT:  That's okay.  All right, Ms.
 14      Garcia, with respect to your motions, do you have
 15      any witnesses or evidence that you'd like to admit?
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Evidence?  Yes, Your Honor.
 17           THE COURT:  Or witnesses.
 18           MS. GARCIA:  I'm sorry?
 19           THE COURT:  Or witnesses.  Either testimony or
 20      evidence that you'd like to submit?
 21           MS. GARCIA:  Yes, Your Honor.  But I have an
 22      issue with me having to try my case in -- is in the
 23      middle of his case.
 24           THE COURT:  Okay.
 25           MS. GARCIA:  His witnesses should be here
00021
 1       timely.  It was set for 11:00.  He told us to be
 2       here, and I object to him calling the witnesses at
 3       1:30 and 1:15.  It's just not the way the Court
 4       operates.  And I have to start my case in the middle
 5       of his case. Because I'm going to move for directed
 6       verdict.
 7            THE COURT:  Well, I can take a recess through
 8       -- I haven't had a chance to review all the
 9       documents that have just been judicial noticed.  If
 10      you'd like for me to step off the bench and you can
 11      wait here while I read the documents --
 12           MS. GARCIA:  I'd like to also -- well, should I
 13      guess I can go over with him, my exhibits also.
 14           THE COURT:  Why don't you do that?  Because I
 15      -- it just seems like it's a better use of
 16      everybody's time.  I'm not prejudicing you from
 17      moving for directed verdict.  I'm just trying to be
 18      economical with everybody's time.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  I understand, Your Honor.
 20           THE COURT:  So --
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I can proffer to the Court,
 22      and if the Court wanted to continue working, you
 23      know, up -- at any time up to 1:30, that all I'm
 24      going to do, is have the two examining committee
 25      members testify as to what's in the report.  So
00022
 1       there's not going be any surprise or anything that
 2       she doesn't know is going to be coming now.
 3            THE COURT:  So do you want to show Mr.
 4       Sweetapple -- do you want to take a couple moments
 5       to show Mr. Sweetapple your exhibit?  I'll step off
 6       the bench.  You show him your exhibits.  I'll take
 7       some of these and start reading them and then you
 8       can come get me when you're ready?
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 10           THE COURT:  All right.
 11            (OFF THE RECORD)
 12           THE COURT:  You all can be seated.
 13           All right, Ms. Garcia is present.  The court
 14      reporter is present.  Mr. Sweetapple is present.
 15           Have you all gotten a chance to go over Ms.
 16      Garcia's evidence?
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes, Your Honor.
 18           THE COURT:  All right.  Are there any
 19      agreements to any of the evidence, or --
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Limited.  There is some
 21      judicial notice that is entirely irrelevant to this
 22      proceeding.  If you take judicial notice of it, I do
 23      want to alert you that we're going far afield here.
 24           THE COURT:  Okay.  Let me see what Ms. Garcia
 25      has to present.
00023
 1            MS. GARCIA:  May I approach?
 2            THE COURT:  Sure.
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Marked as H for identification is
 4       a death certificate of Mr. Walter Sahm.
 5            THE COURT:  Okay.  Any legal objection?
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I've indicated I
 7       -- there's -- this is no issue as is, but it's
 8       totally irrelevant to this proceeding.
 9            THE COURT:  Well, it might not be relevant to
 10      your Motion, but is -- Ms. Garcia has a motion.
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  But it's not bifurcated --
 12           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah.
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- for today.  It must be set
 14      at a later date.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah, my motion's not set for
 16      today, Your Honor.  Just the balance of this trial.
 17           THE COURT:  Okay.
 18           MS. GARCIA:  You get to determine that if and
 19      when you rule -- or when you rule on the settlement,
 20      then I would go ahead and do my discovery and set my
 21      1.54 and 1.340.
 22           THE COURT:  So when is -- so what is the
 23      relevance of this to --
 24           MS. GARCIA:  The relevance to this, is that
 25      you're going to see the orders and the pleadings
00024
 1       that the gentleman died in 2021, and they continued
 2       to file pleadings in his name through 2024 without
 3       telling this Court.  They got final judgements.
 4       They'd go to the Bankruptcy Court claiming there's
 5       an estate issue, but then they had filed with his
 6       name there.  And my testimony will explain the
 7       relevance of his date of death and what has happened
 8       since.  It's very relevant to our defense.
 9            THE COURT:  All right.  So I'll receive this
 10      into evidence over objection as Defense Exhibit 1 --
 11      or is it --
 12           MS. GARCIA:  8.
 13           THE COURT:  -- 7?
 14           THE CLERK:  7. 7.
 15           THE COURT:  7.  Exhibit number 7.
 16           THE CLERK:  7.
 17            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 7 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 18           MS. MILLER:  I think you're doing -- are you
 19      doing letters?  You were --
 20           MS. GARCIA:  No, that was for identification.
 21      And then they would doing -- they did numbers for
 22      the actual exhibits.  But it has defendant on it.
 23      So H is 7.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I noticed that you
 25      have a warning that we're recording.  I just want to
00025
 1       make sure that the people on Zoom have been alerted
 2       that they should not be recording this.  I see Mr.
 3       Hall and others on Zoom.
 4            THE COURT:  Right.  So the only -- there's only
 5       one record that can be kept of a proceeding, and
 6       that is the court reporter's record.  So I mean, the
 7       recording is not prohibited -- it is prohibited.
 8       It's not the official court recording.  That's by
 9       order of the Chief Judge, and by order of me.
 10           What's that --
 11           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  If I may approach?
 12           THE COURT:  Sure.
 13           MS. GARCIA:  I, the final judgment in this
 14      case.
 15           THE COURT:  Thank you.  Any legal objection?
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, Your Honor.
 17           THE COURT:  I will receive it in to evidence
 18      without objection as Defense Exhibit 8.
 19            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 8 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 20           MS. GARCIA:  8.  Okay.
 21           This one is J.  I have it on the back.  It's a
 22      judicial notice.  This was filed in this case,
 23      January 2nd, 2023, by me.  I made my initial
 24      appearance.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Just note my objection to
00026
 1       relevance, Judge.  It has nothing to do with the
 2       competency issue and the draw on the Court issue.
 3            THE COURT:  Miss, what's the relevance of your
 4       motion?
 5            MS. GARCIA:  The relevance of my motion, Your
 6       Honor, is I started from when I came in the case
 7       from day one, disclosing to the Court, like all the
 8       issues with the fraud and filing for dead people and
 9       filing cases, the estate -- the bankruptcy cases for
 10      the estate that had no rights, filing for Patricia
 11      Sahm.
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, the 1540 Motion
 13      was not for the hearing today.
 14           THE COURT:  That -- that's what my confusion is
 15      I -- it seems -- I -- I'm not saying that this isn't
 16      relevant to your 1540 Motion, but I'm trying to
 17      figure out what the relevance is to the Motion that
 18      we're here for.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  The relevance is, Your Honor.
 20      They're coming in here with unclean hands.  Like for
 21      instance, on Page 6, Paragraph 11, he was --
 22      Mr. Sweetapple continued to represent Walter Sahm
 23      after his death, without informing the Court.  And
 24      even when there was a suggestion of death filed, he
 25      continued to file pleadings.  And then Walter Sahm
00027
 1       -- now the final judgment entered in the name of
 2       Walter Sahm, which was the -- what was settled.
 3            So it's going to show that from day one in this
 4       case, there has been issues as far as the final
 5       judgment, the amount, the outstanding issues, 1.54
 6       and 1.30 do affect the reasonableness of the
 7       settlement.  So the Court goes through the, you
 8       know, the elements where you have, whether or not
 9       they can even prove incapacitation at the time or
 10      not, since it was before the finding of the Court,
 11      first of all the threshold issue.  And then next,
 12      you have the issues that he's claiming, undue
 13      influence, fraud.  And I'm not sure what else he's
 14      claimed.
 15           THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm going to receive it into
 16      evidence over objection as Plaintiff's Exhibit --
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  9.
 18           THE COURT:  -- 9.
 19            (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 9 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 20           MS. GARCIA:  The next one is K, Your Honor.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I think you can just tell the
 22      Court whether I objected to it or not.
 23           MS. GARCIA:  This one you were -- you objected
 24      to relevance, I believe.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, this is where your --
00028
 1       no, it was hearsay.  You're trying to -- first of
 2       all, any communications from Mr. Raymond, I would
 3       require testimony to authenticate in some form.  And
 4       then there's an affidavit --
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Oh, sorry.  I'm so sorry, the
 6       affidavit.
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- affidavit from a mister --
 8            THE COURT:  We need to identify what it is for
 9       the record.  And then --
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  This is -- it starts --
 11      it's an e-mail chain that I produced to Counsel
 12      during the deposition when we were ordered to waive
 13      privilege or to appear and take privilege.  And I
 14      produced for the record, and this goes to the
 15      settlement negotiations between me, Mr. Raymond and
 16      Mr. Sweetapple, and dealing in March of 2023, during
 17      the relevant time frame as to the capacity and the
 18      negotiations between the lawyers.
 19           THE COURT:  Okay.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  And it's clearly one -- this --
 21      clearly what I'm asking questions of the attorneys,
 22      and they're responding, this is the attorney for the
 23      estate. And that's relevant to the issues of filing
 24      in the bankruptcy, planning the estate rights, not
 25      substituting the estate.
00029
 1            THE COURT:  Okay.  So your objection to it, is
 2       hearsay?
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, in terms of, there's a
 4       find an affidavit by William Stransbury.  She showed
 5       me an affidavit she wanted to put in.
 6            THE COURT:  I don't have an affidavit.
 7            MS. GARCIA:  I didn't attach that.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  So yeah, I'm -- so
 9       you're not going to move -- so you're going to agree
 10      with me, that doesn't come in?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  No, but I'm not doing it here.
 12      I'll do it separately.  Only, I --
 13           THE COURT:  All I have is an e-mail.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right.  Well, first of
 15      all, there's a representation that's sent to me,
 16      which is inaccurate.  Second of all, you're going to
 17      learn that she sent numerous e-mails to a different
 18      e-mail address than my e-mail, repeatedly in March,
 19      and never included me on any of these, despite Mr.
 20      Raymond saying, include mister -- Mr. Sweetapple is
 21      in charge, he's handling this, not me.
 22           So if we get into these communications, I'm
 23      going to have to, for completeness, cross-examine
 24      her on the whole episode.  And so I object to this,
 25      unless she comes in and testifies to authenticate,
00030
 1       and I can ask her if -- for completeness, about
 2       other e-mails and what she did.
 3            THE COURT:  So your objection is, it's not
 4       authenticated?
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes.  She would have to come
 6       in and testify.  Mr. Raymond is not here.  So she'd
 7       have to say, Mr. Raymond sent this to me.  I
 8       received it. And then I'm going to ask her about
 9       other e-mails.
 10           THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  Are you in a
 11      position to do that?
 12           MS. GARCIA:  I can testify to receiving the e-
 13      mails.
 14           THE COURT:  All right.  So then I'll have it
 15      marked for identification purposes, subject to it
 16      being authenticated.
 17           There's no other objection?
 18                 MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah, I -- I'm not
 19  calling her, but I anticipate cross-examining her, based
 20  on
 21  her --
 22           THE COURT:  I wasn't sure if there was an --
 23      it's highlighted, indicating that the part that the
 24      Court wants -- she wants the Court to consider is
 25      Mr. Raymond's statement, which seems to me to be
00031
 1       hearsay. But if there's not an objection to that,
 2       then --
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, that's it.
 4            THE COURT:  -- then it's just authenticity,
 5       then we'll let it get authenticated.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, I'm going to object on
 7       hearsay, Judge.  I thought we had her statements
 8       here as well.  So I will object to hearsay on
 9       anything, just from Mr. Raymond to her.
 10           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, how is Mr. Raymond's
 11      statement not hearsay?
 12           MS. GARCIA:  This e-mail is our communication
 13      in relation to the settlement, and it's relevant.
 14      And when I asked him questions, he responded.
 15           THE COURT:  Right.  So hearsay is a statement
 16      made out of court --
 17           MS. GARCIA:  This is --
 18           THE COURT:  -- for the truth of the matter
 19      that's asserted.  So how is it not hearsay?
 20           MS. GARCIA:  It's an exception under the
 21      business rule.  This is a -- this is a communication
 22      from my law firm.  It's a business record.  This was
 23      received by me, and I can authenticate this as a
 24      business record.
 25           THE COURT:  Okay.  And how is Mr. Raymond's
00032
 1       statement to you not hearsay?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  I guess I can -- I guess I -- can
 3       I have one moment, Your Honor?
 4            THE COURT:  Sure.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I have no objection to her
 6       portion of, you know -- she authenticates, I don't
 7       have a chance to cross examine her and bring in her
 8       other communications.  But I -- to the extent she's
 9       just trying to put in Mr. Raymond's communications,
 10      I --
 11           THE COURT:  I just -- that's what I thought
 12      with that.  I only thought that because it's
 13      highlighted in orange, but if that's not --
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I don't have a highlighted
 15      copy.
 16           THE COURT:  That's not what you're seeking to
 17      do then?
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well I didn't -- she didn't
 19      give me the highlighted --
 20           THE COURT:  Okay.  This is what was handed to
 21      me.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Another exception, Your Honor.
 23           THE COURT:  All right.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah, I didn't -- that wasn't
 25      -- I was looking at the bottom --
00033
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Here.  I'll give you one.  Similar
 2       passages, the square that is highlighted.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Sorry, I just --
 4            THE COURT:  It's okay.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I didn't -- I was --
 6            THE COURT:  I'm not trying to create issues.  I
 7       just --
 8            MS. GARCIA:  For one thing, Your Honor, the --
 9       there is an exception under party admission.
 10      Because this is where the other attorneys that I was
 11      negotiating with in this case, who represent the
 12      parties, are informing me that Ms. Sahm wasn't under
 13      guardianship and didn't need a guardian in March.
 14           So that goes to my mental impression of what
 15      was her status.  And I'll testify to different
 16      conversations and different mental impressions that
 17      I had that Ms. Patwell had, based on our
 18      conversations.
 19           THE COURT:  All right, I'll have it marked for
 20      identification, subject to being authenticated.  But
 21      that does sound like an exception to the hearsay.
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And just so we -- we're clear,
 23      I'm also objecting to relevance from this statement
 24      in March when we're on the subject of admissions by
 25      parties' representative and parties.
00034
 1            I am going to be correcting one of the exhibits
 2       I provided to the Court, because Ms. Garcia just
 3       provided me with the May settlement agreement she
 4       forwarded to Mr. Raymond that is signed by her
 5       clients, where there repeated representation that
 6       Mrs. Sahm is incapacitated.  That's in May.  All
 7       right?  This is in March.
 8            THE COURT:  Okay.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So just so the Court, for
 10      relevance and context -- yeah, I'll be -- I'll be
 11      moving -- we've already admitted that into evidence,
 12      but I'm going to ask the Court to note that that is
 13      an admission of Ms. Garcia as the representative and
 14      the parties.
 15           THE COURT:  Okay.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Can I have just one moment, Your
 17      Honor?
 18           THE COURT:  Of course.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  The next one, Your Honor, is
 20      marked as -- for identification, Exhibit L.
 21           THE COURT:  Thank you.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  This is the affidavit of Mr.
 23      Stransbury.
 24           THE COURT:  All right.  What's the plaintiff's
 25      position?
00035
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I object.  It's hearsay, Your
 2       Honor.
 3            THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia?
 4            MS. GARCIA:  I can call the witness, Your
 5       Honor.
 6            THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm going to sustain the
 7       objection as to hearsay, but I'll have it marked for
 8       identification as L.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And note my objection also to
 10      relevance, that this witness doesn't have any
 11      testimony since March of 2022.  It's not going to be
 12      relevant to the --
 13           THE COURT:  I found that it's hearsay.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Just saying if we get -- when
 15      that witness comes in, I'm just previewing that, the
 16      date of this.
 17           MS. GARCIA:  The next one, Your Honor, is N.
 18      This is the -- this is a notarized letter, signed by
 19      both parties, the deceased, Mr. Sahm, and Mrs. Sahm
 20      as the trustee.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is undated and hearsay,
 22      Your Honor.
 23           MS. GARCIA:  I'll say it's a statement of a
 24      party opponent.  It's also -- Mr. Sahm is deceased,
 25      and it's a statement by him, which is an exception
00036
 1       to the hearsay rule.
 2            THE COURT:  Where is that in the hearsay
 3       exception, a statement of a deceased person?  Isn't
 4       it a statement of a person upon impending knowledge
 5       of death?
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, also relevance.
 7       This is -- this -- it says a phone call, October
 8       11th, 2019.
 9            THE COURT:  Isn't this prior to the file --
 10      judgment?
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, it's prior -- it's prior
 12      to the lawsuit being filed.  Around the time --
 13           MS. GARCIA:  This goes to the relevance is that
 14      it goes to the long-term negotiations.  Because
 15      there's allegations that basically, once we found
 16      out that there were some committee reports out there
 17      that we rushed to do a settlement.  And this shows
 18      the Court by statements by both parties that this
 19      has been going on for years. And it talks about the
 20      amount of $200,000 was a reasonable amount at that
 21      time, where they were willing to accept.
 22           THE COURT:  All right.  I find that this is
 23      hearsay.  So -- without an exception, so I'm going
 24      to sustain the objection unless it can be
 25      authenticated some other way.  I don't see
00037
 1       necessarily how it's relevant, but it is hearsay.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  I could authenticate it by the
 3       receiver of the letter who's here, that can testify,
 4       Your Honor.  So --
 5            This is marked as Defendant's O, Your Honor.
 6       It's a retainer by Twig, Trade, & Tribunal dated
 7       April 11th, 2023.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  It's hearsay, Your Honor.  I
 9       would note, though, it is telling how the defendants
 10      have communications between an alleged attorney for
 11      Mrs. Sahm.  This is a privileged document, and the
 12      fact they can have it is consistent with my theory
 13      of the case.
 14           THE COURT:  I'm going to overrule the
 15      objection.  This is -- appears to be a legal
 16      document, which -- it's words of operative legal
 17      effect.  So that is an exception to hearsay.
 18           What number were we at?
 19           THE CLERK:  Number 10, Your Honor.
 20           THE COURT:  Number 10 will be received into
 21      evidence over objection as Exhibit number 10.
 22            (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 10 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I just -- if the
 24      Court will officially note, I don't see Page 2.  I
 25      don't see it signed by Mr. Weinstein.
00038
 1            THE COURT:  It appears to be signed by the
 2       plaintiff.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah.  But we don't know if it
 4       was paid or anything about it.
 5            THE COURT:  And you'll be free to argue that to
 6       me --
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 8            THE COURT:  -- as to why I should or should not
 9       consider it.  But it appears that it's authentic and
 10      it appears that it would be admissible into
 11      evidence.  I'm going to receive it --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 13           THE COURT:  -- for whatever its evidentiary
 14      value is.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Do you have a pen?
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  What?
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Do you have a pen?
 18           Your Honor, marked as Exhibit P is an e-mail --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Is this -- was this e-mailed
 20      to someone?
 21           MS. GARCIA:  -- from Morgan Weinstein to Mr.
 22      Sweetapple, and this deals with their communications
 23      in -- April 13th, 2023, when Mr. Weinstein was
 24      attempting to substitute in as the attorney in this
 25      case, based on his retainer with the client.
00039
 1            THE COURT:  All right.  What's the plaintiff's
 2       position?
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  He's talking about this.  The
 4       top is from Kevin Hall.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  This was --
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And you're referring to just
 7       the Morgan Weinstein to me?
 8            MS. GARCIA:  This was produced during a
 9       deposition pursuant to your court orders.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Let me just -- you -- you're
 11      talking about this section right here?  "Hello.  Mr.
 12      Sahm has a -- this section does not have an e-mail
 13      address of response to her daughter Patty's e-mail
 14      account.  I've copied that account here. Mr.
 15      Sweetapple's asking that you e-mail back to
 16      authorize the change of representation from his
 17      firm." So --
 18           THE COURT:  Is there an objection to that?
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  It's just hearsay.  And I
 20      don't think it's complete either.  I presume there's
 21      a response somewhere or a follow-up on any of this.
 22      It's not relevant.  It doesn't tend to prove or
 23      disprove anything.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  It is relevant.  You won't let me
 25      respond.
00040
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is hearsay from me.  It's
 2       hearsay within hearsay.  He's writing to Patricia
 3       Sahm, and copying me, saying that I have asked
 4       something to happen.
 5            THE COURT:  What -- Ms. Garcia, what's it being
 6       offered -- is it being offered for the truth of
 7       what's being stated?
 8            MS. GARCIA:  It's being offered for the fact
 9       that it would -- that this communication occurred,
 10      and that Mr. Sweetapple was aware of the potential
 11      of substitution in this case on April 13th of 2023.
 12           THE COURT:  All right.  The portion that
 13      indicates that Mr. Sweetapple has asked that you e-
 14      mail back to authorize the change, would be hearsay.
 15           But the fact that the communication occurred
 16      and Mr. Sweetapple's e-mail is CC'd to the e-mail is
 17      not hearsay.  So I'll receive that portion of it in
 18      evidence as 11.
 19           THE CLERK:  Yes, Your Honor.
 20           THE COURT:  Defense Exhibit number 11, over
 21      objection.
 22            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 11 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Is there any follow up e-mail
 24      that she's offering where -- that's something
 25      happened?
00041
 1            THE COURT:  I don't know.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  Here is the next e-mail.
 3       It's Exhibit Q for identification.  This is further
 4       communications between Mr. Sweetapple and Patty
 5       Sahm, Junior, who she was communicating -- Mr.
 6       Sweetapple, to see the Power of Attorney, who was
 7       Mr. Sweetapple, and asked for a copy of the
 8       Revocation of Power of Attorney and requested that
 9       he -- Mr. Weinstein substitute in as her attorney.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object to hearsay
 11      because I certainly want Patty Sahm to testify.
 12           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, what's the purpose of
 13      this e-mail again?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  The purpose of this e-mail is to
 15      show the fact that there was communication and Mr.
 16      Sweetapple had knowledge that he was requested to
 17      substitute out and allow Mr. Weinstein to substitute
 18      in. And Mr. Sweetapple had asked for a copy of the
 19      Power of Attorney, and it was the Revocation of
 20      Power of Attorney that was provided to him at that
 21      time --
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, there's --
 23           MS. GARCIA:  -- four days before the
 24      Guardianship was filed.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  There's no attachment to this.
00042
 1       It says, "I have attached my mom's Revocation."
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Right.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And it's -- there's nothing
 4       attached to this e-mail.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  The Revocation's already in
 6       evidence, Your Honor, as the Exhibit --
 7            THE COURT:  I'm going to --
 8            MS. GARCIA:  -- Composite Exhibit 1.
 9            THE COURT:  I'm going to receive this item of
 10      evidence in the -- into -- I'm going to receive this
 11      exhibit into evidence over objection for the reason
 12      stated by Ms. Garcia as Defense Exhibit number 12.
 13            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 12 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor, was that marked P?  I
 15      apologize. P or --
 16           THE CLERK:  Q.
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Q, okay.  So 11 was that one. That
 18      was Q.  Okay. Q.  Thank you.
 19           Then this is R.  Your Honor, it was marked as
 20      Defense Exhibit R.  It's further e-mail
 21      communications in relation to the same time frame.
 22      This was April 15th, 2023, two days later, where --
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is all hearsay from the
 24      daughter, who I believe is on house arrest, though,
 25      but available by Zoom.
00043
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Well --
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You can call her --
 3            MS. GARCIA:  -- she's off in two days.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Pardon?
 5            MS. GARCIA:  She's off in two days.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You can call her by Zoom. This
 7       is -- I've been trying to unsuccessfully get her
 8       depo scheduled for months.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Not true.
 10           So Your Honor, this goes again to the fact that
 11      at this time --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  The hearsay is objectionable,
 13      Your Honor.
 14           THE COURT:  Hang on.  I need -- I need you to
 15      not all argue with each other.  I need you to state
 16      your position so that I can make a ruling.  So your
 17      objection is that it's hearsay.  Ms. Garcia, how is
 18      it not hearsay?
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Let's see.
 20           THE COURT:  This is a communication between
 21      Mrs. Sahm and Morgan Weinstein who is not Mr.
 22      Sweetapple, or anybody employed with Mr.
 23      Sweetapple's firm.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  Well taken, Your Honor.
 25           THE COURT:  I'll sustain the objection.
00044
 1            MS. GARCIA:  If I want to admit it, I will call
 2       Ms. Sahm.
 3            Okay.  Marked as Defense Exhibit S.  I mean, T.
 4       I apologize.  I scratched S.
 5            THE COURT:  Okay.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  T, Your Honor.  This is produced
 7       pursuant to the deposition.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  My objection, Your Honor, is
 9       hearsay.  These are texts with Ms. Patwell, who I've
 10      also been trying to depose, who's also incarcerated.
 11           MS. GARCIA:  This --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So obviously anything --
 13           THE COURT:  Hang on.  I need to know what Ms.
 14      Garcia's exhibit is, for the record.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Right.
 16           THE COURT:  And then I'll ask you what your
 17      objection is.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  I'm sorry.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  This is Exhibit S, Your Honor. And
 20      this is the messages with Morgan Weinstein and
 21      myself.  Because our communications and our
 22      knowledge of what was going on at this time frame,
 23      when we were being accused of committing fraud and
 24      taking advantage of somebody, you ordered us to
 25      produce these communications.  So I produced the
00045
 1       relevant communications from 4-10-2023 through 4-16-
 2       23.
 3            The last one is irrelevant, Your Honor.  Which
 4       basically is my communications with Mr. Weinstein,
 5       which I'll be testifying to.  The fact that he told
 6       me he was being retained, he was filing his notice
 7       of appearance, and he's had them sign a retainer
 8       and --
 9            THE COURT:  Mister --
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  It's hearsay.  Anything Mr.
 11      Weinstein said in these is hearsay.
 12           THE COURT:  And in your statements, how are
 13      they not hearsay?  And if you're going to testify to
 14      it, it's subject to cross-examination.  I don't see
 15      how this is an exception of the hearsay.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  This again, this is a business
 17      record, Your Honor.  This is by communications with
 18      opposing counsel that I was ordered to produce in a
 19      deposition, which I produced in a deposition,
 20      subject to cross-examination at the deposition.
 21           THE COURT:  I haven't heard that it's a
 22      business record.  I mean, it may be.  I haven't
 23      heard that.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  This is kept in the regular course
 25      of business communications with opposing counsel,
00046
 1       communications with my clients.  In this particular
 2       document, you ordered us to produce the
 3       communications, so I did.  He's had the benefit of
 4       it, has cross- examined --
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And --
 6            THE COURT:  Just because I ordered it produced
 7       doesn't mean it's admissible into evidence.  It --
 8            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 9            THE COURT:  -- means that perhaps he would like
 10      to admit it into evidence as a statement that you
 11      made -- I don't know -- which would be an exception
 12      to hearsay, but if you are asking to admit it, I
 13      need to find out how it's admissible.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And anything that --
 15           THE COURT:  I would --
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Anything that was her
 17      communication, I'd want her to authenticate it, but
 18      I --
 19           THE COURT:  Right.  And --
 20           MS. GARCIA:  This is an authorized admission,
 21      Your Honor.  The Federal Rule of Evidence
 22      801(d)(2)(C)(D).  Supposedly there's a conspiracy.
 23      This would be an admission of a co-conspirator also,
 24      under his theory, under 801(d)(2)(E).  It's also --
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Who's the co-conspirator?
00047
 1            MS. GARCIA:  -- an adopted admission.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Who's the co-conspirator
 3       though?
 4            THE COURT:  It -- he -- so that would be an
 5       exception that he would seek to admit it under,
 6       unless you're conceding that you're part of a
 7       conspiracy and you're saying that you wanted to
 8       introduce your co-conspirator's statement?
 9            MS. GARCIA:  No --
 10           THE COURT:  Is that what you're --
 11           MS. GARCIA:  No --
 12           THE COURT:  -- conceding?
 13           MS. GARCIA:  No, I'm not saying that we are
 14      conspirators.  I'm saying we've been accused of
 15      conspiracy.  We've been accused of fraud.
 16           THE COURT:  I will reserve on ruling on it. But
 17      as of right now, it sounds like it's hearsay without
 18      an exception.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And then now also, Your Honor,
 21      this whole thing about Mr. Weinstein is irrelevant.
 22      There's no dispute.  I was never provided with the
 23      proposed substitution.  Of any form.
 24           THE COURT:  It may ultimately be irrelevant,
 25      but --
00048
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, we are wasting
 2       time --
 3            THE COURT:  Well, your witnesses aren't
 4       available until 1:00, so --
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I know.  I understand.  What
 6       I'm saying is --
 7            THE COURT:  - -- or 1:30, so we have to -- we
 8       have to get this for -- it would've been nice to
 9       have some agreements to some of this to streamline
 10      things, but there was an objection to even waiting
 11      until 1:30. So let's use our time wisely.
 12           MS. GARCIA:  Here's U, Your Honor.  Defense U.
 13      This is -- he agreed to the judicial notice.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I have no objection to this.
 15      It's Mr. Shraiberg's (phonetic) fee agreement from
 16      the Bankruptcy Court when he represented the estate
 17      and Patricia Sahm individually.
 18           THE COURT:  So you have no objection to
 19      receiving --
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No.
 21           THE COURT:  -- defense U into evidence --
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  That's correct.
 23           THE COURT:  -- as Defense Exhibit 13?
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  In Bankruptcy Court, you know,
 25      you're required to file your fee agreement, so
00049
 1       there's really no objection at this point.
 2            THE COURT:  Received into evidence without
 3       objection as 13.  Defense 13.
 4             (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 13 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  Exhibit V, Your Honor.
 6       Defense Exhibit v. is the report of an examining
 7       committee member.  One of the three committee
 8       members that was initially assigned to the case.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, this is the one who's
 10      going to be testifying second, so I have no
 11      objection.
 12           THE COURT:  I'll receive it into evidence
 13      without objection as Defense 14.
 14            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 14 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 15           THE CLERK:  Yes, Your Honor.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So that was V, allowed as
 17      14, Your Honor?
 18           THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Thank you.
 20           Exhibit W.  Oops.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  It may save some time, we're
 22      discussing -- we may waive calling this witness as
 23      she's allowing this into evidence.
 24           THE COURT:  Okay.
 25           MS. GARCIA:  Oh, yeah.  Sorry.  See, that's W.
00050
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor.  Exhibit W is a
 3       report --
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is not filed, this is --
 5            MS. GARCIA:  -- by Dr. Sugar.
 6            THE COURT:  Yeah.  I need her to tell me what
 7       it is --
 8            MS. GARCIA:  And --
 9            THE COURT:  -- and then you to tell me why --
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm sorry, Your Honor --
 11           THE COURT:  -- I should or should not.
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- I thought she was finished.
 13           THE COURT:  It's okay.
 14           MS. GARCIA:  And this one is being moved into
 15      the fact that it was prepared, just like the other
 16      ones that you already allowed, although it's
 17      hearsay.  The fact that this report exists.  So I
 18      can testify to the relevance of it in my testimony.
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, this is not a
 20      appointed examiner.  This is somebody they went out
 21      and hired.  It's not filed in the case.  It wasn't
 22      part of Judge Burton's review, and it's hearsay.
 23           THE COURT:  It is hearsay.  The other one was
 24      not objected to.  This one is objected to.  It's
 25      hearsay.
00051
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And they said the doctor who
 2       they testified was -- had a High Holy day and
 3       couldn't be here.  We had to continue so he could be
 4       here.  So obviously there's no prejudice.  They know
 5       that if they want to call Dr. Sugar, he has to be
 6       here.
 7            THE COURT:  His -- Dr. Sugar's report is
 8       hearsay, so I'm sustaining the objection.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor, I'm moving it not for
 10      the -- not for the content, but the fact that it was
 11      prepared and the date it was prepared.
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well --
 13           MS. GARCIA:  You had allowed the other reports
 14      for the same purpose, saying it was hearsay, so I'm
 15      not moving in for the contents of the report.  I'm
 16      moving it for the fact that it was prepared, when it
 17      was prepared, and the relevance in my mind of this
 18      report --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  It's all hearsay.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  -- without -- no, it's not
 21      hearsay, because I'm not going to discuss the
 22      relevance of the report.
 23           THE COURT:  I will -- I will allow you to
 24      testify to the fact that a report was prepared, when
 25      it was prepared, and that --
00052
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 2            THE COURT:  -- you received it.  But the
 3       substance of the report is hearsay.
 4            MS. GARCIA:  I see.
 5            THE COURT:  Without an exception.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  Right.
 7            THE COURT:  So I'm sustaining the objection to
 8       the physical report.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  But it's allowed for the fact that
 10      it was prepared?
 11           THE COURT:  Yes.  You can -- you can --
 12           MS. GARCIA:  Okay, so --
 13           THE COURT:  -- testify to that, yes?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 15           THE COURT:  You can -- I think you have
 16      testified.
 17           MS. GARCIA:  I think we started, Your Honor.
 18      Okay.
 19           THE COURT:  That's -- it's -- identification
 20      only.
 21           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  The next one, Your Honor,
 22      is Composite Exhibit Y, and it entails a Promissory
 23      Note in this case.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  These are -- these are
 25      attached to the Complaint and the court file.  I
00053
 1       have no objection --
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- they're not relevant, but I
 4       have no objection.
 5            THE COURT:  I'll receive them into evidence
 6       without objection as Composite Exhibit 15.
 7            How many composites are there?  15A and B?
 8            THE CLERK:  It's Composite --
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Note and Mortgages.  Amended
 10      Mortgage.
 11           THE COURT:  So A and B?  Amended Mortgage?
 12           MS. GARCIA:  I'm going to approach, Your Honor.
 13      So Composite Exhibit Y.
 14           THE COURT:  Okay.  So I'm going to make the
 15      Promissory Note is 15A, and the Mortgage is 15B,
 16      will be received into evidence without objection.
 17            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 15A RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 18            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 15B RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 19           MS. GARCIA:  I'm sorry, was the v. -- which was
 20      the Cheshire Report was that was admitted as Exhibit
 21      14, correct?
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I stipulated to that.
 23           MS. GARCIA:  Right.
 24           THE COURT:  Correct.
 25           MS. GARCIA:  So that's 14?
00054
 1            THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Trying to save us time.
 4            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So this one was Exhibit 15.
 5            Defense -- for ID Exhibit Z, Your Honor.  I
 6       believe that he agreed to the judicial notice --
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No objection to judicial
 8       notice of this.  It's in the Court file in this
 9       case.
 10           THE COURT:  It'll be received into evidence
 11      without objection as Defense Exhibit 16.
 12            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 16 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 13           MS. GARCIA:  So was Defense Z is Defendant's
 14      16?
 15           THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 17           This is Defendant's AA.  Not AAA.  And this is
 18      a state record showing that the Bernstein Family
 19      Realty, LLC, was active as a reinstatement on the
 20      relevant time frame, March 16th, 2023.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And Your Honor, it was then
 22      dissolved administratively not long after that.  And
 23      as long as I can put in that to show that it's not
 24      currently even in good standing, I have no
 25      objection, as long as I can put in the current
00055
 1       document that shows the actual date of dissolution.
 2            THE COURT:  Any issues with that, Ms. Garcia?
 3            MS. GARCIA:  I'm sorry?
 4            THE COURT:  Any issues with what Mr. Sweetapple
 5       proposes?
 6            MS. GARCIA:  I have not seen what he's talking
 7       about.  So that's what the public record shows.  I
 8       don't have a problem that one also coming in.
 9            THE COURT:  Is that what the public record
 10      shows?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  Maybe a composite --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes, Your Honor.  It's the
 13      same printout from Sunbiz.
 14           THE COURT:  All right.  So then --
 15           MS. GARCIA:  But --
 16           THE COURT:  -- I'll allow his in if I'll allow
 17      Ms. Garcia's.  So it'll be received by stipulation
 18      as Defense Exhibit 17.
 19            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 17 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.  Composite --
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'll provide that to the
 22      Court.  We'll print it during lunch.
 23           MS. GARCIA:  So I guess I would call it
 24      Composite 17 since he's going to add the second --
 25           THE COURT:  And he's going to add it as
00056
 1       Plaintiff's Exhibit --
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 3            THE COURT:  -- whatever.
 4            MS. GARCIA:  This stipulates -- this judicial
 5       notice, this is Defendant's BB.  This is a
 6       Suggestion of Bankruptcy filed in this case on 4-3-
 7       23.
 8            THE COURT:  Position of the defense, or the
 9       defendant?
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, I have no objection to the
 11      Court taking judicial notice.  It's on the Court
 12      file.
 13           THE COURT:  It'll be received into evidence
 14      without objection as Defense Exhibit 19?
 15           THE CLERK:  18.
 16           THE COURT:  18.
 17            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 18 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 18           THE COURT:  I'm a lawyer, I can only count so
 19      well.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  From -- counsel, here.
 21      Defense -- for identification, CC, again, it's a
 22      judicial notice, Your Honor, this is a filing in
 23      this case -- no, a filing of the Guardianship in the
 24      mental health case.  My appearance for Patricia Anne
 25      Sahm, Junior dated 8-14-23.
00057
 1            THE COURT:  Position of the plaintiff?
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No objection.
 3            THE COURT:  It'll be received the evidence
 4       without objection as Defense 19.
 5             (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 19 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 6            THE CLERK:  Yes.
 7            THE COURT:  Yes --
 8            MS. GARCIA:  19.
 9            THE COURT:  -- I'm back.  19.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  We're getting near the end here.
 11      Okay.  Then we have Defense DD, which is a 5-22-23,
 12      again, judicial notice.  It's the -- Ms. Patwell's
 13      notice of appearance in this case, filed May 22nd,
 14      2023.
 15           THE COURT:  Position?
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No objection.
 17           THE COURT:  It'll be received into evidence
 18      without objection as Defense Exhibit number 20.
 19            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Defendant's EE for identification,
 21      Your Honor.  It's a Stipulation for Substitution of
 22      Counsel signed by Patricia Sahm.
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is hearsay.  It wasn't --
 24      it doesn't show it was filed.
 25           THE COURT:  I thought this was produced at our
00058
 1       -- in our August hearing and received into evidence,
 2       wasn't it?
 3            MS. GARCIA:  I believe when we see Stipulation
 4       for Substitution, yeah, it's Defendant's --
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  That was -- that was me, and
 6       have -- that wasn't -- that wasn't signed.
 7            MS. GARCIA:  The original --
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is -- this is Laura
 9       Burkhalter.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Let me see, Plaintiff -- it was
 11      Defendant's D, and it was admitted as Exhibit 3
 12      already, Your Honor.  Evidence 3.
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is already in?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah.
 15           THE CLERK:  Let me look --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  I believe.  I have to compare
 17      it --
 18           THE CLERK:  So the original exhibit that was
 19      put in as her D -- as Defendant's D, was an unfiled
 20      stipulation for substitution that was signed by
 21      Patty Sahm, Senior, but was unsigned by the attorney
 22      in this case.
 23           THE COURT:  That's what this is?
 24           THE CLERK:  That's for Laura Burkhalter.  This
 25      was -- that was for --
00059
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is the Probate Court,
 2       Judge.
 3            THE CLERK:  That's the Probate Court in front
 4       of you.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is not --
 6            THE COURT:  No --
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- in our exhibits.
 8            THE COURT:  -- this is --
 9            MS. GARCIA:  The MH?
 10           THE COURT:  This is 20 --
 11           MS. GARCIA:  No, I'm sorry.  You're right, Your
 12      Honor --
 13           THE COURT:  This is 2018 --
 14           MS. GARCIA:  -- I apologize.
 15           THE COURT:  -- CF, that's this case.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  No, Your Honor.  I apologize, it's
 17      the wrong -- I -- let me take that back, let me
 18      refresh. No, this is the stipulation for
 19      substitution of counsel in the mental health case,
 20      where Patwell --
 21           THE COURT:  This is -- it's 2018-CA-2317.
 22      That's this case number.  What you've handed me --
 23      maybe perhaps you handed me the wrong document?
 24           MS. GARCIA:  I handed you the wrong one.  What
 25      is yours?  The MH case and then pending damages?
00060
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  It says Probate Division on
 2       top -- the one that we're not --
 3            THE COURT:  I think -- I think you have a
 4       different paper than I do, of -- what I'm saying.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Let me see.
 6            THE COURT:  I have this one.  It's this --
 7            MS. GARCIA:  I handed you the wrong one, Your
 8       Honor.
 9            THE COURT:  Okay.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Sorry.
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Oh, yeah.  That's already in
 12      evidence.
 13           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah, that's the one that's
 14      already in, Your Honor.  I apologize.
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is what she's handing you
 16      now --
 17           MS. GARCIA:  This is just --
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- that I'm objecting to.
 19           THE COURT:  Okay.  Hang on.  Wait.  Hold on.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Now I've got to put a -- I'm going
 21      to have to mark it correctly, Your Honor.
 22           THE COURT:  No problem, no problem.
 23           MS. GARCIA:  If you give me a second.  I
 24      apologize.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  If she has -- this one's filed
00061
 1       in a case, I have no problem with the judicial
 2       notice. But this is -- she's handed me a Stipulation
 3       to a Substitution of Counsel in a probate case,
 4       allegedly signed by Patricia Sahm and nobody else
 5       and no date.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  So this was -- this was EE.
 7            THE COURT:  So this is the Stipulation --
 8            MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 9            THE COURT:  -- 2023MH1072?
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah.  This is the one in the
 11      mental health case to show that Ms. Patwell
 12      substituted in for Laura Burkhalter.  And this is
 13      the -- this is the place it's signed by the client.
 14      And I think we've already moved into evidence the
 15      notice of appearance. So I guess it could have
 16      really been attached to that, but I can separate --
 17           THE COURT:  Noting your objection, I'm going to
 18      receive it into evidence as Defense Exhibit number
 19      21.
 20            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 21 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 21           MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor, I'm just correcting
 22      the other one.
 23           THE COURT:  No problem.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  It will go into this pile.
 25           It's marked as Defense FF.  This is in the
00062
 1       public records.  He stipulated -- this is the second
 2       mortgage on the property in this case that was
 3       recorded --
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No objection.  Except to
 5       relevance.
 6            THE COURT:  You'll tell me why it's relevant or
 7       not.  I'll receive it into evidence without
 8       objection as 22 -- Defense 22.
 9             (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 22 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 10           MS. GARCIA:  And we have Defense Exhibit GG,
 11      which is a letter from the Kipperson (phonetic) law
 12      firm --
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Hearsay.
 14           MS. GARCIA:  -- to Ms. Patwell and Mr. Bennett
 15      terminating Mrs. Sahm.  I'm sorry, terminating -- or
 16      attempting, I should say, to terminate Amber
 17      Patwell, August 1st, 2023.  And the attorney is
 18      present here for the --
 19           MS. LEWIS:  I didn't write that letter.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Is Mr. Revard present?
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Pardon?
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Is Mr. Revard present?
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  He's not present here, no.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  Is he on Zoom?
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I haven't looked.  Is Mr.
00063
 1       Revard on Zoom?  Just give me one second.
 2            THE COURT:  Sure.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  We're going to object to
 4       hearsay, Your Honor.
 5            THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia?
 6            MS. GARCIA:  I would move it in Your Honor, not
 7       for the truth of the matter asserted, for the fact
 8       that this letter was sent.
 9            THE COURT:  It does appear to be words of
 10      operative legal effect, seeking to terminate an
 11      attorney-client relationship.  So I'm going to
 12      receive it over objection as Defense Exhibit 24 or
 13      3?
 14           THE CLERK:  23.
 15           THE COURT:  23.
 16           THE CLERK:  23.
 17            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 23 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 18           MS. GARCIA:  The next one is Defense Exhibit
 19      HH, which is a filing, which they stipulated to, as
 20      far as a record in the estate case of Walter Sahm.
 21      This is the statement regarding creditors.
 22           THE COURT:  What about all this handwritten --
 23           MS. GARCIA:  And the handwriting is my notes,
 24      which I will testify to those notes as far as that
 25      was from my conversations with Mr. Raymond when we
00064
 1       were settling the case.  We were going over the
 2       estate's rights, and I -- I'll testify to the
 3       relevance of it during my testimony.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  First of all, number 3 says
 5       there's something attached, a list of creditors.
 6       And I don't see anything attached to this.  Second
 7       of all, I don't see how this is relevant.  The
 8       estate has no claim in this case.  The estate has
 9       never had a claim in this case.
 10           THE COURT:  In an abundance of caution over
 11      your objection, I'm going to receive it into
 12      evidence as Defense Exhibit number 24.
 13            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 24 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 14           MS. GARCIA:  II, Your Honor.  It's a -- Ms.
 15      Patwell's response to the Guardian's Request for
 16      Production that was delivered to us in the
 17      guardianship case.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, this wasn't filed
 19      with the Court and it's hearsay.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  This is all the documents that
 21      they requested to be produced by Ms. Patwell, and
 22      this goes to the mental impressions of her and I's
 23      negotiations and what she produced to the Court.
 24      It's very relevant to the issues of fact, as far as
 25      communications by Ms. Patwell.  It's got the mental
00065
 1       impressions that Judge Burton had read to the Court.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, I have the right to
 3       cross-examine Ms. Patwell about her findings and
 4       mental impressions, and everything else.  That's why
 5       we have a hearsay rule.
 6            THE COURT:  All right.  This does appear to be
 7       classical hearsay.  So at this time I'm going to
 8       sustain the objection on a hearsay basis, subject to
 9       you seeking to admit it some other way, but it's
 10      hearsay right now.
 11           For identification only.
 12           MS. GARCIA:  This is JJ, Your Honor.  This is
 13      the --
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No objection.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  This actually would probably
 16      really tie in --
 17           THE COURT:  It doesn't sound like there's an
 18      objection, so what is it?
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  This is the actual executed
 20      Stipulation of Substitution of Counsel where I had
 21      already moved into evidence the one signed by
 22      Patricia Sahm.  This is a fully executed and filed
 23      Stipulation. And it also has the proof of the
 24      delivery --
 25           THE COURT:  And the order?
00066
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Yeah.  And then the Order
 2       substituting, Ms. Patwell in as the attorney for Ms.
 3       Sahm.
 4            THE COURT:  It will be received into evidence
 5       as Defense Exhibit 24.
 6            THE CLERK:  25.
 7            THE COURT:  25.
 8             (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 25 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Defendant's Exhibit KK, which is
 10      Mrs. Patwell's agreement.  It's a hearsay exception
 11      under the legal rule, and this is executed by Mrs.
 12      Patwell, Ms. Sahm, dated May 1st, 2023.  It's been
 13      provided to the Court in the mental health case in
 14      your discovery.  And it is an exception to the
 15      hearsay rule.
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You've already determined that
 17      the retainer agreements are exception.
 18           THE COURT:  I'm going to receive it into
 19      evidence.  Is there an objection?
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Pardon?
 21           THE COURT:  Is there an objection?
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Object to hearsay.
 23           THE COURT:  I'll receive it into evidence over
 24      objection as --
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I think correctly made a --
00067
 1            THE COURT:  Defense 26.
 2             (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 26 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- so I'll make a record,
 4       but --
 5            THE COURT:  Just asking.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I don't think I'd go any
 7       further than that.
 8            THE COURT:  Just asking.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  I think we've already moved the
 10      settlement agreement -- the fully executed
 11      settlement agreement in.  And let me see something.
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And did you put X in the --
 13           MS. GARCIA:  B.  No, this is a --
 14           THE COURT:  I have it as --
 15           MS. GARCIA:  I think it's Exhibit 6.
 16           THE COURT:  6?
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Defense Exhibit 6.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Is this the settlement
 19      agreement from March?
 20           THE COURT:  Yes, I have it as 6 -- Exhibit 6
 21      entered in on August 12th.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  I didn't know if you need a
 23      copy.  Do you have a copy from last time?
 24           THE COURT:  The -- I'm not sure.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Which date?  Which one is
00068
 1       this?  May or --
 2            MS. GARCIA:  The May 22nd agreement.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 4            MS. GARCIA:  So it's already in evidence.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And then you had a copy of the
 6       prior agreement signed by your clients?
 7            MS. GARCIA:  Yeah, I'm not using it.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  Well, I want -- Your
 9       Honor, she has -- she produced at deposition a
 10      document that I put into evidence that she
 11      stipulated to.  She did not give me the copy that
 12      was signed by her clients. Her client signed a
 13      settlement agreement referencing that Mrs. Sahm was
 14      incapacitated repeatedly.
 15           So I do ask that she produce here the complete
 16      document, not the one she gave me at the deposition.
 17           THE COURT:  Do you have that document?
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Ms. Garcia?
 19           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia?
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Excuse me?
 21           THE COURT:  Do you have that document, Ms.
 22      Garcia?
 23           MS. GARCIA:  I do, Your Honor, but I don't
 24      intend on using it.
 25           THE COURT:  Right.  But wasn't it ordered to be
00069
 1       turned over and it wasn't turned over?  So shouldn't
 2       it have been turned over?
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Well, it was turned over --
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Not with the signatures.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  -- at the depositions.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Not with the signatures.  I
 7       put in evidence what I was given by her, and I don't
 8       have one with the signatures.
 9            THE COURT:  Do you have one with the
 10      signatures?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.  He said it was hearsay when
 12      I showed it to him earlier.
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, I said I want --
 14           MS. GARCIA:  This is --
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- I --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  -- it's marked as Exhibit X.
 17           THE COURT:  You don't have to enter it as
 18      evidence, but it -- but --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I --
 20           THE COURT:  -- he's entitled to it, and he may
 21      want me to receive it in as evidence --
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 23           THE COURT:  It sounds like it does, so --
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to substitute this
 25      and when I was presented with this, I said, I want
00070
 1       to substitute this for what's in evidence.  I did
 2       not object to hearsay.
 3            So this is a settlement agreement signed by the
 4       Bernstein side on March 11th, and it is being
 5       substituted for which --
 6            THE CLERK:  Plaintiff's 5.
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Plaintiff's 5, Judge.  Or it
 8       can be in addition, but this is the executed copy.
 9            THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, what's your position
 10      with respect to -- I guess, do you have the same
 11      position that you did when they moved Plaintiff's 5?
 12           MS. GARCIA:  I'm sorry, Your Honor?
 13           THE COURT:  Do you have the same position that
 14      you did when they moved Plaintiff's Exhibit number 5
 15      into evidence, or any additional --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Let me see.  Plaintiff's 5 was not
 17      accepted, and I don't see it anywhere.
 18           THE CLERK:  It was not objected to.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  There is no Plaintiff's 5.  So --
 20           THE COURT:  Madam Clerk's indicating it was
 21      received without objection.  Do you have the date,
 22      Madam Clerk?
 23           THE CLERK:  At 11:09, it was --
 24           THE COURT:  At 11:09 today?
 25           THE CLERK:  Oh --
00071
 1            THE COURT:  I know it'd be -- we --
 2            THE CLERK:  At 11 --
 3            THE COURT:  We --
 4            THE CLERK:  I'm sorry.  11:10 it was admitted.
 5            THE COURT:  I know we've been working hard, but
 6       apparently it was admitted at 11:10.
 7            MS. GARCIA:  I'm sorry?
 8            THE COURT:  I have -- this is -- yes.  Sorry.
 9       Right here.
 10           THE CLERK:  Yes.  Do you want to -- do you
 11      want --
 12           THE COURT:  Yeah.  It's this one.  This is how
 13      it starts.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes.  That was a
 15      transmission --
 16           THE COURT:  So do you have any additional
 17      objections to this signed?
 18           MS. GARCIA:  No, Your Honor.  So what numbers?
 19      And I apologize for --
 20           THE COURT:  I -- I'm going to receive -- I'm
 21      not going to substitute it.  I'm going to receive it
 22      in evidence as -- what's Plaintiff up to?
 23           THE CLERK:  I believe the next one would be 12.
 24           THE COURT:  12.  I'm going to receive this one,
 25      the signed one, as Plaintiff's Exhibit number 12.
00072
 1             (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 12 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Is there an ID number or just
 3       Exhibit 12?
 4            THE COURT:  Exhibit number 12.  ID 12, Exhibit
 5       12.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  And just before we do that, Your
 7       Honor --
 8            What'd I do with this file?  Of there it is.
 9       It's that one.  Okay.  What was Plaintiff's 11?  I
 10      don't see an 11 in the order.
 11           THE CLERK:  9-22-23, the order.
 12           MS. GARCIA:  I have that as 10. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
 13      10.
 14           THE CLERK:  That was another order.
 15           THE COURT:  10 was another order.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  An Order Appointing a Limited
 17      Guardian is 9, and an Order Granting -- number 9 was
 18      a Notice of Appearance and a Joinder.  One second.
 19      Number 9, Plaintiff, Notice of Appearance and
 20      Joinder and Objection filed by the Alleged
 21      Incapacitated Person. Plaintiff 9.  It was the
 22      objection, right --
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  -- to the examination committee.
 25           THE CLERK:  That's 8.
00073
 1            MS. GARCIA:  8. 9 is a Notice of Appearance and
 2       Tenancy Order, 11 and 12.  Okay.
 3            THE COURT:  Madam Clerk, you don't have to
 4       apologize.  You're fine.
 5            THE CLERK:  Okay.  Thank you.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 7            THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I do have the
 9       Sunbiz report moved in as 13 --
 10           THE COURT:  All right.
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- if Counsel wants to take a
 12      look at it.  Are you finished?  I'm sorry.
 13           MS. GARCIA:  No.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Oh, I thought you were
 15      finished.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  No.  Two more.  Okay.  We'll read
 17      that as one.  And then -- wait, I'm sorry.
 18           Okay.  That's a -- that's in reverse order.  I
 19      could put it in the right order for you. The pages
 20      weren't in the right order.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  This is Defense MM for
 23      identification.  These are the text messages between
 24      me and Mrs. Patwell that were produced for the
 25      relevant time frame of May 1st, 2023 and May 22nd,
00074
 1       2023.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Object to hearsay on anything
 3       that Ms. Garcia wrote.  She can certainly
 4       authenticate and testify to it in court.
 5            THE COURT:  All right.  Ms. Garcia?
 6            MS. GARCIA:  I guess the same objection as last
 7       time.  This is a business record.  This is my
 8       statements.  It's also a business record and it's a
 9       statement of previously existing state of mind.
 10           THE COURT:  I'm going to sustain the objection
 11      as to hearsay.  So those will be marked for
 12      identification purposes as MM.
 13           MS. GARCIA:  That's it for now, Your Honor.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And Your Honor, Ms. Garcia --
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- if you want to take a look
 17      at this, I do have the current Sunbiz filing showing
 18      dissolution as of September 27th, 2024.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Do you have a copy for me and a
 20      copy for the Court?
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I can print it out.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah, print it.  Uh-huh.  Okay, so
 23      this is --
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I think this is --
 25           THE COURT:  Plaintiff's 13 --
00075
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- Plaintiff's 13, Your Honor.
 2            THE COURT:  Any issues with the -- Plaintiff's
 3       13?
 4            MS. GARCIA:  No, Your Honor.
 5            THE COURT:  Received by stipulation of the
 6       parties as Plaintiff's Exhibit number 13.
 7             (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 13 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 8            MS. GARCIA:  Can I --
 9            Thank you for your patience, Your Honor.
 10           THE COURT:  No problem.  Do you have additional
 11      documents that you need to admit?
 12           MS. GARCIA:  I'm sorry?
 13           THE COURT:  Do you have any additional
 14      documents that you need to admit?
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Not at the moment, no, Your Honor.
 16           THE COURT:  All right.  So we have your witness
 17      that's set to go?
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah, we're discussing whether
 19      or not we can save time by just calling Dr. Bloom
 20      since she stipulated, Dr. Cheshire.  I don't know if
 21      she'd stipulate to Dr. Bloom or not.  We put it in
 22      just for judicial notice at the prior hearing.
 23           THE COURT:  I don't --
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Do you have any objection to
 25      Dr. Bloom's report coming in?
00076
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Yes, I definitely would like to
 2       cross-examine Dr. Bloom.
 3            THE COURT:  Okay.  Is -- can -- is Dr. Bloom
 4       available at 1:30?
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  1:30.
 6            THE COURT:  All right.  So do you want to take
 7       a 15-minute break and then we'll get back together
 8       at 1:30 and we'll pick up with your defense witness?
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  What I'd like to do is have an
 10      hour-long lunch during 15 minutes and that isn't
 11      going to happen.
 12           THE COURT:  Well, what I'd like to do is after
 13      that witness, do you have any other witnesses or
 14      evidence that --
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm discussing with Ms. Lewis,
 16      just trying to save time, because --
 17           THE COURT:  Sure.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- I want to get through this
 19      today.  So I may not call Dr. Cheshire.  She has
 20      a --
 21           THE COURT:  Okay.
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- court reporter --
 23           THE COURT:  That's fine.  So you have one,
 24      possibly two, other witnesses.  Anything other than
 25      the two doctors?
00077
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I -- if Mr. Bernstein does not
 2       show up, I'm going to read three snippets from his
 3       party deposition.
 4            THE COURT:  Okay.  And then Ms. Garcia, how
 5       many witnesses?
 6            MS. GARCIA:  That would, of course, would be
 7       improper without proper presentation.
 8            THE COURT:  I'm -- how many witnesses do you
 9       intend to call?
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Depending what happens with Dr.
 11      Bloom, one or two.
 12           THE COURT:  Okay.
 13           So what I'll do is -- we'll take 15.  We'll get
 14      your one witness on.  If you decide whether or not
 15      you're going to call Dr. Cheshire, then maybe we'll
 16      do both of them and then we'll break.  I'll give you
 17      guys an hour for lunch.  And then I'll let Ms.
 18      Garcia make her motion and call her witnesses,
 19      depending on my ruling on her motion.  And then we
 20      should have all of the evidence in so that this
 21      portion is -- can be submitted to the Court.  Sound
 22      good?
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah.  Except I will read the
 24      party deposition for less than 60 seconds.
 25           THE COURT:  We will -- we'll take that -- we'll
00078
 1       take that up at the appropriate time.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 3            THE COURT:  All right.  I'll be back in -- I
 4       guess now it's ten minutes.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 7            THE COURT:  Thank you.
 8             (OFF THE RECORD)
 9            THE BAILIFF:  Come to order, Court's back in
 10      session.
 11           THE COURT:  Everybody can be seated.
 12           Well, it looks like everybody's back.  Mr.
 13      Sweetapple, let me turn it over to you to call your
 14      next witness.
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you, Your Honor.  May it
 16      please the Court, before I do, I ask if Ms. Lewis
 17      can assist us here.  I am led to believe that this
 18      mental health report --
 19           UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'll call you back.  I
 20      just got a call from a court.  I'll call you back.
 21      Bye.
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This report would need to be
 23      under seal and also that no one other than the
 24      doctor can be observing this presentation.  So I'll
 25      let Ms. Lewis address that.  I'm not an expert in
00079
 1       guardianship or mental health.
 2            MS. LEWIS:  Your Honor, there -- generally
 3       mental health reports, any reports that are offered
 4       by the committee members are filed under seal.
 5       They're not publicly accessible.
 6            There was an incident in the guardianship and
 7       mental health matter where somebody, we still don't
 8       know who, obtained copies of the original committee
 9       reports and gave them to a member of the press,
 10      which did a story about Mrs. Sahm and showed copies
 11      of her confidential medical committee reports on --
 12      I think it was CBS12.
 13           So we have a concern that if there are public
 14      observers on the Zoom, because we have no idea who
 15      leaked those reports, although some of the people
 16      that are on the Zoom today are people who have
 17      attempted to intervene in the guardianship and
 18      mental health, that they would take that testimony
 19      and go back to the press. Because this is
 20      information that would be confidential in a
 21      guardianship and involve very sensitive information,
 22      I believe that Mr. Sweetapple's going to ask the
 23      Court to dismiss the observers from the Zoom during
 24      Dr. Bloom's testimony.
 25           THE COURT:  All right.
00080
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  That is correct.  I am making
 2       that request based on --
 3            THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia?
 4            MS. GARCIA:  I'm going to object to that.  This
 5       is an open and public courtroom.  They're the ones
 6       that are bringing this issue up.  They want you to
 7       make a determination of someone's capacity at a
 8       certain date and time based on the testimony of a
 9       committee member. So I firmly believe this is open.
 10      They're the ones that brought it out into the open.
 11      They're the ones that have moved this into evidence.
 12           THE COURT:  I guess my -- while the
 13      guardianship proceedings are -- certainly have a
 14      different level of privacy, this is a foreclosure
 15      action.  So I guess what authority do I have to
 16      prohibit the public from having access to the Court?
 17      Is there a statute or anything that says that --
 18      because let's say, for example, this was a car crash
 19      and it was a loss of consortium claim, or there was
 20      testimony about a traumatic brain injury or
 21      something like that, where -- it would be the same
 22      issues.  It would still be a public Courtroom.  I
 23      wouldn't be able to deny the public access.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  So candidly, Your Honor, the only
 25      statute that I'm aware of is --
00081
 1            MS. HOGUE:  Your Honor, may I speak?
 2            THE COURT:  Are you a counsel of record?
 3            MS. GARCIA:  She's not, Your Honor.
 4            MS. HOGUE:  No, I'm not --
 5            MS. GARCIA:  She's a --
 6            MS. HOGUE:  I -- my name is Ms. Hogue.  I'm a
 7       member of the Guardianship Improvement Task Force.
 8       And if I could just say, nothing about any of the --
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I object.  I object, Your
 10      Honor, I object --
 11           MS. HOGUE:  Well --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- to someone who's not
 13      counsel.
 14           THE COURT:  Hang on.
 15           MS. HOGUE:  -- even in --
 16           THE COURT:  Hang on.
 17           MS. HOGUE:  -- even in probate hearings,
 18      there's a statute and it says a closed probate
 19      hearing is forbidden.  The only person -- it's Rule
 20      5.540, Hearings.  And it specifically says, "An
 21      election to close the hearing may be made before the
 22      hearing by filing a written notice."  And the only
 23      person that can close it is that person who's been
 24      adjudicated incapacitated.
 25           So even if this was a probate --
00082
 1            THE COURT:  Okay.
 2            MS. HOGUE:  -- proceeding, hearings are open.
 3            THE COURT:  Okay.
 4            MS. HOGUE:  So I'll put myself on mute, and
 5       thank you, Your Honor.
 6            THE COURT:  Thank you, ma'am.  I just -- I
 7       don't see -- I don't see any legal basis for -- to
 8       close a circuit civil proceeding that is not a
 9       probate action. It's not a guardianship action.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And what about sealing the
 11      reports that are in evidence?
 12           THE COURT:  If the reports that are in evidence
 13      are reports from the proceedings, then I think there
 14      is a basis to seal that evidence because it's
 15      evidence that is -- that comes from a closed
 16      proceeding.  So I would -- I would order that those
 17      be sealed pending further order of the Court.  But
 18      as far as the testimony, I'm not going to -- I'm not
 19      going to dismiss the observers.
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Understood.
 21           MS. LEWIS:  And that -- so that would just
 22      apply to the Dr. Brennan Cheshire report that's in
 23      evidence.  Okay?
 24           THE COURT:  Got you.  You --
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  May I proceed?
00083
 1            THE COURT:  Sure.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 3            THE COURT:  Who are you calling?
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm calling Dr. Bloom.
 5            THE COURT:  Dr. Bloom?  Dr. Bloom, would you
 6       raise your right hand for me?
 7            Dr. Bloom, can you hear me?
 8            Dr. Bloom, can you hear me?
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Is he on mute?
 10           THE COURT:  He's not on mute.  He's not
 11      responding.  Dr. Bloom?
 12           He can't hear.  Is he connected to audio?  It
 13      looks like he's connected to audio.  Let's see if I
 14      mute him and ask him to unmute himself.  Let's see
 15      if that works.
 16           Dr. Bloom, can you hear us?
 17           Perhaps if he disconnects and reconnects, and
 18      then -- can someone communicate with him to ask him
 19      to disconnect and reconnect?
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Uh-huh.
 21           THE COURT:  Mr. Bloom, can you hear us -- or
 22      Dr. Bloom, can you hear us?
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I can write a note and put it
 24      on the screen.
 25           THE COURT:  It comes up reversed.
00084
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Does it?
 2            THE COURT:  Learned that the hard way.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You've done -- we've done that
 4       before.
 5            THE COURT:  I can try to send him in a chat.
 6       Dr. Bloom, can you please try to reconnect?
 7            You may need to turn up the speakers on his
 8       computer.
 9            Does anybody have Dr. Bloom's phone number to
 10      call him?
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Ms. Lewis, are you trying to
 12      call him?
 13           MS. LEWIS:  Yeah, he -- I'm assuming he's not
 14      answering because he's on his Zoom.  Let me see if I
 15      can --
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I see the screen coming on.
 17           THE COURT:  That's why I think perhaps his
 18      speakers are just --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right.
 20           THE COURT:  -- not --
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Can we chat to him and turn up
 22      the speakers?
 23           THE COURT:  I have asked him to reconnect.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 25           THE COURT:  He's not responding.  He's not
00085
 1       doing anything.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I hope he's not getting into
 3       trouble.  Cynthia, why don't you stand in front of
 4       the camera and show him that you're calling him?
 5            MS. MILLER:  Let me --
 6            THE WITNESS:  Can you hear me?
 7            THE COURT:  Yes.
 8            THE WITNESS:  I can't hear you.
 9            THE COURT:  Oh.
 10           MS. MILLER:  I'm going to write a note --
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Can you hear me from here?
 12           THE WITNESS:  Am I -- unmute is -- I'm unmuted.
 13           THE COURT:  Right.  We can hear you.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Can you hear us now?
 15           THE COURT:  I think it's his computer speakers.
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Pardon?
 17           THE COURT:  I think it's his computer speakers.
 18      He either needs to reconnect, or --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  Let's not use --
 20           MS. LEWIS:  That's very creative, Your Honor.
 21           THE COURT:  It wasn't me.
 22           MS. MILLER:  I -- by any means necessary.
 23           THE COURT:  I like it, but it wasn't me.
 24           MS. LEWIS:  Oh, okay.
 25           MS. MILLER:  If she gave me credit, I would've
00086
 1       taken it.
 2            THE COURT:  Honesty's the best policy.  I'm
 3       going to use it.
 4            MS. MILLER:  I would've, yes.
 5            THE COURT:  So he's just turned his video off,
 6       though.  He -- maybe -- can you tell him to give you
 7       a phone call?
 8            MS. MILLER:  Yes.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Are you calling your office
 10      line?
 11           MS. MILLER:  I can answer it from here.
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You can?  Okay.
 13           THE COURT:  I think he's reconnecting.  Paging
 14      Dr. Bloom, can you hear us?
 15           Are you able to hear us, sir?
 16           MS. MILLER:  Dr. Bloom?  Hello?
 17           THE WITNESS:  Hello?
 18           MS. MILLER:  Hi, Dr. Bloom.
 19           THE WITNESS:  Hi.  I'm -- I'm not hearing you.
 20      That's what I --
 21           MS. MILLER:  I don't think --
 22           THE COURT:  Yeah, that's not on mute.
 23           THE WITNESS:  I didn't see that, but I'll try
 24      it again.  Okay.
 25           THE COURT:  He indicated that he would try
00087
 1       again?
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  What'd you have him do?
 3            MS. MILLER:  He's going to log off and then log
 4       back on.
 5            THE COURT:  Okay.
 6            MS. MILLER:  And then worst case, we should be
 7       able to actually give him a number he can call in to
 8       speak through.
 9            THE COURT:  Right.
 10           Do you want me to step off the bench so that we
 11      can work out the AV kinks and then I'll come back
 12      once it's working?  Do you want me to stare at you
 13      all while we're working our way through this?
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  How about if we just see if
 15      this miraculously works before we do that?
 16           THE COURT:  Sure.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Dr. Bloom, can you hear me?
 18           THE COURT:  It does not appear that he can hear
 19      you.
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, it does not.  So how about
 21      if we just ask the Bailiff to summon you when
 22      we're --
 23           THE COURT:  All right.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- working?  Thank you.
 25           Dr. Bloom.  Can you hear us?
00088
 1            MS. MILLER:  He can't.  Let me see if I can do
 2       it.
 3             (OFF THE RECORD)
 4            THE COURT:  Dr. Bloom, can you raise your right
 5       hand for me?
 6            MS. MILLER:  He can't hear you.  He has --
 7            THE COURT:  He can't hear me?  I think it's
 8       because you're talking on the phone.
 9            MS. MILLER:  I can hear --
 10           THE COURT:  So what --
 11           MS. MILLER:  So you have a --
 12           THE COURT:  -- what Dr. Bloom's going to need
 13      to do is he's going to need to put his video on
 14      mute, or I can mute him.  He's going to --
 15           MR. BLOOM:  I hear him now.
 16           THE COURT:  Can you hear me now?
 17           MR. BLOOM:  Yeah.
 18           THE COURT:  Okay.
 19           Can you raise your right hand for me?
 20           MR. BLOOM:  Yes.
 21           THE COURT:  Do you swear or affirm the
 22      testimony you're about to give is the truth, the
 23      whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
 24           THE WITNESS:  I do.
 25           THE COURT:  All right.  You can put your hand
00089
 1       down now.  And Mr. Sweetapple, you may inquire.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you, Your Honor, may it
 3       please the Court.
 4                  TESTIMONY OF DR. STANLEY BLOOM
 5                  DIRECT EXAMINATION
 6             BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 7        Q.   Dr. Bloom, would you please state your full
 8   name for the record?
 9        A.   Stanley Bloom.
 10       Q.   And are you a licensed medical doctor?
 11       A.   Say again, please?
 12       Q.   Are you a licensed medical doctor?
 13       A.   Yes, I am.
 14       Q.   And how long have you been licensed?
 15       A.   About 50 years.
 16       Q.   And where are you licensed?
 17       A.   In New York and New Jersey.
 18       Q.   And have you ever been appointed by a Florida
 19  Court to conduct a -- an examination of an alleged
 20  incompetent or incapacitated person?
 21       A.   Yes, I have.
 22       Q.   On how many occasions have you been so
 23  appointed?
 24       A.   Say again, please?
 25       Q.   And how many -- for how many years have you
00090
 1   been appointed by Florida courts to --
 2        A.   Since -- since 2013.
 3        Q.   All right.  So a dozen years?
 4        A.   Yeah.
 5        Q.   And how many examinations of alleged
 6   incapacitated persons have you conducted for the Florida
 7   courts?
 8        A.   I average about 150 to 200 a year.  About a
 9   thousand.
 10       Q.   All right.  And do you have your records in
 11  front of you regarding an examination you conducted on
 12  May 5th --
 13       A.   Yes, I do.
 14       Q.   -- '23 of Patricia Sahm.  You have that?
 15       A.   Yes, I do.
 16       Q.   All right.  And can you tell the Court what
 17  you did on that date?
 18       A.   Say again, please?
 19       Q.   Can you tell the Court what you did on that
 20  date?
 21       A.   I did -- I interviewed the alleged
 22  incapacitated person.
 23       Q.   All right.  And how long did you spend --
 24       A.   It was a year ago, I couldn't tell you.
 25       Q.   All right.  And that -- I -- that was on Zoom,
00091
 1   was it not?
 2        A.   Uh-huh.
 3        Q.   All right.  And do you -- do you remember your
 4   mental diagnosis of her, or would you need to review
 5   your records?
 6            MS. GARCIA:  Objection to foundation.
 7            THE WITNESS:  No, I remember.  I thought she
 8       had dementia.  Probably Alzheimer's type.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Objection to foundation.
 11           THE COURT:  What part of the foundation is
 12      lacking?
 13           THE WITNESS:  Pardon?
 14           THE COURT:  There was an objection, and I
 15      asked --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Well --
 17           THE COURT:  -- for clarification on the
 18      objection.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Qualifications specifically in
 20      this case.  As far as appointment, was he even
 21      appointed?
 22           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 23            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 24       Q.   Were you appointed by Judge Burton to conduct
 25  an examination of Patricia Sahm?
00092
 1        A.   I did.  Are you talking to me?
 2        Q.   Yes, sir.  Were you appointed by Judge Burton
 3   to conduct this examination of Mrs. Sahm?
 4        A.   Yes, I was.
 5        Q.   All right.  And under mental diagnosis, what
 6   did you conclude?
 7        A.   I concluded that she had dementia.  She had a
 8   loss of long and short term memory.  She was cognitively
 9   impaired, and she was not oriented to time, place, or
 10  person.
 11       Q.   Was she clear regarding her finances?
 12       A.   No.
 13       Q.   Did she know specifics regarding her assets?
 14       A.   No.
 15       Q.   Did she know how much money she had?
 16       A.   No.
 17       Q.   Was she aware of the guardianship?
 18       A.   She didn't understand the concept.
 19       Q.   Did she remember receiving copies of the
 20  Petition?
 21       A.   I didn't ask her that specifically.
 22       Q.   Okay.  And did she -- did she remember seeing
 23  her attorney?
 24       A.   I didn't -- she did not.
 25       Q.   All right.  Did she know what medication she
00093
 1   was taking?
 2        A.   No, she did not.
 3        Q.   Did she know who the governor or vice
 4   president is?
 5        A.   No.
 6        Q.   Could she multiply nine times seven?
 7        A.   Could she what?
 8        Q.   Multiply nine times seven.
 9        A.   No.
 10       Q.   Did she know how many quarters are in $6?
 11       A.   No.
 12       Q.   Could she subtract seven from 100 serially?
 13       A.   No.
 14       Q.   Was she aware of the pending litigation
 15  regarding this property?
 16       A.   No.
 17       Q.   And what is a M-O-C-A score?
 18       A.   Say again, please?
 19       Q.   What is an M-O-C-A score?
 20       A.   I -- I -- I'm having trouble hearing --
 21  hearing you.
 22       Q.   I see in your report that her M-O -- MoCA
 23  score is 18 out of 30.  What is that?
 24       A.   Yeah.  She -- she had a MoCA score of 18.
 25       Q.   Can you explain to the Court what that is?
00094
 1   What is a MoCA score?
 2        A.   That's a -- a screening test for Alzheimer's
 3   disease.  I did not perform the test, but I saw the
 4   report from another examining member --
 5        Q.   Right.  And --
 6        A.   -- member who had performed it.
 7        Q.   I see in your report that Stephanie Cheshire
 8   and Brennan Cheshire were present when they --
 9        A.   Yeah.  She did the -- she did the examination.
 10       Q.   So you did review a MoCA score regarding her
 11  Alzheimer's?
 12       A.   Yeah, with Stephanie.
 13       Q.   Right.  And what does a score of 18 out of 30
 14  indicate?
 15       A.   It indicates there's --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Foundation.
 17           THE WITNESS:  -- cognitive impairment.  It's a
 18      screening test, but it indicates -- above -- above
 19      eight -- above 17 indicates moderately severe
 20      cognitive employment -- disability.
 21            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 22       Q.   And she had these conditions on May 5?
 23           THE COURT:  Hang on.  There's an object -- hang
 24      on.  There's an objection to foundation.
 25           THE WITNESS:  Did she what?
00095
 1            THE COURT:  There's an objection to foundation.
 2       The objection is overruled.  Next question.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you.
 4             BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 5        Q.   Did she have these conditions when you saw her
 6   on May 5, 2023?
 7        A.   Yes.
 8        Q.   And did you consult with Dr. Cheshire or Mrs.
 9   Cheshire regarding --
 10       A.   Yes, I did.
 11       Q.   All right.  And I see that you did a
 12  functional assessment.  And did you find that Ms. Sahm
 13  is able to travel alone on public transportation?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Leading.
 15           THE WITNESS:  I did not think so.
 16           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 17           THE WITNESS:  No.
 18            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 19       Q.   Did you find that she was able to drive her
 20  own car?
 21       A.   No.
 22       Q.   Did you find she was able to shop alone for
 23  food and clothing?
 24       A.   No.
 25       Q.   Okay.  Those were your findings, no?
00096
 1        A.   No.
 2        Q.   What did you find with regard to her ability
 3   to take her own medication?
 4        A.   I thought she did not have the ability to
 5   manage her medication.
 6        Q.   What did you find with regard to her ability
 7   to manage her own or handle her own money?
 8        A.   I thought she did not have that ability as
 9   well.
 10       Q.   All right.  So you were asked in Section 6 to
 11  indicate if you thought Ms. Sahm lacked the ability to
 12  exercise the following rights:
 13            Did you in fact find that she lacked the
 14  ability to knowingly marry?
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Leading.
 16           THE WITNESS:  Yes.
 17           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 18            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 19       Q.   And what about the contract?  Did she lack the
 20  ability to contract?
 21       A.   Yes.
 22       Q.   Did she lack the ability to -- or to exercise
 23  the right to have a driver's license?
 24       A.   Yes.
 25       Q.   And to travel?
00097
 1        A.   Yes.
 2        Q.   Did she lack the right to seek employment?
 3        A.   Yes.
 4        Q.   And to determine her own residence?
 5        A.   Yes.
 6        Q.   Did she lack the ability to consent to medical
 7   treatment?
 8        A.   Yes.
 9        Q.   Did she lack the ability to apply for
 10  government benefits?
 11       A.   Yes.
 12       Q.   Did she lack the ability to sue or be sued?
 13       A.   Yes.
 14       Q.   And what about manage or dispose of her
 15  property?
 16       A.   Yes, lacked the ability.
 17       Q.   All right.  And did you sign a report for the
 18  Court on May 5th, 2023?
 19       A.   Yes.
 20       Q.   All right.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And I can show him a copy on
 22      the screen if needed, Judge, to see -- have him
 23      authenticate it.  Is that necessary?
 24           THE COURT:  Are you seeking to enter it into
 25      evidence?
00098
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes.
 2            THE COURT:  How would it not be hearsay?
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Pardon?
 4            THE COURT:  How would it not be hearsay?
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right, so I'm not -- I
 6       won't move it in.
 7             BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 8        Q.   So you did issue a report, correct?
 9        A.   Correct.
 10       Q.   And provided it to Judge Burton?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Leading.
 12           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 13           THE WITNESS:  Say again?
 14            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 15       Q.   You did issue a report and provide it to Judge
 16  Burton?
 17       A.   Yes.
 18       Q.   Were you asked to testify in any proceeding?
 19       A.   Yes.
 20       Q.   All right.  And did you give testimony
 21  consistent with that testimony you've given today?
 22       A.   I did what?
 23       Q.   Did you give testimony in the proceeding
 24  before Judge Burton consistent with the proceeding --
 25  with the testimony you gave today?
00099
 1        A.   You -- you're breaking up.  I'm sorry.
 2        Q.   My -- I apologize.  Did you give testimony in
 3   the proceeding before Judge Burton that is consistent --
 4   was consistent with that testimony you gave here today?
 5        A.   Yes.
 6        Q.   All right.  And these conditions that you have
 7   described here, could they have just occurred the day
 8   before the meeting or the week before your examination?
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Calls for speculation
 10      and foundation.
 11           THE WITNESS:  No.
 12           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 13           THE WITNESS:  Unlikely.
 14            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 15       Q.   All right.  How long do you believe these
 16  conditions were present?
 17       A.   Well, Alzheimer's disease is a slowly
 18  progressive irreversible disease that occurs over time,
 19  and it's not an acute disease.
 20       Q.   And so over how long of a period do you
 21  believe she's progressed to this stage?
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Calls for speculation.
 23           THE WITNESS:  It's hard to say.  It could --
 24      it's been presumably some time, but I can't say when
 25      it began.
00100
 1            THE COURT:  With respect to the speculation
 2       objections, the doctor has testified -- he's a
 3       licensed doctor for approximately 50 years in two
 4       states.  He's testified that he has, for the past 12
 5       years, been appointed to inspect incapacitated
 6       persons.  He's inspected approximately 1,000
 7       individuals in total.  I find that he has
 8       established that he's qualified to render an
 9       opinion, so I'm overruling the speculation
 10      objection.
 11            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 12       Q.   Based on a MoCA score of 18 out of 30, is --
 13  has this been an acute case of Alzheimer and dementia?
 14       A.   That test is -- does not distinguish acute --
 15  acute versus anything.  It's just a screening test for
 16  cognitive ability.
 17       Q.   All right.  And you don't rely on that
 18  exclusively, do you?
 19       A.   Huh?
 20       Q.   You do not rely on the MoCA test exclusively.
 21  You interview the patient, correct?
 22       A.   I'm sorry, you're breaking up again.  I'm
 23  sorry.
 24       Q.   I take it you do not rely on the MoCA
 25  screening test alone.  You do a detailed interview of
00101
 1   the patient, correct?
 2        A.   I don't rely exclusively on this free test to
 3   render my opinion.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  If I could have one moment,
 5       Your Honor?
 6            THE COURT:  You may.
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you, Doctor.  I have no
 8       further questions at this time.
 9            THE COURT:  All right.  Cross-examination.
 10           THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
 11           THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, it might help if you --
 12      if you're by that microphone.  I think his audio is
 13      coming from that phone.
 14           MS. GARCIA:  By the phone?
 15           THE COURT:  Yeah.
 16                 CROSS-EXAMINATION
 17            BY MS. GARCIA:
 18       Q.   Good afternoon, Dr. Bloom.
 19       A.   Good afternoon.
 20       Q.   Nice to meet you, sir.  When asked a question
 21  on direct about your report and your findings, you
 22  testified that you found that Ms. Sahm had dementia,
 23  correct?
 24       A.   Can you lower the microphone?  Maybe I can
 25  hear you better.  Not that low.
00102
 1        Q.   I'm short.
 2        A.   Ah.  Okay.
 3        Q.   On direct, you testified that your report made
 4   a finding that Ms. Sahm had dementia, correct?
 5        A.   I'm really sorry.  You're breaking up.  On the
 6   report what?
 7            THE COURT:  You testified that Ms. Sahm had
 8       dementia.
 9            MS. MILLER:  Maybe try speaking into the phone.
 10            BY MS. GARCIA:
 11       Q.   In -- when you were asked a question about
 12  your findings, isn't it true that you testified that
 13  your report stated that Ms. Sahm had dementia?
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.
 15           THE WITNESS:  Did my report state it in the
 16      report?  I'd have to read the report to see if it
 17      was stated there.
 18            BY MS. GARCIA:
 19       Q.   Do you have the --
 20       A.   I can't tell you off -- off the top of my
 21  head.
 22       Q.   Do you have the report in front of you, sir?
 23       A.   Yes, I do.
 24       Q.   Could you please refer to your report, Page 1?
 25       A.   Which report do you want?  The 23rd?  The year
00103
 1   -- the first one or the second one?
 2        Q.   The first one, Your Honor.  I'm sorry.  The
 3   first one, Dr. Bloom.
 4        A.   I don't have the third one.  I have a first
 5   and second one.
 6            THE COURT:  She said the first one.
 7             BY MS. GARCIA:
 8        Q.   The report dated that you are -- that the
 9   attorney had read the statements off the report to you,
 10  and you were confirming what he was saying.  Your report
 11  dated May 5th, 2023.
 12       A.   Yeah, that's good.  I can hear you now.
 13       Q.   Okay.
 14       A.   Yeah.  What about it?
 15       Q.   Isn't it true that on direct you testified
 16  that your report stated that Ms. Sahm had dementia?
 17       A.   No.  Here I -- I testified that I believe she
 18  had dementia.  I didn't testify the report had dementia.
 19       Q.   Isn't it true that in your report, you only
 20  stated she had long-term or short-term memory?
 21       A.   She has a loss of long- and short-term memory,
 22  correct.
 23       Q.   How long -- first of all, how did you appear
 24  at this --
 25       A.   How do I --
00104
 1        Q.   -- evaluation?  Were you there in person or on
 2   Zoom?
 3        A.   How do I -- I'm sorry?
 4        Q.   How were you there to analyze or to evaluate
 5   Ms. Sahm?
 6        A.   I interviewed her.
 7        Q.   Did you do it in person or on Zoom?
 8        A.   I believe I did it on Zoom.  My memory is a
 9   little vague on it.  It's a long time ago, but I believe
 10  I did it on Zoom.
 11       Q.   And when you did this review of Ms. Sahm, was
 12  Stephanie Cheshire and Brennan Cheshire present at
 13  that --
 14       A.   You know, I -- I did two exams on her and
 15  they're over a year ago.  And I know I did one remotely.
 16  And I know I recall, at least in one of them, that
 17  Stephanie Cheshire was there.  But I can't tell you
 18  which one or, you know, when -- when they were there.
 19  It's too long ago.
 20       Q.   Isn't it true that these reports and these
 21  evaluations are supposed to be done independently of the
 22  other committee members by law?
 23       A.   When we were trained -- when we were trained,
 24  we were encouraged to review our reports with other
 25  members of the examining committee.
00105
 1        Q.   But you can't rely on their findings?
 2        A.   I -- I do not rely on their findings.
 3        Q.   But you relied on the MoCA test score of 18
 4   out of 30, correct?
 5        A.   I rely on my interview, any medical
 6   information that I receive, any discussions I have with
 7   members of the examining committee, the medical, past
 8   history, the psychiatric report, which I have access to,
 9   and any other information that is made available to me.
 10  I do not rely on any one specific thing.
 11       Q.   Didn't you testify on your direct examination
 12  that a MoCA score of 18 was --
 13       A.   Can you talk directly into the microphone?
 14  Can you get real close?  I can't hear you.
 15       Q.   On -- in your direct testimony, am I correct
 16  when I --
 17       A.   Say again?
 18       Q.   -- in your direct testimony, you testified
 19  that a MoCA score of 18 is an acute cognitive
 20  deficiency, correct?
 21       A.   Incorrect.  I did not say acute.
 22       Q.   So when the attorney told you it was acute and
 23  you said, yes, that's not true, that an 18 is actually a
 24  mild cognitive impairment function?
 25       A.   She had -- it indicates that there is
00106
 1   significant cognitive impairment.  That's what I stated.
 2   And that's what I mean.
 3        Q.   So who conducted the MoCA test in this -- out
 4   of the three of you?
 5        A.   Stephanie Cheshire.  Stephanie Cheshire.
 6        Q.   And you were aware that she doesn't have the
 7   ability to conduct MoCA tests legally, she doesn't have
 8   the training or certificate?
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Predicate.
 10           THE WITNESS:  That's not true because I've done
 11      other cases with her and in fact she is trained to
 12      do it.
 13           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 14            BY MS. GARCIA:
 15       Q.   You said Stephanie is the one that conducted
 16  it.  Mrs. Stephanie Cheshire, correct?
 17       A.   You have to get close to the microphone again,
 18  please.
 19       Q.   Did you -- did you state that Stephanie
 20  Cheshire is the person that conducted the MoCA test?
 21       A.   Stephanie Cheshire is the person that
 22  performed the test, correct.
 23       Q.   And is Stephanie Cheshire the social worker?
 24       A.   I believe she is, but I -- I'm not intimately
 25  familiar with her credentials.  I'm sure they -- they're
00107
 1   available to you if you wish to see them.
 2        Q.   Are you aware that Stephanie Cheshire allowed
 3   her social worker status to expire and she's still
 4   conducting MoCA tests illegally?
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Predicate.
 6            THE COURT:  Sustained.
 7            THE WITNESS:  I don't know if that's factual or
 8       not.  I can't tell you.
 9            THE COURT:  Speculation.  And he doesn't know.
 10      Next question.
 11            BY MS. GARCIA:
 12       Q.   How long were you on the Zoom when you
 13  conducted this evaluation?
 14       A.   How long was I?  Say it again.
 15       Q.   How long were you on Zoom when you conducted
 16  this evaluation of Ms. Sahm?
 17       A.   How long did it -- the time I conducted the
 18  evaluation?  I can't tell you.  It's over a year ago.
 19       Q.   When you testified on direct that you didn't
 20  ask Ms. Sahm if she remembered receiving copies of the
 21  petition, is that true or is your report true?
 22       A.   I have a -- I didn't hear the question
 23  completely, but I have a copy of the petition if that's
 24  what you're asking.
 25       Q.   On direct you testified that you did not ask
00108
 1   Ms. Sahm if she remembered receiving copies of the
 2   petition, but your --
 3        A.   I didn't ask who?
 4        Q.   Mrs. Sahm.  The --
 5        A.   Oh.  Oh, I hear what you're saying.  Yeah, she
 6   -- she apparently did not remember.  Right.
 7        Q.   Why is your testimony inconsistent with your
 8   report?
 9        A.   I don't think it's inconsistent.  If you point
 10  out the inconsistency to me, I'll try to clarify it for
 11  you.
 12       Q.   On direct you testified that you did not ask
 13  her about receiving a petition.  However, in your
 14  report, you state that she doesn't remember receiving
 15  the petition.  Which statement is true?
 16       A.   I stated what?
 17       Q.   Let's go -- I'm going to move on.  Let's go to
 18  Page 2 of your report, sir.
 19       A.   Which report are we looking at, '23 or '24?
 20       Q.   '23.
 21       A.   May?  The May report?
 22       Q.   Yes.
 23       A.   Okay.  And what do you want to know?
 24       Q.   Page -- can you please look at Page 2?  Look
 25  at
00109
 1   4.0.
 2        A.   Page 2, 4.0?
 3        Q.   Yes.
 4        A.   Right.
 5        Q.   Isn't it true that your recommended course of
 6   treatment was that the AIP is in good physical health,
 7   and she can continue to live independently?
 8        A.   Right.  That's what I wrote.
 9        Q.   Where in this report does it say she has
 10  Alzheimer's or severe mental cognitive issues?
 11       A.   I'd have to look at the report whether it says
 12  it or not, but that's indeed what she has.
 13       Q.   Is that based on your May or on your second
 14  report that wasn't used in court?
 15       A.   Say again, please?
 16       Q.   I'll move on.  Can you please look at point --
 17  5.0, functional assessment, on your report.  It's on
 18  Page 2.
 19       A.   You're saying -- you -- item 3?  Is that what
 20  you're asking me about?
 21       Q.   Item 5.0, functional --
 22       A.   Yeah.
 23       Q.   -- assessment.
 24       A.   Yeah.  Yeah, okay.  Go ahead.
 25       Q.   Are you aware of Florida Statute 744.102 that
00110
 1   discusses what determines whether an AIP is
 2   incapacitated or not?
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Form.  Calls for a legal
 4       conclusion --
 5            THE WITNESS:  I couldn't cite it.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- he's not here as a legal
 7       expert.
 8            THE WITNESS:  I couldn't review or state what
 9       that says specifically.  If you want to read it to
 10      me, I will tell you whether of I'm aware of it or
 11      not.
 12            BY MS. GARCIA:
 13       Q.   Okay.  Are you aware --
 14           THE COURT:  Hang on.  There's an objection.
 15      Overruled based on the question and answer.
 16            BY MS. GARCIA:
 17       Q.   Are you aware that to find someone
 18  incapacitated, you need to consider their healthcare of
 19  themselves, their ability to feed themselves, their
 20  appearance, and their ability to clothe themselves?
 21       A.   I've done over 1,000 evaluations.  I'm quite
 22  aware of the requirements that -- that you need to
 23  determine whether a person is incapacitated.  And based
 24  on the evaluation I did, I rendered an opinion that
 25  indeed she is incapacitated.
00111
 1        Q.   Okay.  So let's look at Section 5.0.  Isn't it
 2   true that you found that she can shop alone for clothing
 3   and food?  You have a Y next to it.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, this calls for a
 5       legal conclusion.  Judge Burton made a legal
 6       conclusion based on the statute --
 7            THE WITNESS:  That's a typo.  It's no.  It's Y,
 8       no.
 9            THE COURT:  Overruled.
 10           THE WITNESS:  The Y is a typo.
 11            BY MS. GARCIA:
 12       Q.   Isn't it true on the next line you said that
 13  she, Mrs. Sahm, can prepare her own meals, correct?
 14       A.   I have to look at the report because I
 15  certainly don't remember.
 16       Q.   Look at Page 2, 5.0, functional assessment.
 17       A.   Yes.  Yeah.
 18       Q.   She --
 19       A.   Yes, she can prepare her own meals.
 20       Q.   And if you go to the next page.
 21       A.   Yes.
 22       Q.   It's the fifth one down.  Isn't it true you
 23  found that Ms. Sahm could take care of her own personal
 24  appearance?
 25       A.   Yes.
00112
 1        Q.   And isn't it true you found Ms. Sahm could
 2   socialize with her friends?
 3        A.   Yes.
 4        Q.   Isn't it also true that Florida has denied you
 5   receiving your license to be a doctor here since 1984?
 6        A.   The Court has denied me what?
 7        Q.   The Florida Department of Health, where
 8   doctors are licensed in the state, you have been
 9   rejected to be a doctor in the state since 1984; isn't
 10  that true?
 11       A.   No.
 12       Q.   You've applied to be a doctor in Florida and
 13  were denied, correct?
 14       A.   Did I what?
 15       Q.   You applied to be a licensed physician or a
 16  gynecologist, I think, in Florida?
 17       A.   I'm not a gynecologist.  I'm not a
 18  gynecologist.  I'm a urologist.
 19       Q.   Urologist.  Okay.
 20       A.   And I did not apply for a license in the state
 21  of Florida.
 22       Q.   Ever?
 23       A.   Ever.
 24       Q.   Are you aware that I did a 119 request for
 25  your application here and with the Department of Florida
00113
 1   and there's proof --
 2        A.   Am I aware --
 3        Q.   -- that you were denied being a doctor in the
 4   state?
 5        A.   Am I aware of the allegation?  No, I'm not
 6   aware of the allegation.
 7        Q.   Are you aware that when --
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I move to strike
 9       the question and answer.  There's no predicate for
 10      any of this.
 11           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 12            BY MS. GARCIA:
 13       Q.   Are you aware that there was -- there's a
 14  relationship, a legal relationship, between the other
 15  two committee members, Dr. Stephanie Cheshire and
 16  Brennan Cheshire, and that's against the laws --
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.
 18            BY MS. GARCIA:
 19       Q.   -- for committee members?
 20           THE COURT:  I'm going to sustain the objection.
 21      It calls for --
 22           THE WITNESS:     I have no knowledge of what
 23      the rules are, nor is it relevant to what I do.
 24           THE COURT:  But I'll allow his answer to stand.
 25            BY MS. GARCIA:
00114
 1        Q.   You testified on direct that you gave
 2   testimony in front of Judge Burton in relation to this
 3   finding, correct?
 4        A.   Yeah, I believe I did.  I believe I did, yeah,
 5   but my memory is vague on it.
 6        Q.   Isn't it true that you actually did not
 7   testify in Judge Burton because the parties --
 8        A.   It's quite possible.  It's quite possible.
 9   All of this happened over a year ago and I'm not sure of
 10  times and dates, and who I testified in front of and who
 11  I didn't testify in front of.  So it's possible I'm
 12  incorrect.  I don't know.
 13       Q.   So your last statement wasn't true, then?
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Argumentative.
 15           THE WITNESS:  Same answer.
 16           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 17            BY MS. GARCIA:
 18       Q.   Isn't it true that a MoCA score of 18 out of
 19  30 only signifies a mild cognitive impairment?
 20       A.   Mild to moderate.  And it's only one part of
 21  the diagnosis.  There are multiple factors that you
 22  consider when making the diagnosis, one of which is the
 23  MoCA test.
 24       Q.   Isn't it true that to have a moderate
 25  cognitive impairment, the score must be between 10 and
00115
 1   17, not 18 or above?
 2        A.   I beg your pardon?
 3        Q.   Isn't it true that according to the MoCA test,
 4   that to have a -- to have a moderate cognitive
 5   impairment, the score must be between 10 and 17?
 6        A.   There's a cutoff point.  At 17 and 18 it's --
 7   it's moot.
 8        Q.   Where is that in the MoCA testing protocols?
 9        A.   I'm giving you my opinion.  My report is based
 10  on my opinion.
 11       Q.   And your opinion was based partially on this
 12  MoCA test, correct?
 13       A.   My opinion is based on my evaluation, the
 14  report of the neurologist, my conference with my other
 15  members of the examining committee, the medical
 16  information that's available to me, the interviews that
 17  I carry out, if I carry out any with a family member. It
 18  is not based on a MoCA test.
 19       Q.   There's nothing in your report that refers to
 20  you reviewing any medical records, sir.  So did you --
 21       A.   There's nothing in my report what?
 22       Q.   There's nothing in your report that refers to
 23  you reviewing medical records.  Is your testimony
 24  here --
 25       A.   Uh-huh.
00116
 1        Q.   -- today now that you reviewed medical records
 2   to make your decision hearsay outside medical records?
 3        A.   When medical records are available, I review
 4   them.  The medical records that I have is the record
 5   from the Neurological Disorders Clinic by a neurologist
 6   who found that, "Patricia Sahm has Alzheimer's disease,
 7   is unable to make any decisions about where she will
 8   reside, lacks proper character judgment, cannot decipher
 9   general -- genuine relationships from scams or tricks.
 10  She is not able to determine who is safe to socialize
 11  with.  As a result, she is unable to handle her own
 12  financial affairs or any legal contracting.  If you have
 13  any questions, you can call the office."  That is the
 14  report from Fernando Norono, neurologist.
 15       Q.   Date -- date, please?
 16       A.   June 26th, 2024.
 17       Q.   Okay.  June 26th, 2024.  You're relying on a
 18  report that's a year and two months after this to make
 19  your findings, sir?
 20       A.   As I said before, I don't rely on any one
 21  thing.  I rely on all the information available to me
 22  plus my own evaluation.
 23       Q.   Which was on Zoom for a time you don't
 24  remember, a length of time you don't even remember?
 25       A.   Say again?
00117
 1            MS. GARCIA:  I'll withdraw that question, Your
 2       Honor.
 3             BY MS. GARCIA:
 4        Q.   Did you read Dr. Sugar's report?
 5        A.   Did I read whose report?
 6        Q.   Dr. Sugar, who gave an opinion for the AIP's
 7   attorney.  Did you read his report?
 8        A.   I don't have that.  I don't have that in front
 9   of me right now.
 10       Q.   But have you read it?
 11       A.   I don't recall reading it.
 12       Q.   Are you sure?
 13       A.   I don't recall reading it.
 14       Q.   Now you talk -- you keep talking about a
 15  second report you did.  Isn't it true that you -- the
 16  three committee members were removed in 2024?
 17       A.   Isn't it -- isn't it --
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I'm going to
 19      object.
 20           THE WITNESS:  -- isn't it true what?
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I'm going to
 22      object going into the next year's report and
 23      activities. Although it would be helpful in my case,
 24      it's just not relevant.
 25           THE COURT:  Overruled.
00118
 1             BY MS. GARCIA:
 2        Q.   You referred to the fact that you did a second
 3   report in 2024, correct?
 4        A.   There was -- I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
 5        Q.   You referred to the fact that you did a second
 6   report in 2024, correct?
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, outside the scope
 8       of --
 9            THE WITNESS:  I evaluated her twice, correct.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Outside the scope of direct.
 11           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 12            BY MS. GARCIA:
 13       Q.   And isn't it true that that was not used by
 14  the Court, and the Court appointed three new committee
 15  members?
 16       A.   Isn't it true what?
 17       Q.   That those reports were not used in 2024 and
 18  the Court appointed three new committee members.
 19       A.   You're breaking up.  Something about 2024 and
 20  2023.
 21       Q.   Isn't it true that after you wrote the report
 22  in 2024, that they were not used because the Court
 23  appointed three new independent committee members?
 24       A.   I -- I'm not aware of that.  That's -- it's
 25  possible.
00119
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Can I have a moment, Your Honor?
 2            THE COURT:  Sure.
 3            MS. GARCIA:  One second, Your Honor.
 4            THE COURT:  Okay.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  I have no other -- I have no other
 6       questions of this witness, Your Honor.
 7            THE COURT:  Okay.  Any redirect examination,
 8       Mr. Sweetapple?
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I don't have any further
 10      questions of this witness.  However, I am going to
 11      ask for leave to call Ms. Lewis for two minutes as
 12      to why the parties stipulated to --
 13           THE COURT:  May I dismiss -- Dr. Bloom?
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes, I'm finished with Dr.
 15      Bloom.
 16           THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you very much,
 17      Dr. Bloom.  You can log off the Zoom.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you, Dr. Bloom.
 19           THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  Am I dismissed?
 20           THE COURT:  Yes.
 21           THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much.
 22           THE COURT:  Thank you.
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'd like to, if I could, Your
 24      Honor, briefly call Attorney Lewis just with regard
 25      to what happened with regard to the 2024 panel,
00120
 1       since there's been an attempt to create some
 2       impression that he was disqualified somehow.
 3            THE COURT:  All right.  Is she on the witness
 4       list?
 5            MS. GARCIA:  No.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, but this is by way of
 7       rebuttal.
 8            THE COURT:  All right.  Why don't we --
 9            MS. GARCIA:  I object, Your Honor.  It's
 10      prejudice.  He could have reasonably understood that
 11      when he was calling this witness, that there would
 12      be issues as to the admissibility or lack of
 13      admissibility testimony or use of these reports.
 14           THE COURT:  But his reports are not in
 15      evidence.
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And 2024 was not a relevant
 17      time period.
 18           THE COURT:  And my -- the decision that I have
 19      to make is not whether or not she qualifies as an
 20      incapacitated person.  I have to -- I -- we're
 21      getting way far-field.  But you know what?  I'll let
 22      you call Ms. Lewis.  I'll let you cross-examine her.
 23      And I'll take the evidence for what it's worth,
 24      which may not be germane to the Court's conclusion,
 25      but --
00121
 1            Come on up, Ms. Lewis.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I don't think it is relevant
 3       to the Court's conclusion.  However, I think there's
 4       been a misimpression created.
 5            THE COURT:  Would you raise your right hand?
 6            THE CLERK:  Do you solemnly swear or affirm
 7       that the evidence you're about to give will be the
 8       truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
 9            THE WITNESS:  I do.
 10           THE COURT:  All right.  Watch your step on your
 11      way up.
 12           Mr. Sweetapple, whenever you and Ms. Lewis are
 13      ready, you may inquire.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 15                 TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN LEWIS
 16                 DIRECT EXAMINATION
 17            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 18       Q.   Would you please state your name?
 19       A.   Yes.  My name is Kathryn Lewis.
 20       Q.   And how are you employed?
 21       A.   I am a partner at Kitroser Lewis & Mighdoll.
 22       Q.   And are you a licensed Florida attorney?
 23       A.   Yes, I am.
 24       Q.   How long have you been so licensed?
 25       A.   Since 2008.
00122
 1        Q.   And are you counsel for Charles Revard, the
 2   guardian of Ms. Sahm?
 3        A.   I am.
 4        Q.   And were you involved with regard to
 5   evaluations of Ms. Sahm again in 2024 after the 2023
 6   that is the subject of this controversy?
 7        A.   In 2024, myself and Mr. Kitroser were
 8   representing Mr. Revard at the time that those
 9   evaluations were performed.  We did not personally have
 10  any involvement in the actual evaluations themselves.
 11       Q.   And did counsel for anyone request that there
 12  be a reevaluation in 2024?
 13       A.   Yes.  We filed a petition to determine
 14  incapacity and a petition to expand the guardian's
 15  powers in order to give the guardian control or ability
 16  to make decisions regarding Mrs. Sahm's residence and
 17  social environment, which were two rights that were not
 18  removed in 2023.
 19       Q.   And did the Court grant that expansion?
 20       A.   Yes.
 21       Q.   All right.  And did -- was there a new
 22  examination committee appointed?
 23       A.   Originally, after we filed a petition to
 24  determine incapacity in 2024, the Court reappointed the
 25  committee from 2023 to evaluate Mrs. Sahm again.
00123
 1        Q.   And what happened?
 2        A.   They did their evaluations.  They filed their
 3   reports.  Thereafter, Attorney Laura Burkhalter, who had
 4   been court appointed to represent Mrs. Sahm in the 2024
 5   incapacity proceedings, filed a written objection to
 6   those committee reports.  And as part of the grounds for
 7   her objections, she stated that because this was the
 8   original committee from 2023 that had previously found
 9   Mrs. Sahm incapacitated, that it was an infringement on
 10  Mrs. Sahm's presumption of capacity.
 11       Q.   And was a new committee appointed?
 12       A.   Yes.  We actually agreed, Mr. Kitroser and I,
 13  on behalf of Mr. Revard.  We agreed to the appointment
 14  of a new committee to remove that from being an issue.
 15       Q.   And that committee, did it also determine that
 16  she was incapacitated?
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Object to relevance.
 18           THE WITNESS:  It did.
 19            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 20       Q.   And did they recommend an expansion of --
 21           THE COURT:  Sustained.
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No further questions, Your
 23      Honor.
 24           THE WITNESS:  Okay.
 25           THE COURT:  Any cross-examination with respect
00124
 1       to --
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Just brief on that.
 3                  CROSS-EXAMINATION
 4             BY MS. GARCIA:
 5        Q.   Were you the attorney in May of 2023 in the
 6   guardianship and mental health case?
 7        A.   I don't -- I -- I personally was not involved
 8   in the case in May of 2023.  I'm not sure whether or not
 9   Mr. Kitroser had been retained by Mr. Revard at that
 10  point in time.  Personally, I'm not sure.
 11       Q.   Isn't it true that your law firm and Mr.
 12  Revard weren't even brought into this case until June of
 13  2023 by agreement?
 14       A.   I don't know --
 15       Q.   -- of Ms. Amber -- Ms. Patwell?
 16       A.   I don't know why -- what standing Ms. Patwell
 17  would have to agree as to whether or not Mr. Revard
 18  retained my law firm.
 19       Q.   So you don't know if it was actually testimony
 20  given to Judge Burton, do you, in May of 2023 or June of
 21  2023?
 22       A.   Personally, I don't know.  I believe there was
 23  an agreement among the parties.  Ms. Patwell withdrew
 24  her objections to the committee reports.  You, on behalf
 25  of the Bernsteins, did not pursue an objection from what
00125
 1   I understand.  And because there was an agreement, the
 2   Court entered an order adjudicating Ms. Sahm
 3   incapacitated.
 4        Q.   Isn't it true that the order doesn't actually
 5   have a date of adjudication and determination of the
 6   incapacity?  It's blank?
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Object to best evidence.  Best
 8       evidence.
 9            THE COURT:  How is it -- wouldn't the order be
 10      the best evidence?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  I'm sorry?
 12           THE COURT:  Wouldn't the order be the best
 13      evidence?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Well, since there's a lot of
 15      issues here going to the mental impressions of the
 16      capacity, non-capacity, and the ability to enter
 17      into contracts at that time, I think it's very
 18      relevant that there was no due process finding of
 19      incapacity by the Court --
 20           THE COURT:  I --
 21           MS. GARCIA:  I could ask that question.
 22           THE COURT:  I guess I don't see how, with all
 23      due respect to Ms. Lewis' knowledge of the date,
 24      whether or not the order contained the date, is
 25      relevant to the issues that we're here to decide so
00126
 1       I'll sustain the objection as to best evidence.  If
 2       you want to provide the order, show me whether or
 3       not it has a date, I can read it.
 4            MS. GARCIA:  I'll do that because it's in
 5       evidence.
 6            Okay.  Thank you.
 7            THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
 8            THE COURT:  All right.
 9            THE WITNESS:  May I step down, Your Honor?
 10           THE COURT:  Any redirect examination?
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, Your Honor.
 12           THE COURT:  All right.  Yes, ma'am.  You may
 13      step down.
 14           Any additional witnesses or evidence on behalf
 15      of the plaintiff?
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I just want to read from the
 17      party deposition if I could.
 18           THE COURT:  Okay.
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Briefly, and I don't think we
 20      have copies of the transcript.  I --
 21           MS. GARCIA:  No.  Hold on, Your Honor.  I
 22      object fully.  He cannot just use the depo.  This is
 23      improper impeachment.  You want to use a deposition
 24      for a witness, you can use it if you find that the
 25      witness is dead, which he's not.  He's greater than
00127
 1       a hundred miles, which he's not.  He's out of state,
 2       which he's not.  And it doesn't appear that he's
 3       absent.  He never gave proper notice prior to the --
 4       to the -- to the trial.  Of using a deposition, you
 5       can't use a deposition to impeach a witness when
 6       he's not here and he's available.  He could have
 7       been subpoenaed.  So I believe it violates your
 8       1.330, and basically he cannot use the deposition
 9       under 1.330(a).  And he hasn't given a proper
 10      notice.  It's a due process hurdle he has to
 11      overcome, and I can cite all the case law if you'd
 12      like, Judge.
 13           THE COURT:  Sure.  Cite me a case that says he
 14      can't use the deposition of a party upon it.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  As the way he wants to use it,
 16      when the party's available and he didn't subpoena
 17      him. He can't come in here now and just read the
 18      deposition without proper notice.
 19           THE COURT:  Okay.  Cite --
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Proper --
 21           THE COURT:  -- cite me a case that says that.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  They said that basically -- let me
 23      see.  Okay, the Fourth District has a case that says
 24      that the rule --
 25           THE COURT:  What's the name of the case? What's
00128
 1       the citation?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  I'll get it.  Give me one second.
 3       First of all, there's a hearsay burden to overcome
 4       under Rule 1.330, and basically they said that under
 5       Dinter v. Brewer, 420 So.2d 932, Florida Third DCA,
 6       1982, the Court found the hearsay was inadmissible
 7       because it didn't satisfy the provisions of the
 8       former testimony rule.  In other words, the rule
 9       itself is only exception to the hearsay rule --
 10           THE COURT:  Isn't prior sworn testimony of a
 11      party opponent taken at a deposition subject to
 12      cross-examination specifically an exception of the
 13      hearsay rule?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Cross -- cross-examination, Your
 15      Honor, but --
 16           THE COURT:  Subject to cross-examination.  Not
 17      cross-examination.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I believe -- I believe the
 19      rules, Your Honor, allow the party -- opposing
 20      party's deposition to be used at any time for any
 21      purpose. That's been my use of them for over 40
 22      years, and I've never had anybody say I couldn't do
 23      that so I -- I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  I believe it's a due process
 25      violation to allow him to use a rule against a party
00129
 1       who has not testified, who he's not subpoenaed, he's
 2       not called as a witness, and he's coming in here
 3       using the deposition without proper notice.  The
 4       rule does say you have to give me notice and a copy
 5       of the deposition.  My client never -- and it's also
 6       he has to be unavailable if he wants to use the
 7       deposition, or he would use it on proper cross-
 8       examination.  You can't use a deposition as direct
 9       testimony, not the way he wants to use it.  It's not
 10      following the proper rules.
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Mr. Bernstein was here at our
 12      last sitting and I have deposed him, and intended to
 13      cross-examine him.  He's not here today and I
 14      believe I'm entitled to use his testimony from the
 15      deposition as a party opponent for any purpose at
 16      any time.  She can call him if she chooses to.  He's
 17      a party.
 18           THE COURT:  Rule 1.330(a), Use of Depositions.
 19      "Upon any hearing of a motion, any part or all of a
 20      deposition may be used against any party who was
 21      present or represented at the taking of the
 22      deposition or who had reasonable notice of it so far
 23      as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as
 24      though the witness were then present and testifying
 25      in accordance with any of the following provisions."
00130
 1       Subsection (2), "The deposition of a party or of
 2       anyone who is a person or agent designated may be
 3       used by an adverse party for any purpose."  So I am
 4       overruling your objection.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  And also, Your Honor, (a)(1) does
 6       discuss the fact that if you want to use it for the
 7       purpose of contradicting or impeaching any testimony
 8       of the deponent as a witness, you do have to follow
 9       the evidence code.  You do have to give proper
 10      notice.  You can't just come into the Court with a
 11      deposition that hasn't even been read.
 12           THE COURT:  When was this deposition taken?
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This deposition was taken
 14      October 2, 2024.
 15           THE COURT:  All right.  And was it listed as a
 16      potential exhibit or item of evidence?
 17           MS. GARCIA:  No, Your Honor.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  We took this -- we took this
 19      after all that occurred.  It -- we had -- it took us
 20      forever to get Mr. Bernstein in for the deposition,
 21      if you recall.
 22           THE COURT:  All right, when did you determine
 23      that you were going to use your deposition?
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I was going to use it for
 25      cross-examination today.  However, I noted that for
00131
 1       some reason, Mr. Bernstein, who sat next to her the
 2       entire proceeding in August, is not here so I --
 3            THE COURT:  Is Mr. Bernstein present on Zoom?
 4       If so, can you unmute yourself?  Deputy, could you
 5       sound the hall for Mr. Bernstein?
 6            THE BAILIFF:   Mr. Bernstein.
 7            THE COURT:  All right.  Deputy has indicated
 8       that Mr. Bernstein is not present, so I find that
 9       he's not availed himself to be cross-examined here
 10      in Court. So it would not be fair to the other party
 11      to not allow that portion of his testimony to not be
 12      provided to the Court, so I'm overruling your
 13      objection.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor.  If I may, I'm
 15      reading from Page 76, starting at Line 4.
 16            Question: "And how many times did you meet
 17  with her before the guardianship was filed?"
 18            Answer: "Probably most of the times."
 19            Question: "Well, after the guardianship was
 20  filed, did you still meet with her and try to get her to
 21  sign a settlement?"
 22            Answer: "I have to look at my notes and figure
 23  that out, but -- "
 24            Question: "Didn't you appear at her house on
 25  more than one occasion before she signed the settlement
00132
 1   agreement to meet with her?"
 2             Answer: "I did."
 3             Question: "Okay.  You had the settlement
 4   agreement in your hand when you met with her, right?"
 5             Answer: "I did."
 6             Question -- this is at Page 77, Line 3.
 7   "Didn't you -- so you met with Mrs. Sahm after she had
 8   been -- after the guardianship had been filed, right, at
 9   her house?"
 10            Answer: "Yes."
 11            Question: "On more than one occasion,
 12  correct?"
 13            Answer: "Yeah, most likely."
 14            Then on Page 88 at Line 2, "Okay.  So we're
 15  -- so you were helping -- you were helping Patricia
 16  Sahm, Senior, find an attorney?"
 17            Answer: "Yeah."
 18            Question: "Okay.  And you asked everybody in
 19  the guardianship abuse group who you could get to
 20  represent Patricia Sahm, Senior?"
 21            Answer: "Correct."
 22            Question: "And so how did you learn that Ms.
 23  Patwell had been hired after you recommended that
 24  someone go find an attorney for Mrs. Sahm?"
 25            Answer: "How did I learn?  I think through
00133
 1   Patty, Junior, or something."
 2             That's all I'm reading, Your Honor.
 3            THE COURT:  All right.  Is there any portion of
 4       the deposition that you would like for me to
 5       consider according to the rule of completeness, Ms.
 6       Garcia?
 7            MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor, I would need time.  I
 8       will do that before the close of my case.
 9            THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  Is there any
 10      additional witnesses or evidence?
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I have no further
 12      evidence with regard to our motion.
 13           THE COURT:  All right and then motion on behalf
 14      of -- let me turn to Ms. Garcia first for your
 15      motion, understanding that you had entered evidence,
 16      but we just did that for expediency sake.  This is
 17      now the close of the plaintiff's presentation.
 18           MS. GARCIA:  Has -- I'm sorry.  The plaintiff
 19      has rested?
 20           THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.
 21           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  Your Honor, I move -- I'm
 22      moving for a directed verdict pursuant to Rule
 23      1.480. The plaintiff has closed his case, and the
 24      plaintiff has not proved the necessary elements of
 25      the case.  Firstly -- (coughs) excuse me, Your
00134
 1       Honor.  The plaintiff has not proved by clear and
 2       convincing evidence that Ms. Sahm was incapacitated
 3       in May of 2023.  The witness that testified was not
 4       forthcoming as far as remembering what happened,
 5       misrepresenting to the Court the cognitive based on
 6       the MoCA test, misrepresented that he testified in
 7       front of Judge Burton, which didn't happen. There's
 8       testimony by missus -- I'm sorry, Ms. Lewis. She
 9       wasn't involved in the case at the time so nobody
 10      could confirm that there was any ever actually
 11      hearing or determination by Judge Burton that the
 12      client was incompetent.
 13           Also, Ms. Sahm did not have her due process or
 14      her right, the contract taken away by the Court at
 15      the time of settlement was entered into.  The
 16      evidence that is in evidence is evidence is that the
 17      settlement was entered into on May 22nd, and there
 18      was no finding of incompetency by the Court, by any
 19      Court order or by any due process hearing, until
 20      June by agreement of the parties for a limited
 21      guardianship for Charlie Revard, who's her cousin.
 22      At the time -- there's no proof that at the time
 23      that the settlement was issued, that there was any
 24      nefarious conduct by either myself or Ms. Patwell or
 25      the other attorneys, Morgan Weinstein.
00135
 1            There -- the -- simply put that the plaintiff
 2       has not carried their burden for this Court to
 3       determine, first of all, if there was any competency
 4       or not at the time.  Further, they haven't proved
 5       pursuant to the law that -- or rebutted by clear
 6       convincing evidence, like Harmon v. Williams, 596
 7       So.2d 1139, a Florida Second DCA case.  It says,
 8       "The Court holds that a person is presumed competent
 9       to contract unless incompetency is established by
 10      due process of the law." So this Court basically
 11      would have to make a proactive finding that prior to
 12      any adjudication that you're going to take away,
 13      retrospectively, a client's right to contract with a
 14      lawyer.  It's clear that she had a lawyer, Amber
 15      Patwell, who was assigned and accepted by the Court,
 16      and then there was a settlement that was entered
 17      into.  They waited 14 months to try to set it aside.
 18      Then they tried to come in with allegations of the
 19      exception to the rules.
 20           So the Court determines by clear and convincing
 21      evidence, he believes that the client, they did not
 22      prove incompetency sufficient for you to
 23      prospectively negate a legitimate contract, that the
 24      -- that the guardianship court didn't negate, and
 25      nobody had even thought for the year, then you'd
00136
 1       have to get to the next level of the argument which
 2       would be that there had to be some undue influence
 3       or some fraud.  None of that has been proven as far
 4       as this settlement that was entered into that's --
 5       that was validly entered into with her having an
 6       attorney present, and the evidence that is in the
 7       other committee report that is in evidence, Your
 8       Honor, does say that she can contact -- she can
 9       contract with the help of an attorney, which she
 10      did.
 11           So there's nothing that has been proven here in
 12      his case in chief that would give Your Honor the
 13      ability to take away her presumed competency to
 14      contract.  And there's nothing in the evidence so
 15      far that proves any fraudulent activities or undue
 16      influence related to the execution and timing of the
 17      contract.  In fact, the evidence that was presented
 18      through the court orders in the dates and times show
 19      that as soon as Weinstein was hired April 12th, and
 20      then there was no stipulation done and no
 21      settlements were negotiated.  Mr. Weinstein had
 22      nothing to do with it at that point.  The evidence
 23      shows that in May, there was a hearing in the
 24      bankruptcy court wherein -- and the attorney the
 25      retainers in evidence represented the estate that
00137
 1       they admit has no rights.
 2            At one point -- a dead man who they never told
 3       the Court was dead.  And then Ms. Sahm that,
 4       according to Mr. Sweetapple's testimony at the last
 5       hearing, or his proffers, were that she was
 6       incompetent.  He was traveling with her under Power
 7       of Attorney, but in the meanwhile, they're still
 8       moving forward hiring lawyers and filing defenses
 9       that are not legally proper.  Filing a -- filing a
 10      claim in a federal bankruptcy court for an estate
 11      that you've admitted has no rights is an affront of
 12      the Court.  Filing claims for dead people for years,
 13      including the affidavits or evidence for dead
 14      people, is improper.  So I don't believe that he's
 15      met his burden according to the law for either the
 16      declaration of an incompetency and/or fraud or undue
 17      influence to set aside the agreement.
 18           So those are some of the specific reasons, Your
 19      Honor.  You have in evidence basically that we would
 20      ask the settlement to stand as is because the
 21      plaintiff has clearly not proven his case.
 22           THE COURT:  Okay.  Ms. Garcia.  Sorry.  Mister
 23      Apple -- Mr. Sweetapple?
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  May it please the Court, the
 25      evidence in this case is clear that the Bernsteins
00138
 1       knew at all times that Ms. Sahm had declined into
 2       incapacity, and of that there could be no doubt.
 3       Ms. Garcia knew the same thing, because, as you
 4       noted, she tried not to put in a signed settlement
 5       agreement that she forwarded to Mr. Raymond and --
 6       in March of 2024, and that agreement signed --
 7       prepared by her and signed by all of her clients
 8       repeatedly recites that Mrs. Sahm, Senior, is
 9       incapacitated.  And I'll read to you some of those
 10      quotes.  I had my -- I had my highlighted copy, and
 11      the unhighlighted copy, but --
 12           THE COURT:  Page 2 of Plaintiff's 12, "Whereas
 13      Walter Sahm, Junior, is now deceased and his estate
 14      is pending in Marion County, and his now
 15      incapacitated wife, Patricia Sahm, as a Power of
 16      Attorney, trust bringing guardian with her daughter,
 17      Joanna Sahm, whereas the estate, the trust, and the
 18      incapacitated surviving spouse --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Exactly.
 20           THE COURT:  -- on Page 3.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is -- this is -- this is
 22      an admission of their knowledge of her incapacity.
 23      They signed this in March.  It's an admission of Ms.
 24      Garcia's knowledge of her incapacity, and yet what
 25      do we see?  We see Patty Sahm, Junior, the same
00139
 1       person Judge Burton found was taking advantage of
 2       her mother, and allowing a signature or a
 3       notarization of a revocation for Power of Attorney
 4       to occur using the Bernstein's agent that Mr.
 5       Bernstein admits he's helping, through Patty,
 6       Junior, to get an attorney for his opponent, Mrs.
 7       Sahm. There's always the suggestion throughout this
 8       case, including cross examination, Ms. Inger, that
 9       somehow I was substituted in this case, but Patty
 10      worked with Mr. Weinstein.  You can see through the
 11      communications, had Mr. Weinstein come in, a friend
 12      of Mr. Hall's, to try to take over so they can
 13      backdoor a settlement taking advantage of Mrs. Sahm,
 14      Senior.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Facts not in evidence.
 16           THE COURT:  Overruled.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So Mr. Weinstein lasts a few
 18      days.  He never -- he never sends me a stipulation
 19      for substitution of counsel.  I've represented Mr.
 20      and Mrs. Sahm since the beginning in this case.  I
 21      represented Mrs. Sahm individually, and then when
 22      her daughter told me she had a Power of Attorney and
 23      Mrs. Sahm told me she had a Power of Attorney, I
 24      initially was authorized to deal with Joanna Sahm.
 25      But the bottom line is they knew that I was the
00140
 1       attorney in this case, and all of this is occurring
 2       without any attempt to have me join in on either of
 3       these settlements.  And you're going to see if --
 4       and this is not appropriate at this time, but you're
 5       going to see I was not copied at my e-mail address
 6       with communications that had been represented that I
 7       didn't respond to.
 8            So what happens?  Well, this fraud that's
 9       occurring involving Patty, Inger Garcia, and the
 10      Bernsteins and Ms. Patwell, who was brought in by
 11      the Bernsteins, is just --
 12           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Facts not in evidence.
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- a continuation of a fraud
 14      that the bankruptcy court already occurred by Ms.
 15      Garcia, and the State court and three days before
 16      the guardianship is filed, the Federal court grants
 17      interim relief from an automatic stay that Ms.
 18      Garcia obtained.  And if you look at Paragraph D --
 19      attached to the motion as Exhibit D is a copy of the
 20      suggestion of bankruptcy for defendant and notice to
 21      cancel sale set for April 4th, 2023,
 22      parenthetically, the suggestion of bankruptcy, filed
 23      on April 3 by attorney Inger Garcia on behalf of
 24      certain defendants, including debtor, Elliot Ivan
 25      Bernstein of the State court case.
00141
 1            The suggestion of bankruptcy is factually false
 2       and legally incorrect, and was designed to mislead
 3       the State court and/or the clerk of the State court
 4       that the canceling -- the April 4th, 2023,
 5       foreclosure sale of the real property scheduled in
 6       the State court because the suggestion of bankruptcy
 7       stated that, "This action is founded on the claim
 8       from which a discharge would be a release and that
 9       seeks to impose a charge on the property of" -- this
 10      is the second fraudulent bankruptcy.  The first one,
 11      the boys are -- the sons are all assessed $43,000.
 12      This is the second fraudulent bankruptcy, but Ms.
 13      Garcia is representing the Bernsteins.  They're
 14      fully aware of the guardianship, as is she, because
 15      watching all of this occurring, the first thing I do
 16      when I hear for the first time that there's been
 17      some alleged revocation of a Power of Attorney,
 18      which would not have in any way affected my direct
 19      representation of Mrs. Sahm, who was my client and
 20      always competent, the entire time I knew her, but
 21      I'm dealing now with Joanna for the last couple of
 22      years at Mrs. Sahm's direction.
 23           So when I call Mrs. Sahm, and I put this in a
 24      notice so that all counsel would be alerted that we
 25      are watching you, don't continue with your
00142
 1       fraudulent conduct.  What do I do in my request for
 2       judicial notice?  "One, Plaintiff is the surviving
 3       spouse and owner of the note, which was the subject
 4       of the incident matter.  Two, undersigned counsel
 5       has been advised that a revocation of the current
 6       Power of Attorney held by Mrs. Sahm's daughter,
 7       Joanna Sahm, has recently been executed.  Three,
 8       undersigned counsel spoke directly with plaintiff,
 9       Patricia Sahm, yesterday.  Mrs. Sahm indicated she
 10      was unaware of any such revocation and still wanted
 11      undersigned counsel to represent her in this matter.
 12      Four, the Court is further advised and requested to
 13      take judicial notice of the pending guardianship
 14      matter," and I cite them.  So while on May 5th, all
 15      three committee members find that she's unable to
 16      manage her litigation, and miss -- and Ms. Patwell
 17      is not counsel of record.  There are attempts by --
 18      documents prepared by Mrs. Garcia, Mr. Bernstein is
 19      going to the alleged incapacitated person's house,
 20      and on the 22nd of May obtains her signature when no
 21      one else is there.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Objection.  Facts not in evidence.
 23           THE COURT:  So I don't mean to cut you off, but
 24      this is a motion for directed verdict.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And so what I -- what I'm
00143
 1       going to show is the evidence --
 2            THE COURT:  Which means --
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- in this case --
 4            THE COURT:  -- I draw -- I draw all inferences
 5       and conclusions in the light most favorable to the
 6       non-moving party.
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Exactly.  And this is not a
 8       motion.  This isn't a properly directed verdict
 9       application anyway.  It's not a trial.
 10           THE COURT:  I --
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This -- and I -- you need to
 12      hear the entire case, but when I got to the end of
 13      the case, what I'm going to show you --
 14           THE COURT:  I thought you've rested your case.
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah.  But I'm saying when you
 16      hear her case, there's going to be more coming out
 17      that's going to --
 18           THE COURT:  So --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- implicate them in the fraud
 20      on the sanctions.
 21           THE COURT:  -- so I find, based on what I've
 22      heard so far, in the light most favorable to the
 23      non-moving party, a reasonable fact finder could
 24      find that you've established your claim.  And I'm
 25      going to respectfully deny the motion for directed
00144
 1       verdict, so let me turn now to Ms. Garcia to call
 2       any witnesses or evidence that she would like to
 3       produce.
 4            MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor.  I'm sorry, Your
 5       Honor.  I thought you said after this witness that
 6       you were calling a lunch break.
 7            THE COURT:  I would like to get this case
 8       concluded today.  We've really spent a lot of time,
 9       so -- you have a witness, I think, that's on Zoom.
 10      I'll give you -- I can give you a short break, but
 11      we're going to conclude today.  So how -- you have
 12      Mr. Stransbury, I think you said you were going to
 13      call, and who else?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  And myself.
 15           THE COURT:  And yourself?
 16           MS. GARCIA:  And potentially Ms. Bernstein.
 17           THE COURT:  Okay.  So --
 18           MS. GARCIA:  And now that he's done that to Mr.
 19      Bernstein, I have to see if I can find him.
 20           THE COURT:  He's done what to Mr. Bernstein?
 21      Since --
 22           MS. GARCIA:  Now that he read his deposition
 23      testimony with no proper notice, and --
 24           THE COURT:  Okay.  When we took a ten minute
 25      break, you said you had perhaps one witness, Mr.
00145
 1       Stransbury, who's on Zoom.  Now you're telling me
 2       you have four witnesses.
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Well, I -- I'm testifying,
 4       definitely.
 5            THE COURT:  Okay.  All right, what we'll do is
 6       -- Madam Court Reporter and Madam Clerk, how long do
 7       you all need for a break?  You're in charge.  30
 8       minutes?
 9            THE CLERK:  No, I just need ten, Your Honor.
 10           THE COURT:  Ten?  Madam Court Reporter?
 11           THE REPORTER:  I just need a restroom break.
 12           THE COURT:  All right.  Why don't we take --
 13      we'll take 20 minutes.  There's snacks downstairs, I
 14      think.  There's restrooms.  We'll pick back up.
 15            (OFF THE RECORD)
 16           THE COURT:  All right.  Looks like everybody's
 17      present.  So let me turn to Ms. Garcia.
 18           Who's your first witness?
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor, what I'd like to do
 20      under the rule of completeness, I'd like to move in
 21      the entire deposition of Mr. Bernstein.  I have a
 22      copy provided to counsel, but they need to make a
 23      copy because I don't have an extra one.
 24           THE COURT:  Okay.  Do you have any legal
 25      objection?
00146
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I showed her my
 2       copy of the transcript.  The -- you -- the rule of
 3       completeness allows you to read portions that relate
 4       to the testimony.  I object to her putting in her
 5       client's testimony.  It's an opposing party that has
 6       the right to use the transcript, not the party.  She
 7       needs to call in what she wants --
 8            THE COURT:  The rule of completeness allows if
 9       you publish a portion for them if they wish to
 10      publish portions that provide context, so what
 11      additional portions that provide context are you
 12      seeking to admit?
 13           MS. GARCIA:  The entire deposition goes into
 14      the whole theory of him supposedly manipulating and
 15      being involved to an excess of undue burden.  And if
 16      you read the deposition in and of itself in its
 17      completeness, you'll see that that's not true.
 18      You'll see what his actual testimony is, not just
 19      portions. And the document of the doctrine of
 20      completeness allows if one party introduces in
 21      trial, the adverse party may require the
 22      introduction of the other parts of any other writing
 23      or recorded statements which ought in fairness be
 24      considered.  And it ensures that the judge and the
 25      jury, the fact -- finder of fact is to view the
00147
 1       incomplete statement in its full context.  So you'd
 2       have to hear his deposition to have the proper full
 3       context of his testimony.
 4            It's also an explanatory evidence rule, and it
 5       allows otherwise inadmissible hearsay to be
 6       admissible under the rule to correct any confusion
 7       or wrong impression created by the admission of the
 8       original evidence.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I don't dispute
 10      that's the law.  I read brief portions showing that
 11      Mr. Bernstein was involved with the alleged
 12      incapacitated person repeatedly at her house
 13      bringing a settlement agreement, and that he was
 14      involved in obtaining her counsel, Ms. Patwell.
 15      Anything that she wants to read or introduce that in
 16      any way deals with those topics, I have no objection
 17      to.
 18           MS. GARCIA:  That's true.
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  She clearly has a right.  She
 20      has somewhere where this -- someone can show that
 21      that didn't happen the way he described it, or I
 22      didn't read everything that was relevant, by all
 23      means, but the idea she's going to read 80 pages of
 24      testimony --
 25           THE COURT:  Well, I don't think she's going to
00148
 1       read it.  I think she's going to submit it to the
 2       Court to allow --
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah.  But I don't think
 4       that's permissible either.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  It is the one -- third, Rule
 6       109 --
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  She hasn't shown he's
 8       unavailable.  He's not dead.  He's not outside the
 9       jurisdiction --
 10           THE COURT:  That's not the rule of
 11      completeness.  The rule of --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  The rule of completeness deals
 13      with what I just said, the topic.
 14           THE COURT:  It would deal with an otherwise
 15      inadmissible hearsay statement such as her offering
 16      her own client's statement, if it needs to be
 17      provided to give context.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Right.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  And it promotes the transparency
 20      since only one part of the statement was shown.  It
 21      prevents you from having a biased view of the entire
 22      situation.  It allows a level playing field.  It
 23      ensures both sides have an equal opportunity to
 24      present her case.
 25           THE COURT:  Over the plaintiff's objection, I
00149
 1       will receive it as -- what -- we have --
 2            THE CLERK:  27.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- Defense Exhibit number 27.
 4       The entire transcript?
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 6            THE COURT:  The entire transcript as --
 7       according to the rule of completeness.  90.108.
 8             (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 9            MS. GARCIA:  So we'll send you a copy?
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Do you have --
 11           MS. GARCIA:  I have one copy so --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  That's my copy that's
 13      highlighted.
 14           MS. GARCIA:  -- so I can provide one to the
 15      Court --
 16           THE COURT:  Can --
 17           MS. GARCIA:  I don't have a certified copy.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  We can print out a copy and
 19      give it to you.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 21           UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I can try to do that.  I
 22      could e-mail it to the Court and --
 23           THE COURT:  If you e-mail it -- if you e-mail
 24      it to me, I can get it printed out.  If you e-mail
 25      it to the county.
00150
 1            MS. GARCIA:  So I have a procedural question,
 2       Your Honor.  Since I plan on testifying and I need
 3       to refer to the different exhibits while I'm
 4       testifying to either refresh my recollection or to
 5       talk about my mental process, do I sit in the
 6       witness stand with my exhibits, or -- I'm not sure,
 7       Your Honor.  Do I sit at the table --
 8            THE COURT:  It may -- it may be easiest for you
 9       to sit at the table as long as you're by a
 10      microphone so that we can pick you up because I'm
 11      not going to be able to -- I'll probably be able to
 12      see you at the table better than I can see you up in
 13      the witness stand.
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Right.  I could stand here too, if
 15      you'd like, Your Honor.  It's up to you.
 16           THE COURT:  You could be seated so you can go
 17      through your exhibits.
 18           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So I call my first witness,
 19      myself, Your Honor.
 20           THE COURT:  All right.  Would you raise your
 21      right hand?  Do you swear or affirm the testimony
 22      you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth,
 23      and nothing but the truth?
 24           THE WITNESS:  I do.
 25           THE COURT:  All right.  You can put your hand
00151
 1       down now.
 2            Go ahead, Ms. Garcia.
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Good afternoon.
 4            THE COURT:  Good afternoon.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  My name is Inger Garcia.  I've
 6       been an attorney since 1991 in Georgia.  In Florida
 7       I was licensed in '97.  However, in 1989 I worked
 8       under Judge Kastrenakes' prosecutor's office for
 9       Janet Reno in an internship and for chief judges.
 10      I've been litigating since the late '80s.  I'm aware
 11      of the rules and the procedures in Court as well as
 12      testimony, impeachment, and honesty and integrity to
 13      the Court.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So Your Honor, at some point
 15      after we complete the background, I'm going to
 16      request that she ask her question about herself and
 17      then answer it so I can make objections when we get
 18      into the relevant evidence.
 19           THE COURT:  All right.
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Or do you want me just to
 21      interrupt and object if it's irrelevant or improper?
 22           THE COURT:  I think asking her to ask herself
 23      questions is -- it's not going to work.  So yes,
 24      just interrupt if you believe that she's providing
 25      testimony that is not permissible under the evidence
00152
 1       code.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  Thank you.
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  Your Honor, this is a case
 4       of a fairly long term foreclosure between the Sahms
 5       and the Bernsteins, and BFR, the company.  I came
 6       into this case in January of 2023 to file a motion,
 7       a 1.5 for a motion and a motion to continue a sale.
 8       When I was -- prior to that, there had been a
 9       bankruptcy filed by BFR -- involuntary bankruptcy
 10      filed in Palm Beach County. You have the retainer
 11      agreement from Mr. Shraiberg in evidence, Your
 12      Honor, as Defense Exhibit 13.  I attended those
 13      Court hearings.  First of all, I analyzed this case
 14      and determined very quickly during many, many
 15      foreclosure cases because I've done a lot of
 16      foreclosure litigation over the years in real
 17      estate.  I've been involved in real estate since I'm
 18      18 years old, worked for John Ritter as a -- who was
 19      a real estate attorney back in the late '80s.  I'm
 20      very familiar with foreclosures and the requirements
 21      and a proper protocol for a plaintiff to get a final
 22      judgment.  I'm also fully aware of when someone
 23      dies, you have --
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I'm going to
 25      object to any legal conclusions, legal opinions
00153
 1       here. She's here as a fact witness.
 2            THE COURT:  So a witness, no matter how
 3       qualified or skilled, is not able to testify as to
 4       legal conclusions.  That's for me to decide, so --
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So I'm here to testify to
 6       my mental impressions that I've gained as a
 7       litigator in this case by observing the bankruptcy
 8       in the initial involuntary bankruptcy over the
 9       summer of 2022 and over the course of representing
 10      the Bernstein's in the foreclosure case.  And then
 11      subsequently as of August 2023, representing Patty
 12      Sahm, Junior based on an injunction that was filed
 13      against her in the mental health and the
 14      guardianship cases.  So I've been able to have --
 15      and then I also was at the hearing in April or May
 16      -- no, April of 2023, where Mr. Bernstein had filed
 17      individual bankruptcy.  And I was at that hearing.
 18      So I've been able to observe by analyzing all the
 19      cases as a united.  There's a trust case, Your
 20      Honor, also where the funds are being held --
 21      $277,000 has been held to pay this settlement, to
 22      pay for this foreclosure. There's a court order that
 23      money's been available?
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  It's not -- that's
 25      -- it's outside of the evidence.
00154
 1            THE COURT:  She's testifying.  She's providing
 2       evidence, right?
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Have you given that court
 5       order to the judge?
 6            MS. GARCIA:  I'm testifying from my knowledge
 7       as an opinion attorney.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You said there's a court
 9       order.  That's evidence, Your Honor.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  I can move the Court order in,
 11      Your Honor, from that case.  We can do judicial
 12      notice. The Shirley Bernstein Trust case.  I can get
 13      the citations.  We can -- I'd be happy --
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You said that --
 15           MS. GARCIA:  -- to do --
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, she said there's a
 17      court order reserving $277,000 to pay this
 18      settlement.
 19           THE COURT:  Right.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  This -- the Court order reserving
 21      funds.  The Court order specifically states that the
 22      funds that are in the trust -- that -- the Court
 23      registry, to be used to satisfy the mortgage.
 24           THE COURT:  Okay.  And do you have a copy of
 25      that order?
00155
 1            MS. GARCIA:  I don't, but I can pull it off the
 2       docket, Your Honor, and do judicial notice.
 3            THE COURT:  Are you objecting to the judicial
 4       notice of the Court?
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I -- I'd like to see it.  I'm
 6       not involved in that case.  That involves other
 7       family members and --
 8            THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm overruling the
 9       objection.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Actually, Mr. Sweetapple is
 11      involved in that case because he filed a motion
 12      recently to release those funds for other purposes.
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  I garnished --
 14           MS. GARCIA:  For the purposes --
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I garnished monies.  I went to
 16      the jeweler based on a federal judgment that's
 17      pending.
 18           MS. GARCIA:  So he is aware of the case, and he
 19      is aware of the Court order and there have been e-
 20      mails back and forth.  But by looking at the overall
 21      picture, Your Honor, what I gleaned, my knowledge,
 22      is that when I came into this foreclosure case in
 23      January of 2023, I saw massive, massive legal
 24      technical and fraud issues on the Court.  I had
 25      brought it up to Judge Bell who came in, Kastrenakes
00156
 1       resigned, I believe, like the day before the
 2       hearing.  So Judge Bell came in for a short time
 3       frame, continued the hearing -- continued the sale
 4       from January, 2023 to April of 2023.
 5            And then at that point, then BFR filed.  It was
 6       -- it was an involuntary bankruptcy filed.  When it
 7       got converted to Chapter 7, the clients couldn't
 8       afford an attorney, so they just let it get
 9       dismissed and then sanctions were moved forward.
 10      But in that court, again, I determined by looking at
 11      the retainer that's in evidence and looking at the
 12      notice of appearance that was filed with Mr.
 13      Shraiberg for a dead man, and I brought it up to
 14      federal court.  I said Judge, they're filing still
 15      for Walter Sahm, who's dead.  And you have his birth
 16      certificate and his death certificate in the record
 17      stipulated to as Exhibit --
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'll stipulate it.  It's in
 19      the record.
 20           THE COURT:  I think it was seven or eight.
 21           MS. GARCIA:  He died in -- he died in 2021, I
 22      think, I believe January 2021.  And after Mr. Sahm
 23      passed away, there was no substitution of counsel of
 24      the estate.  And also in evidence is proof that the
 25      estate, when they did their notice of inventory,
00157
 1       they did not list this --
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object to the
 3       predicate.  On what basis should there have been a
 4       substitution of the estate in a joint note?
 5            THE COURT:  I guess the problem that I'm having
 6       is, I don't understand why if we keep wanting to
 7       talk about the 1.540 motion, we haven't done both of
 8       them at the same time.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, Your Honor, I think when
 10      you look at the Court file, with all due respect,
 11      you're going to notice that Ms. Garcia has never
 12      noticed one motion for hearing ever.  She never
 13      moved to set the 1.54.  She never moved to enforce
 14      the settlement.  She's never set anything because
 15      her whole conduct is dilatory.
 16           THE COURT:  Okay.  But that's not a legal
 17      objection to her testimony right now.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I know.  But --
 19           THE COURT:  My question is --
 20           MS. GARCIA:  It goes --
 21           THE COURT:  -- how is the 1.540 --
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm happy to hear that now.
 23           THE COURT:  -- issues relevant.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm not.
 25           THE COURT:  No, but how is it relevant to what
00158
 1       we're here for?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  It is it's relevant here because I
 3       believe that when they're accusing me and Mrs.
 4       Patwell, my client, of fraud on the court, there's a
 5       reason this case was settled.  And I'm trying to
 6       explain the mental process and the reason, legally,
 7       of why observing the different inconsistent
 8       behaviors and inconsistent filings in court orders
 9       that are not accurate that are inconsistent with
 10      transcripts.  And --
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, she asked to
 12      bifurcate --
 13           THE COURT:  I asked -- I asked the -- I asked
 14      the question.  So I'd like -- so she's answering my
 15      question.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  It's relevant to the issue of
 17      this, what is the fairness to put to Patricia Sahm
 18      for settling a case for an amount less than a final
 19      judgment and to make a decision in the settlement.
 20      What you do is you look at the facts of the case and
 21      you look at the potential defenses and the cost and
 22      the expenses, and you look at what is pending and
 23      what has happened where so you know.  So I'm trying
 24      to explain to the Court my mental process and what I
 25      see is the reason this case was settled.  So the
00159
 1       Court understands, this wasn't a rush to go settle a
 2       case for an amount that wasn't fair and reasonable
 3       and understandable based on the affidavits of
 4       summary judgment, based on the final judgment, based
 5       on the pending pleadings, based on the different
 6       frauds that I can explain to the Court.
 7            THE COURT:  But how is your -- the -- how is
 8       the -- your intent as to why you wanted to settle
 9       the case relevant to the issue of whether or not the
 10      settlement agreement should stand?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  One of the factors to determine if
 12      you're going to set aside a settlement, you have to
 13      find by clear and convincing evidence it was undue
 14      influence or fraud.  So I'm explaining to the Court
 15      why there was no undue influence or fraud by the
 16      facts of the case and explaining to the Court that
 17      the actual behavior of Ms. Sahm's attorneys, the
 18      different attorneys in the different courts with the
 19      inconsistent misrepresentations, is one of the
 20      reasons why this case was settled by Ms. Patwell and
 21      I, is that we saw the risk as far as the damage and
 22      the costs and expenses, and it wasn't worth it to
 23      either client to not resolve it how they resolved
 24      it.
 25           THE COURT:  Are you trying to testify as to why
00160
 1       Ms. Patwell decided to settle the case?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  I can tell you based on my
 3       conversations with her of why we both agreed that
 4       this was a fair and reasonable settlement, and it
 5       was proper.
 6            THE COURT:  So how is that not hearsay, I
 7       guess?
 8            MS. GARCIA:  Because I'm testifying in my
 9       mental impressions of -- based on conversations --
 10           THE COURT:  We're in a loop.  I understand that
 11      the defendants want to settle the case.  Obviously,
 12      the defendants want to settle the case, but I -- the
 13      issue really for the Court is whether or not the
 14      settlement agreement that the plaintiff, Ms. Sahm,
 15      ended up signing, with Ms. Patwell's assistance,
 16      with the defendant's assistance, whoever.  Whether
 17      or not there was undue influence, fraud, coercion,
 18      anything like that, how is your intent relevant to
 19      that?
 20           MS. GARCIA:  I believe that the actions of Mrs.
 21      Patwell and I, and prior to her, Mr. Morganstein
 22      [sic], who was retained specifically to settle the
 23      case independent of me and independent of anyone
 24      else prior to any thought process of a guardianship
 25      appearing in April 13th.  He was retained by Mrs.
00161
 1       Sahm independent. I've never met Mr. Weinstein.
 2       He's not a friend of Kevin's.  The representations
 3       are that we somehow or another brought in this
 4       attorney to nefariously settle a case.  She
 5       independently found --
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object.  I --
 7            MS. GARCIA:  -- Mr. Weinstein, entered to an
 8       agreement with him on April 12th and my testimony
 9       from personal knowledge, and from reviewing the
 10      different documents and speaking to my clients is
 11      that he left quickly after Mr. Sweetapple would not
 12      cooperate with the substitution and because a phone
 13      call was made to him claiming to be --
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object to
 15      hearsay.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  -- Ms. Sahm to terminate him when
 17      that's not who made the phone call.  So he was run
 18      off just like Ms. Patwell was run off.
 19           THE COURT:  And what is your basis for that
 20      knowledge?  Is it not hearsay?  Were you there for
 21      the phone call?  Did you hear the phone call?
 22           MS. GARCIA:  I did not hear the phone call, but
 23      from speaking to Mr. Weinstein and speaking to --
 24           THE COURT:  Somebody told you something out of
 25      Court and you want me to consider it for the truth
00162
 1       of the matter asserted.  That is hearsay.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Not necessarily, Your Honor.  I
 3       want you to consider it to understand our frame of
 4       mind that we were attempting to do this in good
 5       faith.  We weren't nefariously running to settle a
 6       case after guardianship was filed.  We -- there was
 7       prior settlement negotiations, which does go to the
 8       elements and the facts of the case.  Is --
 9            THE COURT:  So then why don't you focus on what
 10      role you have taken as opposed to what you've heard
 11      other people do or what you believe Ms. Patwell
 12      wanted to do or what the conversations Ms. Patwell
 13      had with you as opposed to things that are clearly
 14      hearsay.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  The role I took was when I
 16      was informed that there was -- Mr. Weinstein was
 17      going to be the attorney, I contacted him and asked
 18      him if he was going to be jumping in as her
 19      attorney.  And he said, yes.  And the day before the
 20      bankruptcy hearing, he couldn't come to the
 21      bankruptcy hearing to tell the bankruptcy court that
 22      Ms. Sahm had hired him to settle. So I told the
 23      bankruptcy court as an officer of the Court that day
 24      in April of 2023, that       Mr. Weinstein had been
 25      hired and that the Power of Attorney of which the
00163
 1       claim in his case was made was revoked. And I told
 2       the Court, I said -- and I had the transcript, and I
 3       told the Court, I said, Judge, I don't believe that
 4       they know -- Mr. Shraiberg knows that the Power of
 5       Attorney was revoked, but he's traveling.
 6            If you look at his first retainer that's in
 7       evidence, that was in 2022, what he said, he
 8       represented the estate, which now we know has no
 9       rights, which I was misled the entire time about the
 10      state having rights. That's why I negotiated with
 11      Mr. John Raymond for months, for the whole month of
 12      March.  So they filed claims in the -- in the
 13      bankruptcy court based on a Power of Attorney that
 14      didn't exist and based on a claim for a party that
 15      doesn't have any rights, which he'd admitted over
 16      and over again in this case and in e-mails, that the
 17      estate of Walter Sahm never substituted in.  The
 18      estate did not -- Walter Sahm was never a creditor,
 19      but they're going into federal court and
 20      representing that the estate has rights and secure
 21      judgements against my clients and securing orders
 22      that are simply not based on truth.
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, I'm going to
 24      object to this.  The best evidence is the bankruptcy
 25      court, a file, and the retainer shows that Mr.
00164
 1       Shraiberg represented Mrs. Sahm individually as well
 2       as the husband's estate.  There has never been a
 3       claim in this case that the estate has any rights.
 4       The only ones that have been adjudicated to have
 5       committed fraud in the bankruptcy court are in the
 6       first instance, the Bernstein's children, and in the
 7       second instance, Ms. Garcia.  So to sit here and
 8       delusionally respond to -- with her view of what's
 9       happening, whether -- what she did, in fact, she's
 10      involved in -- like when did she learn that the
 11      committee had found universally that Mr. Sahm was
 12      incompetent?  And what did you do after that? And
 13      why didn't you contact me when I was counsel of the
 14      record?  Why didn't Ms. Patwell substitute --
 15           THE COURT:  Okay.  We -- we've gone beyond --
 16      we've gone beyond legal objection.  I'm sustaining
 17      the objection.  If you want to argue the case, you
 18      could argue the case.  If you want to testify to
 19      facts that you want me to consider subject to cross-
 20      examination, stick to the facts --
 21           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 22           THE COURT:  -- that you want me to consider.
 23           MS. GARCIA:  So I will testify that, Your
 24      Honor, that in the month of March, 2023, I was
 25      negotiating a settlement of this matter with John
00165
 1       Raymond who represents the estate and represents
 2       Joanna Sahm as the trustee.  The trustee is the one
 3       that owns most of the assets and controls the
 4       assets.
 5            During that time frame when we were
 6       negotiating, I was led to believe that the estate
 7       had rights, and that Ms. Sahm was incapacitated
 8       because Joanna Sahm had testified in bankruptcy
 9       court in 2022 that she was representing her mom
 10      under Power of Attorney under pre-guardian.  Her
 11      mother had mild cognitive issues that she had been
 12      asked by her dad to handle the financial affairs.
 13      So under the belief of filings in federal court by
 14      an estate that really had no rights and by Patricia
 15      Sahm, Senior, who had no idea that her daughter was
 16      signing her name on retainers and hiring lawyers in
 17      court.  I began negotiating with the parties that
 18      appeared to be the correct parties, which was the
 19      estate and Patricia Sahm under the Power of
 20      Attorney.  So at the time I asked numerous questions
 21      -- and it's in my e-mail that's in evidence --
 22           THE COURT:  Can I ask a question?
 23           MS. GARCIA:  Uh-huh.
 24           THE COURT:  Wasn't Patricia Sahm represented by
 25      counsel?  Why were you negotiating with her
00166
 1       directly?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  I wasn't.  I was negotiating with
 3       John Raymond directly, but he represents -- his law
 4       firm, Nelson Mullins, represents Joanna Sahm and
 5       Joanna Sahm is the only person who really has been
 6       participating in this.  Patricia Sahm has had
 7       nothing to do with the case.
 8            THE COURT:  But didn't Mr. Sweetapple represent
 9       Patricia Sahm throughout the -- this proceeding?
 10      Not the -- I'm not talking about the bankruptcy
 11      proceeding. Wasn't she representing Patricia Sahm,
 12      and then wasn't Joanna Sahm in agreement with that
 13      representation?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Joanna -- he was representing
 15      Patricia Sahm through supposedly Power of Attorney
 16      for Joanna Sahm.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object, Your
 18      Honor, to her concluding that I represented Mrs.
 19      Sahm individually and her husband from the beginning
 20      of this case.
 21           THE COURT:  So that's kind of my question is
 22      why is it that you are -- why are you having
 23      communications with someone that is represented by
 24      counsel without communicating through counsel?
 25           MS. GARCIA:  He was in -- Mr. Sweetapple was
00167
 1       included in some of the communications.  And Mr.
 2       Raymond told me to send him the settlements and to
 3       negotiate there.  And then he told me -- he was
 4       answering my questions about who was the actual
 5       parties of interest. There was a confusion as to who
 6       the party of interest was because they're telling
 7       the bankruptcy court the estate is a party of
 8       interest.  Raymond -- Mr. Raymond is the estate
 9       attorney in the probate case.
 10           THE COURT:  Okay.
 11           MS. GARCIA:  And in his law firm, Eileen
 12      O'Malley, also was Joanna's attorney who filed the
 13      guardianship petition three days after they found
 14      out that the mom had hired Mr. Twig -- I mean, Mr.
 15      Morganstein [sic].  So I went to Mr. Raymond, and
 16      they asked me to send them purported -- proposed
 17      settlements. So we were going back and forth with
 18      the settlement and the language, and then as we were
 19      going through it and there -- I was led to believe
 20      that Patricia Sahm was in incapacitated.  So Joanna
 21      Sahm was the decision maker under the Power of
 22      Attorney and the estate had rights because they
 23      filed a creditor's claim in bankruptcy court, which
 24      was at the time, I believe pending, we were -- we
 25      were trying to resolve it with the attorneys who
00168
 1       told me to resolve it with them.  All these
 2       attorneys were working together in different courts.
 3       So at that point we started drafting the language
 4       based on the representations that were made to them.
 5       But as I found out after 20 days and 20, 30 hours of
 6       drafting this, then I was told and I was informed
 7       that Ms. Sahm didn't need a guardian and she wasn't
 8       in a guardianship, therefore she is capacitated.  So
 9       therefore, then I could settle it with her through
 10      her lawyer.
 11           THE COURT:  Mr. Sweetapple, right?  Because
 12      then she would be represented directly by Mr.
 13      Sweetapple?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Through her lawyer.  So what
 15      happened is, there was a bankruptcy pending.  So the
 16      case stopped, Mr. Sweetapple filed his notice in --
 17      on April 17th, right?  Because between the time
 18      frame that I was told, March 31st, that we're not
 19      the right party, the state has no rights, and
 20      Patricia Sahm doesn't need a guardian, and Joanna
 21      has a private attorney.  Okay. So I'm told this by
 22      one attorney.
 23           THE COURT:  Who?
 24           MS. GARCIA:  I'm told different things by
 25      different attorneys.
00169
 1            THE COURT:  Who?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Mr. Raymond, who is the estate
 3       attorney with the most knowledge of the estate's
 4       rights.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  If I can just say something.
 6       First of all, I really think that Ms. Garcia should
 7       get an attorney based on the things she's saying.
 8       I'm looking at the e-mail from Mr. Raymond to her
 9       that says, my -- this is Mark.  My reading of the
 10      note makes it clear to me what the note and mortgage
 11      -- that the note and mortgage passed the Wi-Fi by
 12      operation of the law. Again, Mr. Sweetapple speaks
 13      for her, the estate has no say in the matter.  And
 14      these series of e-mails are sent to me at R.
 15      Sweetapple at sweetapple.com, which is an e- mail
 16      that doesn't exist.  So she's told repeatedly by Mr.
 17      Raymond, contact Mr. Sweetapple.  He's the one who's
 18      handling this.  And yet there's no communication
 19      with me from Ms. Garcia or Ms. Patwell and all of
 20      these things she's talking about are orchestrated by
 21      Patty Junior. So I -- as an officer of the court, I
 22      have to caution her that this dialogue she's
 23      engaging in may not be helpful to her.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  So what happened, Your Honor is
 25      from March 13th to March 30th, I was led to believe
00170
 1       I was negotiating with the right parties.  I was
 2       then told the state has no rights.
 3            THE COURT:  Based on what?  What led you to
 4       believe that?  You introduced that e-mail, that Mr.
 5       Sweetapple is directing me to, into evidence.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm --
 7            THE COURT:  That was the first -- the first e-
 8       mail that we talked about where I had the
 9       highlighted copy of it.  What about that leads you
 10      to believe that you shouldn't have talked to Mr.
 11      Sweetapple?
 12           MS. GARCIA:  At this point in time from March
 13      13th to March 30th, I was led to believe and asked
 14      to negotiate with Mr. Raymond.
 15           THE COURT:  I hear you saying that.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Then what happened --
 17           THE COURT:  I'm asking you what led you to
 18      believe that?
 19           MS. GARCIA:  The fact that they -- that Walter
 20      Sahm had passed, and that Mr. Shraiberg and Joanna
 21      testified in the federal court, not once but twice,
 22      that the estate was the creditor, and the estate
 23      owned this judgment.  So therefore there's a
 24      bankruptcy and there's an estate involved.  I'm
 25      allowed to negotiate with the bankruptcy attorney in
00171
 1       the estate versus filing an adversary to see if we
 2       can get to some agreement at some point, which I
 3       understand at that point had the bankruptcy step
 4       pending at that point, then if it was done in March
 5       and we settled it in March, there was -- there were
 6       signature -- the -- that particular agreement, there
 7       were signature lines for all the different parties
 8       and cooperation language that if the estate has
 9       rights, we'll do it here.  If we need the
 10      foreclosure rights.  We'll do it here.  So everybody
 11      was included.  It was supposed to be a global
 12      settlement, Your Honor.  It wasn't like we were
 13      going around the judgment.
 14           THE COURT:  But not the person that represented
 15      her in the case that you were trying to settle?
 16           MS. GARCIA:  They were -- they were going to be
 17      part of the settlement, Your Honor.  And he was
 18      copied on some of these e-mails, and he was included
 19      in some of these conversations, and he knew this was
 20      ongoing.
 21           THE COURT:  Okay.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  So what happened in -- at the end
 23      of March while you know this step, the bankruptcy
 24      pending, I believe, then come April 11th, Ms. Sahm
 25      decided she wanted to terminate Mr. Sweetapple and
00172
 1       hire mister -- sorry, you were saying --
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor.
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Morgan Weinstein.  Okay.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Nothing came of that.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor.  Ms. Garcia has
 7       testified under oath that she has tremendous
 8       experience and foreclosed with her notes, and it was
 9       obvious to her that this note passed by operation of
 10      law and was not an estate asset.  And she's sitting
 11      here telling you that she had to deal with an estate
 12      lawyer.  Here's March 27th.  Again, that's sent to
 13      the wrong e-mail address to me.  That -- to her from
 14      Mr. Raymond, as I informed you before, this is just
 15      Sweetapple that's representing the party --
 16      plaintiffs in this matter, and all responses should
 17      come from his office.
 18           THE COURT:  Right.
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This idea that -- this idea
 20      that because there's a state claim that's mentioned
 21      in a bankruptcy, that somehow now she can go deal --
 22      that she can go behind my back, go to the bankruptcy
 23      court, get miss -- get Mrs. Patty to find another
 24      lawyer, Mr. Weinstein.  She -- she's very familiar
 25      with all these other lawyers that they're trying to
00173
 1       bring in and no communication with me by anybody.
 2       This is all being done to subvert a judgment that's
 3       worth three times what they're settling for, and her
 4       settlement, which she told you in court under oath,
 5       they're identical.  The March settlement is
 6       $375,000.  When they go see Mr. Sahm, it's now 225.
 7            THE COURT:  Okay.
 8            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 9            THE COURT:  I don't understand what the legal
 10      objection is.  I hear --
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, it's hard in this
 12      context.
 13           THE COURT:  I know it's hard in this context
 14      for -- Ms. Garcia has already testified.  For
 15      whatever reason, she's decided that she'd like to
 16      testify again. She's a member of the bar.  She's got
 17      plenty of experience.  This is how she chooses to
 18      proceed.  This is how she chooses to proceed, and
 19      we'll take it as it comes.  But I can't have you
 20      interrupting her testimony with your argument why
 21      her testimony is wrong.  You'll get a chance to
 22      cross examine her when she's done testifying.
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Well, it's -- when she tells
 24      the story and it's always got hearsay that Mr.
 25      Raymond did this, then instead of me saying, it's
00174
 1       hearsay, please stop, I'm now showing you the
 2       hearsay she's telling you -- what she's just telling
 3       you, is not true. Okay.  It is not -- it's -- and so
 4       I'll reframe myself.
 5            THE COURT:  It not being true is not a legal
 6       objection.
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  True.  And I'm trying -- I'll
 8       just interrupt her in the middle of her story when
 9       she starts saying, this was my mental impression,
 10      based on what A, B, and C told me.
 11           THE COURT:  Or you could just wait until your
 12      cross examination.
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I can do that.
 14           THE COURT:  And let her testify in the form of
 15      narrative.
 16           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Let all the hearsay come in
 17      and do it later.
 18           THE COURT:  I don't -- whatever you want to do,
 19      but what you can't do is interrupt her and argue
 20      your side of the story while she's testifying.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  But in all --
 22           THE COURT:  So either object with a legal
 23      objection or don't and cross examine her.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  In all deference of the Court,
 25      as awkward as it is, I have -- we never had a time
00175
 1       where the Court has refused my request to make a
 2       witness who is pro se or a lawyer ask the question
 3       of themself and answer it.  There's no way I have
 4       any idea what she's going to say, what she's
 5       responding to, how I should object, and I -- there's
 6       nothing I can do either -- that either interrupt her
 7       or correct her because this is not the way you take
 8       evidence.  So I --
 9            THE COURT:  I have never -- I have never -- and
 10      with all due -- I have never had a witness say,
 11      please state your name.  My name is John
 12      Parnofiello.  And what do you do?  For I've never
 13      seen that before.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  After background, I've done it
 15      all the time because otherwise --
 16           THE COURT:  I've never seen that.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- otherwise I can't do my
 18      job.
 19           THE COURT:  I -- okay.  I've ruled.  Go ahead,
 20      Ms. Garcia.
 21           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'll just wait until she's
 23      finished and I'll --
 24           THE COURT:  I'm not telling you what to do. You
 25      either say objection.  You state your legal basis,
00176
 1       three words or less, I will rule.  Or you wait until
 2       the end, and you can cross examine.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Understood.
 4            MS. GARCIA:  So after negotiations failed in
 5       March, that settlement agreement was not entered
 6       into. A bankruptcy was filed by Mr. Bernstein
 7       individually. Now, Mr. Bernstein filed an, in
 8       evidence Exhibit 18 -- Defense Exhibit 18, is
 9       clearly a suggestion of bankruptcy filed by Mr.
 10      Bernstein pro se.  That suggestion of bankruptcy was
 11      delivered to the Court personally by Mr. Bernstein
 12      and Ms. Bernstein, and they went to the clerk, and
 13      the clerk canceled the sale based on that suggestion
 14      of bankruptcy.  The -- in the bankruptcy hearing
 15      that resulted in that order, which I will be
 16      contesting, they decided to use a strategy of saying
 17      that my bank -- that my suggestion of bankruptcy was
 18      a fraud, but my suggestion bankruptcy was not used.
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Speculation.
 20           THE COURT:  I don't understand.  If you wanted
 21      to refer to all of these hearings, why didn't you
 22      all just provide me with the transcripts of these
 23      hearings?
 24           MS. GARCIA:  I did move into evidence all the
 25      transcripts for the -- from the -- well, not just
00177
 1       for a file that Your Honor did the last hearing, all
 2       the -- all the --
 3            THE COURT:  This has been pending for I don't
 4       know how long, and this -- I will agree with Mr.
 5       Sweetapple, this is one of the most awkward ways of
 6       taking testimony or evidence.  And if you're going
 7       to just tell me what happened in different hearings
 8       that you were a part of, the -- isn't the record the
 9       best of evidence?  Couldn't you just provide me the
 10      record and let me know what was said in the
 11      different hearings?  As far as why they did these
 12      things, that's -- you're just speculating as to
 13      that.  That's not something I can consider as
 14      evidence.  That's your legal argument.  I'm really,
 15      really not sure of what we're doing here with
 16      respect to the motion, but I want to give you your
 17      due process, so --
 18           MS. GARCIA:  What I what I'm explaining to the
 19      Court is that, again, they go into court to file a
 20      motion to lift the stay again for a party that
 21      they've now admitted does not have any rights.
 22      Under any Power of Attorney.
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Hearsay.
 24      Speculation.
 25           THE COURT:  Sustained.
00178
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  The bankruptcy hearing
 2       speaks for itself as far as the order, when you see
 3       the order's entered in the name of the estate.  So
 4       you can consider that to see that's now a party that
 5       had has no legal rights based on everything that's
 6       been testified to in this Court.  The suggestion of
 7       bankruptcy that they're claiming that I filed that
 8       was fraudulently and entered an order that I was not
 9       a party and never saw this order until months and
 10      months later, is not true. And there's an evidence
 11      that the suggestion of bankruptcy to cancel the sale
 12      was done by Mr. Bernstein, not me.  Mine was filed
 13      as a courtesy.  It contained one sentence that had
 14      no intentions or no misrepresentations in my
 15      opinion, but they're trying to make -- they're
 16      trying to use that fraud here to infer that we did
 17      other nefarious things when it comes to the
 18      settlement. That's why it's important and relevant
 19      because there's been numerous times and that will be
 20      into 1.540, that deal with the transcripts from the
 21      guardianship and the mental health case, which I did
 22      provide to the Court.  I filed it all in court and I
 23      asked them if they would stipulate to it, but they
 24      didn't.  But I will deal with that in the 1.540.  So
 25      you'll see why it's so frustrating to me that
00179
 1       there's orders entered that I firmly believe as an
 2       attorney are not appropriate.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object, Your
 4       Honor, to her feelings and her opinions.
 5            THE COURT:  And it's not relevant.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  The document speaks for
 7       itself.
 8            THE COURT:  Sustained.  The objection is
 9       sustained.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So what happens then, Your
 11      Honor, during the bankruptcy, the daughter, Joanna
 12      Sahm, files within three days of finding out that
 13      Mr. Morganstein [sic] was hired to settle the case,
 14      files a guardianship to be appointed, which she
 15      wasn't appointed in the end.  Charlie was -- Charlie
 16      Revard was appointed by agreement by Amber Patwell
 17      in June.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object.  Hearsay.
 19      Speculation.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  It's in the Court file.  It's been
 21      stipulated to Your Honor.
 22           THE COURT:  It is.  So I -- I'm not really sure
 23      why you're testifying to it.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So what happened then, Your
 25      Honor, I didn't deal with Mr. Sweetapple directly
00180
 1       because my understanding was he was terminated when,
 2       first of all, when Twig came in, then there was a
 3       bankruptcy pending.  And then Mr. Sweetapple himself
 4       filed a notice in court that he has in evidence, on
 5       April 18th, that basically he doesn't have any more
 6       jurisdiction, that there's a pending guardianship.
 7       So basically there he's admitting that there's
 8       nothing he could do here.  His hands are tied.  So
 9       at that point in May, Ms. Patwell is retained on May
 10      1st.  Ms. Patwell is approved by the Court through
 11      the stipulations and substitutions that are all in
 12      evidence.  So come --
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  That's a lien of
 14      the guardianship case.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Ms. Patwell's retainer that as in
 16      evidence also states very specifically she was
 17      retained for the foreclosure case.  So it was
 18      represented to me that we would attempt to resolve
 19      the foreclosure case through the guardianship case
 20      with the approval of Judge Burton, because when a
 21      contract is then entered into after reports, which
 22      of course we'll get into the contestations of those,
 23      but prior to the adjudication, those contracts are
 24      presumed valid.  And I firmly believed that we had a
 25      good basis to do it, and that Ms. Sahm was actually
00181
 1       competent enough to enter into the contract.  She
 2       had an attorney's advice.  The attorney reviewed it.
 3       The retain -- the settlement was given to Ms.
 4       Patwell in early May, I think, May 5th or May 8th.
 5       She had until May 22nd --
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I'm going to object.  Best
 7       evidence of that.
 8            MS. GARCIA:  My testimony.  I'm the one that
 9       gave it to her.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Where's the document?
 11      Where's --
 12           THE COURT:  You gave Ms. Sahm --
 13           MS. GARCIA:  No.  Miss -- Ms. Patwell --
 14           THE COURT:  Okay.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  -- on behalf of -- after she was
 16      hired by Ms. Sahm, her retainer -- retained her for
 17      the foreclosure and for the guardianship and mental
 18      health case.  So she's officially her attorney.
 19           THE COURT:  Is that in evidence?
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.  It's in evidence.  It's in
 21      the retainer.  The retainer --
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No.  It's under objection --
 23           MS. GARCIA:  -- says specifically for
 24      foreclosure.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- she's testified previous
00182
 1       under her argument.  Where's the -- where's the
 2       document where she transferred the settlement or
 3       anything to Ms. Patwell?
 4            MS. GARCIA:  It's in evidence, Your Honor, as
 5       Exhibit -- let's see.  26.  Defense 26 is the
 6       Retainer. Defense 25 is the Stipulation for
 7       Substitution, the guardianship case with Laura to --
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Ms. Garcia testified she
 9       transmitted the settlement agreement to Ms.
 10      Patwell --
 11           THE COURT:  Defense Exhibit number 26.
 12           MS. GARCIA:  26 is Ms. Patwell's retainer.
 13           THE COURT:  Yes.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  The testimony, Your Honor, was
 15      that she transmitted the settlement agreement to Ms.
 16      Patwell on the 8th of March -- or May.  And there's
 17      no writings between Ms. Garcia and Ms. Patwell
 18      transmitting any settlement agreement ever.  And she
 19      submitted that. And she says they were all hacked
 20      from her computer in her depo.
 21           MS. GARCIA:  I don't know if I'm supposed to
 22      respond, but --
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So I object -- I object to her
 24      statement.  The best evidence of any transmission of
 25      the settlement agreement on May 8th would be a
00183
 1       scanned document, an e-mail, some writing.  Ms.
 2       Patwell was on the West Coast of Florida.
 3            MS. GARCIA:  It was transmitted --
 4            THE COURT:  I'm just reviewing --
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 6            THE COURT:  -- the Exhibit number 26.  So --
 7            MS. GARCIA:  The settlement agreement was
 8       transmitted to Ms. Patwell.  I have text messages
 9       which I had produced and from my point of view, it's
 10      when I'm talking to her.
 11           Are you hired?
 12           Yes.
 13           You know, here's a settlement, go over it with
 14      your client --
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And I --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  -- whatever you decide.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- I -- any writing where
 18      she's -- I object.  Best evidence would be the text
 19      message that shows that she scanned a settlement
 20      agreement with Ms. Patwell.
 21           THE COURT:  So are you withdrawing your
 22      objection to the hearsay of the text messages?
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, not as to Ms. Patwell, as
 24      to her.  She says she sent in a text message, the
 25      settlement agreement to Ms. Patwell.  And first I
00184
 1       heard it's May 8th and now it's in the text message.
 2       Show me where, please, best evidence would be.
 3       Where is this -- where and when is this settlement
 4       agreement sent to Ms. Patwell?
 5            THE COURT:  Do you have --
 6            MS. GARCIA:  I don't --
 7            THE COURT:  -- an e-mail or is it through your
 8       text messages that you sent --
 9            MS. GARCIA:  No, I transmitted through an e-
 10      mail, Your Honor, but my e-mail that I was using at
 11      the time lost over a million e-mails.  I had been
 12      constantly hacked, and I've had to transfer vendors.
 13      I could -- I have not been able to recover those.
 14      Ms. Patwell moved from one e-mail to another.  She
 15      couldn't recover it.  But I have text messages with
 16      her and her acknowledgement that she showed it to
 17      her client, talked to her client independent.
 18           And I also have here proof, just, Your Honor,
 19      so you know, that at one point I'm working with the
 20      FBI and with investigators and private investigators
 21      to determine the source of the people who keep
 22      showing up to my house and the source of the
 23      hacking.  At one point I received an e-mail that's
 24      described as Kevin Hall, but when you look at the
 25      real address, it says, johnraymond@nelsonmullins.com
00185
 1       via Gmail at some gibberish.
 2            So I've given this to the investigators to try
 3       to figure out where my e-mails are going, who's
 4       erasing them, who's --
 5            THE COURT:  Okay.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  -- erasing my calendars, but it
 7       was transmitted to her.  She obviously had it.  And
 8       she agreed in writing to -- on May 22nd after going
 9       over it with her client numerous times --
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Move to strike.
 11           MS. GARCIA:  -- independent --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Move to strike.  Best evidence
 13      with your writing.
 14           THE COURT:  With respect to the best evidence
 15      rule objection.  The best evidence rule only applies
 16      if there is a writing.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  She said there is.
 18           THE COURT:  She's testified that there is not
 19      because she's been hacked, and she's lost her e-
 20      mails, and Ms. Patwell has lost her e-mails.  I'm
 21      overruling your objection.  Go ahead.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  So what happened during that time
 23      frame, Your Honor, from May 5th to May 22nd,
 24      basically Ms. Patwell was -- had the -- had the
 25      settlement that -- I basically took the one I had
00186
 1       done with Mr. Raymond and updated it to change it to
 2       the right parties, which I realized at that point
 3       was not the estate and otherwise, based on what I
 4       learned, and changed it to include protections and
 5       for release of funds.  And also the clients had
 6       determined the price of 225.
 7            THE COURT:  Had you had any communication with
 8       Ms. Patwell prior to -- prior to Ms. Sahm signing
 9       the engagement form?
 10           MS. GARCIA:  No.  I never even heard of her.
 11      Just like I never even heard of Mr. Weinstein.  I
 12      had nothing to do with the representation.  In fact,
 13      I refused to talk to Ms. Sahm or do anything
 14      throughout the records or anything without her
 15      having a lawyer. There was no way that I was going
 16      to talk to her or have any communication directly
 17      with anyone without her having a lawyer that would
 18      look at it.  And I told those lawyers in writing and
 19      in the phone many a times, this is your client, you
 20      do what you want.  If it's not acceptable, let me
 21      know.  If you want to make changes, make your
 22      changes.  I had zero to do with the approval of it
 23      on that side.
 24           What happened?  Come May 22nd when it was
 25      executed, the clients came to my house.  They signed
00187
 1       it at my house.  Then with Ms. Patwell's knowledge
 2       and permission, which is also in my e-mails, she
 3       allowed me to send my clients to the house to sign
 4       it because it had already been negotiated and
 5       finalized.  And then my understanding is she also
 6       got on the phone with the client again and made
 7       sure.  And the client signed it.
 8            So once that happened, Ms. Patwell and I
 9       immediately informed the guardianship court because
 10      she was the guardianship attorney, and she also had
 11      the retainer for this case.  But because Mr.
 12      Sweetapple apparently did not receive the DocuSign
 13      for the stipulation, which is in evidence for
 14      signage --
 15           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  This is all
 16      speculation.
 17           MS. GARCIA:  You -- he testified that he did
 18      not receive the stipulation, so --
 19           THE COURT:  He hasn't testified.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  -- I'm saying -- maybe he didn't.
 21      I don't know.
 22           THE COURT:  He hasn't testified.
 23           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So the bottom line is that
 24      the stipulation was never entered into.  So at that
 25      point, Amber Patwell -- well, let's -- let me file
00188
 1       my -- let me go ahead and file my appearance in the
 2       foreclosure case now because I've been retained to
 3       represent it -- represent her in the foreclosure
 4       case also.
 5            So the case was settled.  And at that point, I
 6       firmly believe that they -- when they filed the --
 7       they filed the guardianship, the timing of it was
 8       during the bankruptcy.  When I disclosed to the
 9       Court that the case was being settled with another
 10      lawyer, this guardianship happened.  So the
 11      settlement had already been pretty much communicated
 12      and agreed to as far as the concepts prior to the
 13      bankruptcy being dismissed and prior to the
 14      guardianship being filed.
 15           But because of the delays in Ms. Sahm being
 16      able to have her attorneys with Mr. Morgan Weinstein
 17      leaving and then Amber coming in and then them
 18      filing the guardianship and her stipulating in with
 19      Laura and everything he had to do with the timing,
 20      it took a few, you know, weeks to get it finalized
 21      and to get it executed.
 22           So that settlement was executed in good faith,
 23      and it was settled in, not only my client's favor,
 24      but significantly in Ms. Sahm's favor.  Because if
 25      you look at the risks, if you look at the rewards of
00189
 1       settlement and Judge Burton and the transcripts are
 2       there -- I don't know if you'll stipulate to the
 3       transcripts, but I'd love to have you have all the
 4       transcripts.  I can -- I'll move them into evidence
 5       today if you'll take them -- take judicial notice.
 6       They've been filed in a court file for months.
 7            I had ordered all the transcripts and analyzed
 8       them to determine for the guardianship case and the
 9       mental health case.  So Judge Burton started looking
 10      into the settlement because there were allegations
 11      made immediately over there, including in the
 12      answer, and I think the response is that the case is
 13      settled, Judge, we settled the foreclosure case and
 14      we're contesting these three committee members.
 15      Okay.  So at that point, the settlement is entered
 16      into, there's an objection pending on the
 17      committee --
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  She testified she settled on
 19      the 22nd.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  -- after the settlement was
 21      entered into, Ms. Patwell and her client obviously
 22      made the decision to agree to do a limited
 23      guardianship, because --
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Under speculation.  The
 25      document speaks for itself.
00190
 1            THE COURT:  Sustained.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  So the guardianship was entered
 3       into by agreement in July -- I mean, sorry, June
 4       27th, to bring in Charlie Revard.  Mister -- Judge
 5       Burton held numerous hearings and ordered Ms.
 6       Patwell to turn over all of her notes, which was one
 7       of the documents I was trying to get into evidence
 8       that the judge didn't take in because it was
 9       hearsay.  It was everything that Ms. Patwell turned
 10      over to the Court, all of her notes and notations
 11      that he read into the transcript and basically told
 12      us all at the hearing when Ms. Sahm was saying the
 13      house is worth $850 and I want -- you know, we can
 14      make money selling the house and he's explained to
 15      her in foreclosures how it works and how you can
 16      have appeal after appeal and bankruptcy.  The
 17      bankruptcy, you guys need to --
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  This is hearsay, Judge.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  -- you guys need to settle -- or
 20      not settle, but talk about what you want to do.  And
 21      then he decided to throw it out of his court, and he
 22      threw it back to the -- to you, to the foreclosure
 23      court said, go handle it over there.  I'm done.
 24           THE COURT:  Okay.  The -- whatever happened in
 25      that action would be in the transcript of that
00191
 1       action. Whatever Judge Burton said to explain is not
 2       hearsay because it's not off the truth of the matter
 3       asserted. It's the effect on the listener.  But be
 4       that as it may it doesn't really matter.  It has no
 5       moment to what we're doing here.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So I -- and I firmly
 7       believe Ms. Patwell believed this was in everybody's
 8       best interest to resolve this case.  The money was
 9       sitting in the Court registry ready to pay.  And
 10      instead, here we sit a year and a half later.  It
 11      took him over a year, I believe, to file the motion
 12      to set aside the settlement.  I had tried to get the
 13      funds released literally within days, and I was
 14      blocked, but the attorney in the Bernstein -- in the
 15      -- in the Shirley Bernstein Trust released the
 16      funds.  So basically the settlement was entered into
 17      voluntarily at the advice of Counsel.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Legal conclusion.
 19           THE COURT:  Sustained.
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Move to strike.
 21           THE COURT:  Sustained.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  So speak of the reports, Judge,
 23      there's three reports and one of the people
 24      obviously testified today --
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  This is argument.
00192
 1       She has no personal knowledge.
 2            THE COURT:  I don't know what she's about to
 3       say.  I need to hear what she says before --
 4            MS. GARCIA:  We reviewed the reports,
 5       specifically back at the time when they were -- when
 6       they were brought in.  And then it was an
 7       independent report after the fact, by Dr. Sugar,
 8       which was relied on, without saying what was
 9       happening, that I felt comfortable up there looking
 10      at the reports, looking at the law, looking at the
 11      misrepresentations, looking at the 119 request I had
 12      put out, that today, even, when I saw the testimony
 13      about the MoCA test and mild cognitive, and
 14      testimony that didn't happen.  And we felt
 15      comfortable that because one of the reports that's
 16      in evidence said that Ms. Sahm can enter into
 17      contracts with her attorney, and that's in evidence,
 18      Amber and I felt comfortable that we were doing the
 19      right thing and disclosed it to the guardianship
 20      court immediately.  So there was no finding of
 21      incapacity at the time --
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Move to strike. No
 23      evidence they disclosed this to the guardianship
 24      court.
 25           THE COURT:  Is there any document that
00193
 1       indicates that this is the case?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Yes, Your Honor.  Can I mark as
 3       Exhibit NN the transcripts that have been previously
 4       filed, and have you take judicial notice?  I can
 5       tell you --
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I've never seen -- I've never
 7       seen them or been provided with them.
 8            MS. GARCIA:  You have been.  It's been filed in
 9       court, and you were served with them, sir.  I can
 10      tell you the docket entry numbers --
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 12           MS. GARCIA:  -- and we're taking judicial
 13      notice of the entire file.
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Tell us when we've got
 15      transcripts of hearings.
 16           MS. GARCIA:  Hold on.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And this --
 18           MS. GARCIA:  I'll tell you right now.  Let me
 19      log in.
 20           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- it's got her list of --
 21      and --
 22           MS. GARCIA:  And I have a -- I have a copy that
 23      I've already provided --
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And I just want to make --
 25           MS. GARCIA:  -- a copy --
00194
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- okay.  I want to make sure
 2       that, Your Honor, something that was said is
 3       accurate and noted.  But I believe Ms. Garcia
 4       testified that she settled this case before the
 5       guardianship was filed -- the foreclosure case, it
 6       was settled before the guardianship was filed, is
 7       what she testified to.
 8            THE COURT:  Are you asking me that, or --
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I just want to make sure Ms.
 10      Garcia is not correcting that testimony because
 11      that's what she testified to.
 12           MS. GARCIA:  The settlement was obviously
 13      signed on May 22nd after the advice of Counsel on
 14      May 1st.  But the concept between the parties and
 15      their discussions were -- I think began in January
 16      because they're family friends forever.  And I had
 17      -- Ms. Bernstein had testified to that, that there
 18      were conversations had and there was a decision made
 19      already back then that they wanted to start to
 20      resolve it.  And that's why in March I was trying to
 21      negotiate, and we had a bankruptcy, and then --
 22           THE COURT:  Okay.  I don't --
 23           MS. GARCIA:  -- two attorneys later --
 24           THE COURT:  -- I'm not seeing any transcripts
 25      in the Court file.
00195
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  The transcripts were filed,
 2       DE 264 through 275.  I believe that's the
 3       transcripts. I filed them immediately after the last
 4       hearing.  Let me see.  No, that's not it.  If I can
 5       find it.
 6            THE COURT:  265 is a --
 7            MS. GARCIA:  No.
 8            THE COURT:  -- 22-page long transcript.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Your Honor, it's -- no, 263.  I
 10      filed a Notice of Filing for all purposes of the
 11      transcripts.  I'm trying to see.  So I think it -- I
 12      believe it starts --
 13           THE COURT:  It's a Notice of Filing, but
 14      there's nothing attached.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Well, because it was large.  So I
 16      think 265 is the first -- is one of the transcripts.
 17      It was a transcript in front of Judge Ferrero
 18      (phonetic) in the guardianship case from April 23rd,
 19      2024.
 20           THE COURT:  Right.
 21           MS. GARCIA:  And that's one.  Then the next one
 22      is 266.  And that was the proceeding in the
 23      guardianship case on May 13th, 2024.
 24           THE COURT:  Correct.
 25           MS. GARCIA:  The next one was 267, which is the
00196
 1       transcript from September 5th, 2023, in front of
 2       Charles Burton in the guardianship case.  Because
 3       Burton was the attorney before --
 4            THE COURT:  The judge before Judge Ferrero.
 5            MS. GARCIA:  Right.  Then 268 is the
 6       transcripts in the guardianship case where Ms.
 7       Patwell was present on October 17th, 2023.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor --
 9            MS. GARCIA:  269 --
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- I have no objection to
 11      transcripts from the May proceeding.
 12           THE COURT:  Okay.  So then you want me to take
 13      judicial notice of docket entries 263 through 274?
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Fine.  Yeah, just the May -- I
 15      don't have any problem --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  275.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I have not read them or seen
 18      them, but I mean, we have orders that the Court
 19      wants to look at what Judge Burton was saying,
 20      right?
 21           THE COURT:  As opposed to having you all tell
 22      me what --
 23           MS. GARCIA:  Right.
 24           THE COURT:  -- what you gleaned from the
 25      hearing?
00197
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Through 275, Your Honor.
 2            THE COURT:  Okay.  I will -- I will so
 3       judicially notice these files.
 4            MS. MILLER:  274 is not a transcript.
 5            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Huh?
 6            MS. MILLER:  274 is not a transcript.
 7            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  So 274 is not a transcript,
 8       Your Honor.
 9            MS. MILLER:  273 is not a transcript.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  What is a transcript?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  Would this be composite 27?
 12           THE COURT:  Well, if you're going to mark it
 13      for evidence purposes --
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 15           THE COURT:  -- then the clerk is going to need
 16      a physical copy.
 17           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 18           THE COURT:  If you want me to take judicial
 19      notice of the Court filing, I could do that.  And
 20      then on appeal, it would be transferred to the Court
 21      without it having to be marked as a separate
 22      exhibit.  So it's probably easier for Madam Clerk
 23      and for trees.
 24           MS. GARCIA:  I would mark these, Your Honor.
 25           THE COURT:  If you have them, you can --
00198
 1            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  On the May and June
 2       proceeding?
 3            MS. GARCIA:  From all the proceedings.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  No, I'm -- we -- we're -- I
 5       would -- I object to this being a composite because
 6       she's saying from all the proceedings, and I don't
 7       think we're here to retry bankruptcy proceedings and
 8       trust case proceedings or whatever else has been
 9       filed.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  This is just the guardianship and
 11      the mental health cases.
 12           THE COURT:  And they're filed in the Court
 13      file, right?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Yes, it --
 15           THE COURT:  Do you want to enter them into
 16      evidence, or do you want me to just judicially
 17      notice it and access it from the Court file?
 18           MS. GARCIA:  If it's the same effect and
 19      admitted into evidence as Exhibit 27, I'm okay.
 20           THE COURT:  Then if you want to -- then I will
 21      receive them into evidence without objection as
 22      Exhibit number 27.
 23           The clerk will need a copy.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  As to -- as to the May and
 25      June?
00199
 1            THE COURT:  I think those are the ones that
 2       were in the Court file.  That's all that she's asked
 3       me to judicial notice.
 4            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And I have no problem with
 5       entering into evidence what you take judicial notice
 6       on from the dock.  And so you don't have to have
 7       paper overwhelming you.
 8            THE COURT:  It's okay.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  No, Your Honor.  It's eight
 10      different transcripts.  It started May 23rd, 2023.
 11      Because they're entered -- they're entered into
 12      evidence.  For instance, Your Honor, the August
 13      14th, 2023, injunction --
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  But that's --
 15           MS. GARCIA:  -- may say that there were
 16      findings made.  If you look at the transcript on
 17      August 14, 2023, the judge specifically made no
 18      findings.  It was an agreed extension for 30 days
 19      with no findings. And they entered an order making
 20      findings and they want you to rely on that when it's
 21      not true.
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Your Honor, you --
 23           MS. GARCIA:  So that transcript is clear,
 24      right?
 25           THE COURT:  Right.  The transcript is going to
00200
 1       be the best evidence of what happened at the
 2       hearing, which is why I'm saying, I don't understand
 3       why at 4:30 we're just now realizing that perhaps we
 4       should have given the judge the transcripts of the
 5       things that we've been discussing.
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And, Your Honor, she's
 7       attempted to collaterally attack these orders that
 8       haven't been appealed to her final and saying, oh,
 9       at this hearing and that wasn't said, so therefore
 10      it's not --
 11           THE COURT:  I don't take --
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- it's not an order.
 13           THE COURT:  -- I don't take it as a collateral
 14      attack.  I -- and if that's what I'm being asked to
 15      do, I'm not going to do that.  I -- so I'm receiving
 16      those transcripts into evidence.  Yes.  Defendant's
 17      Exhibit number 28, which are purportedly the
 18      transcripts of the eight different court hearings
 19      that we're here for the purpose of what transpired
 20      at those court hearings.
 21            (DEFENSE EXHIBIT 28 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 22           THE COURT:  So since we've disposed of the need
 23      of discussing what happened at those court hearings,
 24      understanding that Mr. Sweetapple is going to need
 25      to have a chance to cross-examine you, what
00201
 1       additional testimony do you have?
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Basically, my testimony is that
 3       this agreement that is being attacked was entered
 4       into the proper legal advice.  The two attorneys of
 5       record --
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Objection.  Legal conclusion.
 7            THE COURT:  You are giving me a legal
 8       conclusion.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  I believe, Your Honor, that
 10      we did nothing inappropriate, nothing nefarious,
 11      nothing conspiratorial, nothing improper when it
 12      came to entering into a settlement agreement with an
 13      attorney who was the attorney hired by Mrs. Sahm,
 14      accepted by the guardian court and filed a notice in
 15      this case.  When there's co-counsel -- assuming that
 16      he -- that Mr. Sweetapple was still even the
 17      attorney after being terminated, I had no obligation
 18      to speak to him at that point.  So --
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I object and move to strike.
 20      Where is there any evidence I was terminated?
 21           THE COURT:  Overrule the objection.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  So basically, Your Honor, once Mr.
 23      Sweetapple filed that notice on April 18th about the
 24      guardianship case, he knew that he had no authority
 25      to act.  So just because you're the attorney of
00202
 1       record does not mean you have authority to act.
 2       According to the bar rules, in fact, it says, you
 3       can't even discuss the facts with opposing counsel.
 4       You can't do anything when it comes to the case
 5       without --
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Object.  Speculation.
 7            MS. GARCIA:  -- court authority.
 8            THE COURT:  Again, you're giving me legal
 9       conclusion.
 10           MS. GARCIA:  My opinion at the time --
 11           THE COURT:  Which is not a -- you can't opine
 12      on what the law is, no matter how experienced you
 13      are, right?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 15           THE COURT:  I get it.  But you can't --
 16           MS. GARCIA:  I understand.
 17           THE COURT:  -- it's a --
 18           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 19           THE COURT:  -- it's a decision for me to make.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  I understand.  So based on my
 21      understanding, I negotiated with the right person,
 22      which was Ms. Sahm.  And Mr. Sweetapple was not
 23      reappointed to the case or authorized until recently
 24      again, when the guardian substituted back in.  And
 25      in the meanwhile for over a year, nothing had been
00203
 1       filed to set it aside. And I just firmly believe
 2       that the allegations that are -- that are against my
 3       clients and myself are just not clear and convincing
 4       evidence of us doing anything that is -- constitutes
 5       undue influence of fraud.
 6            THE COURT:  All right.  To cross-examination?
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Have you concluded your
 8       direct?
 9            THE COURT:  Ms. Garcia, are you done on your
 10      direct?
 11           MS. GARCIA:  Yes, Your Honor.
 12                 CROSS-EXAMINATION
 13            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 14       Q.   Ms. Garcia, you've told me under oath that you
 15  have tremendous experience in dealing with notes and
 16  foreclosures, right?
 17       A.   I have experience.  Yes, sir.
 18       Q.   And you told me it was obvious to you that
 19  this note was a joint asset and that when Mr. Sahm died,
 20  Mrs. Sahm had the right to proceed to collect the note,
 21  right?
 22       A.   I don't recall telling that to you in those
 23  terms.  What I do recall is being told that no
 24  substitution was necessary because the estate had no
 25  rights.
00204
 1        Q.   And you understood that from the first time
 2   you looked at this file, didn't you?
 3        A.   No.
 4        Q.   You looked at this note and this foreclosure
 5   case and you believe that a joint note between a husband
 6   and wife became an estate asset when Mr. Sahm died?  You
 7   didn't know that it was clearly a survivorship right and
 8   you didn't testify to that in your deposition when I
 9   asked you?
 10       A.   I can say this much.  Because of the filings
 11  in the federal court conflicted with the filings in the
 12  state court -- and then I'm told by the estate attorney
 13  to negotiate there, I firmly believe that there was a
 14  gray area on what rights does the estate really have?
 15  They're telling two federal bankruptcy courts that they
 16  are the -- the -- the owners.  They are the creditor. So
 17  I don't know who to believe when all the attorneys are
 18  lying to me and -- and -- and confusing and
 19  misrepresenting the different situations.
 20            Now, you, Mr. Sweetapple, did not -- my
 21  understanding is you brought in Mr. Shraiberg to do the
 22  bankruptcy case, but you didn't make any filings or
 23  representations there.  Your position has always been
 24  constant and consistent that you can file for the dead
 25  man, but it didn't go to the estate.  The -- the other
00205
 1   attorneys were consistent with the estate is the one who
 2   has it and it's under a Power of Attorney under pre-
 3   guardianship, therefore your client wasn't competent for
 4   years, according to the confusion that was given to me.
 5             So it's very hard when you have numerous
 6   attorneys in different courts and different
 7   representations made to different judges for whatever
 8   benefits you, when I'm trying to figure out -- begging
 9   you guys in e-mails who has rights, who do I go to?  Who
 10  signs a settlement?  What do I do?  And that's in
 11  evidence.  My questions.
 12       Q.   And I have you on here --
 13       A.   And I was -- and I was told different things
 14  by different attorneys at different times, depending on
 15  what met their needs.
 16       Q.   I have your e-mails right here.  I'm going to
 17  put them into evidence shortly.  But you knew well
 18  before your client filed this bankruptcy that this was
 19  an asset owned by Mrs. Sahm individually, based on your
 20  experience.  And you've admitted that in your
 21  deposition, haven't you?
 22            Please don't go off on a tangent.  Just tell
 23  us whether or not you have admitted that you knew from
 24  the outset that this was a joint asset and that it
 25  belonged to Mrs. Sahm after her husband died?
00206
 1        A.   I don't believe that -- that was my knowledge
 2   at all times.  I believe that it fluctuated based on the
 3   representations made to the courts and the filings made
 4   by the courts --
 5        Q.   What --
 6        A.   -- which caused confusion.
 7        Q.   -- mister --
 8        A.   When we have an estate saying it's ours and we
 9   are the creditor and filing for sanctions and -- and
 10  filing also for dead people -- but then it was a typo,
 11  and I corrected it.  I get confused when I have five
 12  different lawyers telling me five different things.
 13  That's why everybody was included in this settlement and
 14  every court was referred to.  Every case was referred
 15  to.  Every attorney was referred to.  So --
 16           THE COURT:  Other than Mr. Sweetapple.
 17            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 18       Q.   So you saw that Mr. Shraiberg appeared for
 19  Mrs. Sahm individually and for the estate, right, in the
 20  bankruptcy?
 21       A.   Yes.  Through a pre-need guardianship
 22  according to the testimony of Joanna Sahm.
 23       Q.   And I'm going to show you e-mails, including
 24  -- here.  Do you have another copy for the court?
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  If I can approach, Judge? Yes,
00207
 1       sir.  I'll mark this as 14, I believe.
 2            THE CLERK:  Yes, sure.
 3             BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 4        Q.   These are e-mails from Mr. Raymond.  And
 5   you're -- on March 24th, you're writing, "To be clear,
 6   please clarify the following as soon as possible so I
 7   know as what to represent to the foreclosure judge and
 8   the estate judge in my motion to cancel sale on filing
 9   Monday.  Is it true the estate has no rights to note
 10  that the foreclosure case and only Patricia Sahm, Senior
 11  is the beneficial other?"  So you believe that was the
 12  case, right?
 13       A.   I asked for clarification because that's not
 14  what they filed in the federal court.  They said that
 15  they had rights.  So --
 16       Q.   Just --
 17       A.   -- I'm asking for clarification from the
 18  estate attorney of what to tell the Court --
 19       Q.   And you're --
 20       A.   -- on March 24th?
 21       Q.   -- and you're asking him, Mr. Sweetapple will
 22  represent Patricia Sahm, Senior through Joanna Sahm
 23  based only on that Power of Attorney.
 24            Why would you be asking him the basis for my
 25  representation rather than calling me to find out when I
00208
 1   undertook to represent Mrs. Sahm individually and how I
 2   was operated with regard to a Power of Attorney.  Why
 3   are you asking him the scope of my representation and
 4   how I got it?
 5        A.   I found out about this Power of Attorney for
 6   the first time in the bankruptcy court when Joanna Sahm
 7   testified to the pre-need guardianship that she
 8   supposedly hired Mr. Shraiberg in the -- in the federal
 9   court.  So therefore I was --
 10       Q.   And when would it go into effect?  It went
 11  into effect on Mr. Sahm's death.  And I represented Mr.
 12  and Mrs. Sahm for two years before he died, right?
 13       A.   I can finish --
 14       Q.   Did you -- did you -- did you -- did you ever
 15  -- did you ever focus on the fact that I can represent a
 16  live husband and wife and when the husband dies,
 17  continue to represent the wife, and there can also be a
 18  Power of Attorney?  And that there's -- they're not
 19  mutually exclusive?
 20            So why are you asking Mr. Raymond about my
 21  representation and making these assumptions?  You --
 22  you've testified last time we were here, and you keep
 23  testifying I've been substituted, I've been terminated,
 24  I have no rights, I can be ignored.
 25            So --
00209
 1        A.   On --
 2        Q.   -- why are you asking anybody other than me --
 3        A.   -- on the same --
 4        Q.   -- what my rights are?
 5        A.   -- on the same day on March 25th at 5:05 p.m.
 6             when I wrote that e-mail asking -- I said, I
 7   need clarification of these six questions so I could
 8   determine who would go in the settlement.  I asked about
 9   is Joanna Sahm the trustee.  Is she the PR?  Is she --
 10  if she's not a party to the foreclosure and she's not a
 11  guardian, is it true that her own involvement in the
 12  foreclosure is solely based on Power of Attorney?
 13            But then I asked -- then I sent you an e-mail
 14  that same day, by the way, in this chain, at 7:49, and I
 15  asked you, I'm requesting that you agree to cancel the
 16  sale, do an immediate mediation with the plaintiff.
 17  Please let me know your client's position so I can form
 18  it in my -- support my motion.  So --
 19       Q.   And --
 20       A.   Because you guys were bouncing me around so
 21  much and filing different ownership rights and different
 22  representations.  I had to ask you guys a question to
 23  find out who needs to be in any settlement.  That's what
 24  that was about.  Me asking --
 25       Q.   Ms. Garcia --
00210
 1        A.   -- you guys to please tell me the truth once
 2   and for all of who do I need to include in the
 3   settlement?
 4        Q.   -- Ms. Garcia, I have a pleadings address
 5   where both counsel of record -- and you're sending e-
 6   mails to an address that I have never used on any
 7   document ever. And you -- and you complain that I don't
 8   respond to you. There is no rsweetapple@sweetapple.com,
 9   or whatever it is.  Rsweetapple@sweetapple.com.  It's
 10  sweetapplelaw.com.  And pleadings.  So -- and then on
 11  March 27th, let's keep going through this, where you
 12  continuously e-mail me at a non-existent address, even
 13  though we're both in the same pleadings file.  And if
 14  you get this answer on the 27th, as I informed you
 15  before, this is just Sweetapple is representing the
 16  party plaintiffs in this matter and all responses should
 17  come from his office.
 18       A.   And at that point, I also then wrote to you
 19  and Mr. Raymond and Mr. Raymond copied you, by the way,
 20  at that address on March 30th at 4:22.  He copied you --
 21       Q.   At the same address you used.
 22       A.   -- at the address.
 23       Q.   At the same address you used.  That is not my
 24  pleadings address or my address.
 25       A.   Well, I wouldn't know that.  He's -- if he's
00211
 1   responding to you at that address in an e-mail chain
 2   with me, I'm going to assume he has the right address.
 3   And I do believe there's a plea -- another e-mail that
 4   we -- that's in evidence now, that I will look for, that
 5   I sent to that address, and you did respond.  So you
 6   have responded at that address before.
 7        Q.   No.  No, I never -- I've never responded to
 8   that address and never got any of these e-mails.  But
 9   you were repeatedly told that you would have to
 10  communicate with me.  And at this time -- at this time,
 11  you knew that I had filed shortly after this.  The fact
 12  that I had contacted my client -- she's had no
 13  recollection of signing a revocation of a Power of
 14  Attorney.
 15       A.   Objection to hearsay.
 16       Q.   And I became concerned and filed with the
 17  Court a notice that the client indicated she had no
 18  knowledge of signing a revocation, that she wanted me to
 19  continue with the case.  But I also let the Court know
 20  that I was concerned about her mental capacity and that
 21  a guardianship had been instituted.  So you knew I was
 22  telling the world that her competency was at issue,
 23  right?
 24           MS. GARCIA:  You did file once you were told by
 25      your client, Joanna Sahm, who you had been working
00212
 1       through a Power of Attorney only, not with the
 2       mother. You told her -- or she testified that she
 3       had met with you and Mr. Mullins and -- or Mr.
 4       Raymond, and you all had to try to decide what to
 5       do.  And I guess you all decided to file a
 6       guardianship --
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I didn't decide -- what do you
 8       mean, you all?
 9            MS. GARCIA:  -- on April 17th.
 10           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- I didn't decide to file the
 11      guardianship.  I was told there was a guardianship
 12      filed.
 13           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.  And so you --
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And I put you on notice and
 15      the world on notice.
 16           THE COURT:  So -- I -- are -- is this cross-
 17      examination or --
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yes, Judge, because I'm not --
 19           THE COURT:  -- or you all just arguing with
 20      each other about this string of e-mails that I can
 21      read?
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah. --
 23           THE COURT:  Can we move on?
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  -- e-mails now.  I'm talking
 25      about my filing with the Court, the notice --
00213
 1            THE COURT:  Can we move on, please?
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  Yes.
 3             BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 4        Q.   The order determining limited due capacity.
 5             Judge Burton said, this Court, having reviewed
 6   the file, having considered the reports of the examining
 7   committee, and being fully advised in the premises,
 8   finds, based on clear and convincing evidence presented,
 9   one, the ward suffers from incapacity of the following
 10  nature and scope: unspecified dementia, impaired memory
 11  and cognition, and then lists the lack of capacity to
 12  contract to assumed lawsuits, et cetera.  Do you know
 13  that this order that was entered by the judge was based
 14  on May 5th reports and you were representing the
 15  Bernsteins during this proceeding, right?
 16       A.   On June 27th, I believe it is.  It's your
 17  Exhibit 13 or -- no, 3.  This order was entered into
 18  after the settlement was completed by the same attorney
 19  who entered into the settlement and this order to
 20  determine limited capacity was entered by agreement? Not
 21  by me, because nobody approached me.  I would've
 22  definitely contested it because I had been ready to
 23  fight the insanity of these reports that were  --
 24       Q.   Ms. Garcia, you were counsel of record in this
 25  case, and you've never filed an appeal of this order.
00214
 1   You represented your client's in this proceeding in the
 2   guardianship court they had counsel, you, and your
 3   clients were involved from day one and knew about these
 4   guardianship examinations, didn't they?
 5        A.   These orders -- this order was sent into by
 6   agreement of Ms. Patwell.  And --
 7        Q.   Where does it say the Court's duty based on
 8   agreement?  So you see or -- see copies of for it --
 9   your --
 10       A.   I've seen the communicate.  I --
 11       Q.   You're served.  You're served with this.
 12       A.   I was e-mailed during this time frame.  I
 13  remember after the fact when you all were going back and
 14  forth between Eileen O'Malley, who was Joanna's
 15  attorney, because Joanna applied to be the guardian. And
 16  the Court was not inclined to allow Joanna or Patricia
 17  Junior to be guardians because there was a fight among
 18  the two daughters.
 19       Q.   And you were --
 20       A.   So there -- because the estate documents
 21  stated that Charles Revard would be the successor
 22  trustee, Ms. Patwell determined at that point, okay.
 23  The foreclosure case is done.  Now I have to deal with
 24  my client in the incapacity case at that point because
 25  the foreclosure case was already done.  The settlement
00215
 1   had been signed. She filed objections to the reports.
 2   At that point, the agreement was made without me
 3   agreeing.  I think Kevin Hall accidentally agreed
 4   because he was led to believe that everybody agreed from
 5   my understanding.
 6             But you all entered into this order.  And
 7   well, I mean, you all, I don't mean you Mr. Sweetapple
 8   because you had nothing to do with this case.  Eileen
 9   O'Malley and Amber Patwell.  So Joanna and her -- Joanna
 10  and her mother's attorney, Ms. Patwell, agreed to allow
 11  Charlie to have some limited rights moving forward, not
 12  retroactively.  And by the way, no motion was ever filed
 13  in that -- in that case to set aside a settlement, which
 14  is where the Court then -- had they gone to this Judge
 15  Burton at the time and said, Judge, we got a problem. We
 16  want to set it aside.  Judge Burton started listening to
 17  it, and you'll see in the transcripts he started saying,
 18  the paper, a privilege is waived.  Accusations started
 19  flying quick.  And you'll see what he said in the
 20  transcript from.  But this order was entered -- this
 21  order was entered very be voluntarily.
 22       Q.   Ma'am, from the very beginning, your clients
 23  involved with the guardianship, right?
 24       A.   My clients did not do much in this
 25  guardianship at all.  Originally -- my original client,
00216
 1   which was the Bernsteins, we filed a notice of interest
 2   because they were making allegations against us in the
 3   settlement in the guardianship case.  And I believe
 4   there's testimony that the whole reason that the
 5   guardianship case was even filed was to stop the
 6   settlement.  It was -- it was purposely timed and done
 7   solely to stop the settlement in my opinion.
 8        Q.   And this order determining limited capacity
 9   that you were served a copy of has never been appealed
 10  or vacated, has it?
 11       A.   There's been many, I don't know how you call
 12  it rumblings or filings that deal with the fact that
 13  this violated Ms. Sahm's rights to due process because
 14  there was no hearing held and there was no actual
 15  determination made by the judge --
 16       Q.   Who filed -- who filed that?
 17       A.   It was done by an agreement.
 18       Q.   Who filed that?
 19       A.   I'd have to look at the file, but I do recall
 20  reading differing pleadings and allegations in this
 21  case.  I mean, because I think Ms. Patwell did a
 22  wonderful job for her client.  I completely disagreed
 23  with entering into an order of capacity when you had so
 24  many good defenses, but that doesn't make an attorney
 25  bad or good if we disagree.  I'm telling you this that I
00217
 1   did not agree to this limited incapacity order.  I
 2   firmly believed at the time we did the settlement
 3   agreement that they would win this issue.  But after the
 4   fact it was determined to be settled in June 27th,
 5   because it wouldn't have had an effect on the settlement
 6   because the settlement was done.  This was moving
 7   forward.  So my client, the Bernsteins, were out, there
 8   was nothing for them to do.  We were done, over.  I
 9   thought we were gone.  The money was going to registry
 10  ready to go on May 23rd.  And then all of a sudden, all
 11  these nefarious allegations come out about me and Ms.
 12  Patwell in our actions.
 13       Q.   And so do you have any order -- this is a --
 14  this was an order determining limited in capacity by
 15  Judge Burton (phonetic).  Is there any order or opinion
 16  in any way vacating this?
 17       A.   There's filings that --
 18       Q.   Is there any order or opinion vacating this
 19  yes or no, please?  And then explain.
 20       A.   There is no order vacating this.  No.
 21       Q.   No.  And the judge says he relied on the May
 22  5th guardianship examinations, doesn't he?
 23       A.   I don't know.
 24       Q.   Doesn't he say that right in the preamble?
 25       A.   He says that he reviewed the files.  He
00218
 1   considered the reports.
 2        Q.   Okay.  And you were a --
 3        A.   And he was forming --
 4        Q.   -- council of record -- you were a council of
 5   record for your clients in this proceeding, correct?
 6        A.   It -- yes.
 7        Q.   Yes or no?
 8        A.   Yes.  And it also says he was informed of the
 9   agreement of Patricia Sahm, and it says, and all
 10  interested parties, but I never agreed to this because
 11  as usual orders keep getting submitted to the courts
 12  without my agreement or my knowledge, or that are
 13  inconsistent with the file.  And the only reason that I
 14  haven't filed these orders to date is because my client
 15  hasn't paid me in two years and has no money.
 16       Q.   So you got this order --
 17       A.   When I get money, I will address all these
 18  issues, sir, because I'm tired of these representations
 19  being made that aren't true.
 20       Q.   So when you got this order on June 27th, '23,
 21  a year and a half ago, it was mailed to you think it is
 22  erroneous and you've not attacked it because you haven't
 23  been paid, but when you get paid, you're going to attack
 24  it.
 25       A.   Well, now that the ongoing --
00219
 1        Q.   Is that your testimony?
 2        A.   My testimony is I have not attacked it yet
 3   because I can't afford to as a sole practitioner.  My
 4   client can't afford to pay me because his funds are held
 5   up, and the fact that we're still ongoing and using
 6   these orders, knowing that they're not true, it's an
 7   ongoing fraud that I will deal with now that it's timely
 8   again.
 9        Q.   And when did you move to enforce the
 10  settlement agreement?  It was allegedly entered on May
 11  22nd, 2023. When did you file a motion to enforce it?
 12       A.   I did not file a motion to enforce it because
 13  we were dealing with this in the guardianship case, I
 14  think through June, July, August, and Judge Burton was
 15  having hearings on it and doing discovery and
 16  disclosures.  And Ms. Patwell and I decided, let's just
 17  wait and let the guardianship court, or whoever, rule on
 18  it, because the allegations from day one have been about
 19  our affairs conduct.  And at that point, her and I both
 20  took a pause and said, you know what we feel like we did
 21  the right thing, but there's allegations out there.  Let
 22  a court determine what they believe.
 23       Q.   Isn't the settlement agreement captioned in
 24  the foreclosure case number?
 25           THE COURT:  Yes.  There is 12.
00220
 1            MS. GARCIA:  Let's see.  Defendants -- it's
 2       Defendant 6.
 3             BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 4        Q.   Don't you mention that there's a foreclosure
 5   case and the case number is listed on the bottom of the
 6   first page?
 7        A.   Well, I can say this documents --
 8        Q.   Can you answer yes or no?
 9        A.   -- the document speaks for itself.  However,
 10  it's not captioned in the foreclosure case.  It's
 11  caption settlement agreement.  And it says that the
 12  interested parties are Bernstein Family Realty, the
 13  Bernstein Family members, Patricia Sahm, and now at that
 14  point, after being told she's the sole owner and
 15  surviving spouse of Walter Sahm, and for good and
 16  valuable consideration, we acknowledge we entered the
 17  settlement agreement, and this settlement agreement
 18  deals with all the cases.  It cite the Marion County
 19  case.  It cites the --
 20       Q.   Show me where it cite --
 21       A.   -- foreclosure case.
 22       Q.   Show me where it cites the probate case that
 23  you say you're litigating.  Where's the probate case
 24  mentioned here?
 25       A.   Under the first page, sir.  The second
00221
 1   paragraph on the recitals, it says, on June 24 -- June
 2   24, 2021, it was an order admitting a will to probate
 3   and appointing personal representative Joanna Sahm --
 4        Q.   That's not the mental health case.
 5        A.   -- that was entered into for Walter Sahm and
 6   Marion County case 2.1P002326 --
 7        Q.   Then it says, Patricia Sahm has full authority
 8   to resolve the mortgage and no foreclosure matter. Okay.
 9   There's no mention of anything about a guardianship in
 10  this document.  Is there no case number involved in the
 11  guardianship, right?
 12       A.   I'd have to look through it.
 13       Q.   Take a look.
 14       A.   Now let me see.  At this point in time, this
 15  was May 22nd.  There was no guardian appointed yet.  So
 16  this was May 22nd, 2023.  So there would be no guardian
 17  to mention, but --
 18       Q.   And you were dealing with --
 19       A.   -- I go through -- sir, I'm sorry.
 20       Q.   -- Ms. Patwell.  And you decided to settle
 21  this.  You and she agreed on the 22nd of May.  You
 22  testified that's when you agreed to settle it, right?
 23  May 22nd.
 24       A.   That's when the settlement was actually
 25  signed. The agreement between the clients had been much
00222
 1   earlier on maybe as early as January, February, March
 2   where they had their communications and agreements.
 3   However, there was the bankruptcies and then there was
 4   her having to hire attorneys and then the guardianship
 5   case was filed. So there were numerous delays that were
 6   outside of my control.
 7        Q.   And you here's your testimony on page 69 at
 8   line 5.  And then basically we said, okay, we agree on
 9   the 22nd.  She said, we agree, let's get it done.  I'll
 10  file my appearance.  So she agrees with you on the 22nd
 11  of May.  And that's when she files an appearance at 6:37
 12  at night.
 13       A.   Did --
 14       Q.   Right?  That's what you testified to -- you
 15  and Amber agreed on May 22nd to settle the case.  And
 16  then she files her notice of appearance.
 17       A.   On the 22nd is when she had made her final
 18  decision with her client, independent of me or anyone
 19  else after reviewing with her client.  They hadn't, like
 20  I said, I think since the 5th of the 8th.
 21       Q.   So you were negotiating with --
 22       A.   She decided --
 23       Q.   -- for how long -- for how long when she was
 24  in counsel of record?  You knew I was council of record.
 25  You knew she wasn't council of record.  How long were
00223
 1   you negotiating with her before May 22nd?
 2        A.   I knew of Amber once she was retained.  I
 3   assume about May 2nd, May 3rd, because the guardianship
 4   case had been filed, and she was hired to do the
 5   foreclosure in her retainer and the guardianship.
 6        Q.   And she appeared in the guardianship, but
 7   didn't appear in the foreclosure, right?
 8        A.   She did eventually file a notice of
 9   appearance, but she had been retained specifically for
 10  that case told and represented that to me so I relied on
 11  it.
 12       Q.   She told you -- she told you I had been
 13  retained in the foreclosure, and you negotiated with
 14  her, and she hadn't appeared.  So you know, I'm counsel
 15  of record.  You don't send me any proposed settlement
 16  agreement.  You don't talk to me.  You know I represent
 17  Mrs. Sahm, but you're dealing with Amber Patwell, who's
 18  told you she's been retained in a foreclosure, but
 19  hasn't appeared to the case, right?
 20       A.   She filed her notice as you know, on the same
 21  day in the foreclosure case.
 22       Q.   No.  The evening.
 23            But --
 24       A.   The evening.  In the evening.
 25       Q.   The same day.
00224
 1             Right.  Your clients all went to Mrs. Sahm's
 2   house -- how many people how many people did you send to
 3   Mrs. Sahm's house with this settlement agreement to get
 4   signed the evening of May 22nd?
 5        A.   I didn't direct numerous people to go.  I
 6   asked -- Amber was out of town.  Ms. Patwell was out of
 7   town, and I said, the clients are at my house.  It's in
 8   text messages.  I said, I can send them to the house to
 9   sign it.  And she said, fine.
 10       Q.   So --
 11       A.   So I can't tell you how many people went, but
 12  I can tell you that the case had been settled before
 13  they got there.  So there was no undue influence or
 14  pressure on Ms. Sahm that night.  It had already been
 15  decided by both lawyers.  We agreed to the logistics --
 16       Q.   Who did --
 17       A.   -- due to the location of the house and the
 18  location of Ms. Patwell, and the fact that nobody could
 19  afford couriers.  So --
 20       Q.   So how many of your clients left your house
 21  and drove to see         84-year-old Mrs. Sahm by
 22  herself in her house the evening of May 22nd?
 23       A.   I think the only people that were at my house
 24  that day were Elliot and maybe Ms. Bernstein because the
 25  boys signed it at their houses.  So they kind of made
00225
 1   stops.  So it started at my house and with approval of
 2   Ms. Patwell, it went like from my house, then it went to
 3   the different -- three different boys' houses.  And then
 4   it went to Ms. Sahm's house.
 5        Q.   And this sound only doesn't have any signature
 6   by counsel, right?
 7        A.   No.
 8        Q.   And it doesn't have any date that the payment
 9   has to be made, right?
 10       A.   It does very specifically address, which we
 11  really covered on direct the fact.  And I can read it to
 12  you again, if you'd like.
 13       Q.   I know if there's a date.  What date -- what's
 14  it -- we're now -- we're now almost two years from the
 15  date this was allegedly signed.  We're approaching that.
 16  When is the -- when is this money happening -- paid by
 17  of this agreement?
 18       A.   It will be paid within however quick.  The
 19  clerk can cut a check once the judge makes a ruling that
 20  the settlement is binding.
 21       Q.   Well, you haven't asked for that --
 22       A.   Settlement wasn't binding.
 23       Q.   You haven't asked for that ruling.  You
 24  haven't sued the guardian asking the guardian to sign
 25  anything. You just filed this in November of '23
00226
 1   attached to some other document, right?  You've never
 2   asked the Court to have Mrs. Sahm enforce this or Mr.
 3   Revard, the guardian, to sign this?
 4        A.   The --
 5        Q.   This -- right?
 6        A.   The agreement was provided immediately and the
 7   next day, Mr. Rose had it in the -- in the -- in the
 8   Shirley Trust case.  And I asked him if I could release
 9   the funds and he said, don't release the funds.  Let's
 10  see how it plays out in the guardianship.  Ms. Patwell
 11  and I decided because now they became an issue as far as
 12  complaining about the settlement that we would let the
 13  guardianship court tell us where the money to go.  So I
 14  didn't know where to pay the money once it was signed,
 15  but the money has been sitting there -- and it says very
 16  clearly on Page 4 about the payment and how and when it
 17  will be paid.  And it says it would go to Ms. Patwell
 18  trust account, the two -- the 225.  But then it says
 19  that they're being held in the registry to the benefit
 20  of the three young Bernstein boys.  The parties agreed
 21  to cooperate at a hearing to be held to ensure the 225
 22  are released directly to the trust of Ms. Patwell --
 23       Q.   What's the date, ma'am?
 24       A.   -- as directed by the court order.
 25       Q.   What's the date?  What's the outside date that
00227
 1   this asset be performed by?
 2        A.   The --
 3        Q.   Is there any such date in the agreement?
 4        A.   The only reason it hasn't been paid yet is
 5   because you're contesting the validity so --
 6        Q.   That's not what I asked.
 7        A.   -- can't ethically release the cost to Ms.
 8   Patwell.
 9        Q.   That's not what I'm asking you.  I'm asking
 10  what --
 11       A.   It --
 12       Q.   Where's the material term of this agreement?
 13       A.   The material term -- there's 10 of them.  If
 14  you look through the payment, it's very detailed and it
 15  says exactly what's going to happen.  It says, the
 16  parties are going to cooperate for a hearing, but the
 17  parties didn't cooperate.  Then it says, the Bernstein
 18  shall pay the entire check directly issued to the clerk
 19  registry.  And then it says, if court orders are
 20  necessary, either in the Walter Sahm probate case in
 21  Marion County, or the Palm Beach foreclosure case, or in
 22  the Shirley Bernstein case, the parties agree to fully
 23  cooperate and file any needed joint agreed motions to
 24  confirm the settlement and to release the funds as
 25  agreed and to file a dismissal of the foreclosure.  No
00228
 1   party or person can interfere with the agreement or
 2   cause any further delays in releasing the funds or cause
 3   the property to settle the foreclosure.
 4        Q.   So what I'm --
 5        A.   Now what happened is instead of cooperation
 6   immediately in the guardianship, it got raised that they
 7   had a problem with the settlement.  So because of case
 8   we asked Judge Burton for direction and then Judge
 9   Burton started holding hearings specifically about the
 10  settlement and the money, and the release, and
 11  everything else until finally he got frustrated and
 12  threw it back at the at the -- this Court to determine
 13  if this court believes it's settled or not.
 14            And so what did you do in this Court to
 15  enforce
 16  enforce --
 17           THE COURT:  This has been asked and answered so
 18      many times.
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.  And the record's clear.
 20      The record's clear.  I apologize.
 21           THE COURT:  Can we please move on?  How much
 22      more cross-examination do you need?
 23           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Not many.
 24           THE COURT:  Then please ask leading questions.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Right.
00229
 1            THE COURT:  I got it.  There's no material.
 2       There's no date that it needs to be completed.
 3       There isn't a date in this is there.  No.
 4             BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 5        Q.   And there was never a motion before or after
 6   the argument was appointed.   And so your clients did
 7   sign the March settlement agreement indicating that Mrs.
 8   Sahm, Senior was incapacitated and agreeing to pay her
 9   $355,000, right?
 10       A.   Let me look at the agreement.  What exhibit
 11  number was that?  That was Exhibit -- plaintiff.
 12       Q.   Do you need to look at that?
 13       A.   Yes.  I do need to look at this settlement
 14  because that settlement was never used.  So you are
 15  asking me to comment about my thought process during
 16  another settlement that's not this settlement.  So I
 17  need to look at that settlement before I make any
 18  comments, sir.  I'd like to refresh my recollection.
 19       Q.   You don't know that your client signed it and
 20  355,000, you've already testified to that within the
 21  last two hours?
 22       A.   That was not the question.  We -- you had
 23  added something to it, so --
 24       Q.   No.  I asked you if your client signed that
 25  March settlement agreement that indicated that Mrs. Sahm
00230
 1   was capacitated and provided for payment of $355,000.
 2        A.   So I need to look at that part about the
 3   statement you're making so I can understand why it's
 4   there and testify to you.  What happened?  Let's see.
 5            THE COURT:  It's a yes or no question.  Did he
 6       sign it or not?
 7            MS. GARCIA:  He signed the -- he did sign the
 8       retainer.  I mean, he did sign a settlement
 9       agreement, but --
 10           THE COURT:  Okay.  Next question.
 11            BY MR. SWEETAPPLE:
 12       Q.   Okay.  And did you ever provide Ms. Patwell
 13  with that signed agreement where your clients had
 14  offered to pay 355 before you sent over $225,000
 15  settlement agreement in May?
 16       A.   No.  But I told her about it.  I told her
 17  exactly what was going on.  And in fact, her and I had
 18  many discussions about the rewards and the risks of the
 19  settlements and of the guardianships and of the
 20  bankruptcy and of what was in the best interest of our
 21  clients.  And then each of us consulted with our
 22  individual clients and determined that this was in their
 23  best interest to end this madness once and for all and
 24  let everybody move on.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right.  Let me, Your
00231
 1       Honor, if you can one moment.
 2            THE COURT:  Sure.
 3            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Okay.
 4            THE COURT:  These e-mail strings has just been
 5       brought to me, but it's not in evidence.  So --
 6            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Oh, what's that, Your Honor,
 7       the e-mails?
 8            THE COURT:  The e-mails.  It's not in evidence.
 9            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah.  I'll move that into
 10      evidence, Your Honor.  That's with the notation that
 11      -- that's not my e-mail address on the -- those text
 12      -- those e-mails.
 13           MS. GARCIA:  Do I have a copy of it?
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah.
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Is that what you handed to me?
 16           THE COURT:  It was used during the first, I
 17      believe 45 minutes of cross-examination.
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Yeah.  You have a copy.
 19           THE COURT:  You all read them back and forth to
 20      me.
 21           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  I moved it in as 14, that one.
 22           THE COURT:  We received the evidence as
 23      Plaintiff's Exhibit number 14.
 24            (PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 14 RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE)
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And as for the bankruptcy,
00232
 1       Judge, the order granting end member relief that's
 2       in evidence when the Court specifically found that
 3       you had filed the suggestion, and you -- and that
 4       you were -- and that it was factually false and
 5       legally incorrect, and was designed to mislead the
 6       state court of the -- clerk of the Court.  You
 7       haven't appealed that order either, have you?
 8            MS. GARCIA:  No.  But I do plan on it now that
 9       it's being used in the way it's being used.  I do
 10      have an attorney ready to go in there because --
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  You don't think it is time
 12      barred, April 14, 2023?  And we're now in January of
 13      '25?
 14           MS. GARCIA:  No.  Not according to my
 15      bankruptcy lawyer.  You said direct fraud on the
 16      Court.
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And who do you think committed
 18      a fraud on the bankruptcy?
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Joanna Sahm and her attorney, Mr.
 20      Shraiberg, who took on that case with no retainer
 21      based on a purported Power of Attorney of Joanna,
 22      although at the same time you're claiming that she's
 23      incapacitated and can't answer the contracts or do
 24      anything.  Mr. Shraiberg appeared in the Court
 25      believing the Power of Attorney existed.
00233
 1            So as an officer of the Court because I know
 2       his business partners, I told him at the hearing,
 3       Mr. Shraiberg, you may not be aware of this, but
 4       your client, Joanna Sahm, does not have a Power of
 5       Attorney anymore.  Therefore you don't have a
 6       client, and the estate is not a client.  And then I
 7       also explained to the Court at that time that the
 8       suggested bankruptcy that was actually used to
 9       cancel sale was not my suggested bankruptcy, but Mr.
 10      Shraiberg went ahead and gave the order to the
 11      Court, so we'll do it there.
 12           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  So did you -- did you file any
 13      motions for sanctions against Mr. Shraiberg or
 14      anybody?
 15           MS. GARCIA:  No, I don't like to go up there.
 16      Other lawyers normally, especially ones I've known
 17      for years and years, but --
 18           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  And so you don't think Mr.
 19      Shraiberg represented Joanna Sham in the
 20      bankruptcy --
 21           THE COURT:  It's not relevant.  It's --
 22           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Pardon?
 23           THE COURT:  The question is not relevant.  The
 24      question's not relevant.
 25           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  All right.  I -- I'm I have no
00234
 1       more questions, Judge.
 2            THE COURT:  How many additional witnesses do
 3       you have, Ms. Garcia?
 4            MS. GARCIA:  Can I -- if I could have a two-
 5       minute break, I'd like be done.
 6            THE COURT:  Sure.
 7            MS. GARCIA:  If I could step outside.
 8            THE COURT:  Sure.
 9            MS. GARCIA:  Thank you, Your Honor.
 10            (OFF THE RECORD)
 11           THE COURT:  All right.  Both the plaintiff and
 12      the defendant have rested.
 13           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Can I suggest, Your Honor,
 14      since you've been more than patient with this that
 15      we submit written?
 16           THE COURT:  That was what I was going to
 17      suggest.  How long would it take for you all to
 18      correct a written closing arguments?
 19           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Ten days, two weeks.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Two weeks.
 21           THE COURT:  Two weeks.
 22           MS. GARCIA:  That way we can give you the
 23      memos.
 24           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  We get the transcript and --
 25           THE COURT:  What -- two -- - I just -- so
00235
 1       there's a date on it.  What's two weeks?  Two weeks
 2       would be --
 3            MS. GARCIA:  Today's the 20 --
 4            THE COURT:  This is the 11th work for you all?
 5       I have seven days being the 4th and 14 being the
 6       11th. You want the 12th?  13th?  You tell me --
 7            MS. GARCIA:  12th or 13th.
 8            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  What day -- what day is the
 9       14th?
 10           MS. GARCIA:  The 14th is --
 11           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Is that on Wednesday?
 12           MS. GARCIA:  Yes.
 13           THE COURT:  14 days would be the 11th?
 14           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  How about --
 15           MS. GARCIA:  Could we do the -- could we do the
 16      13th?
 17           MR. SWEETAPPLE:  That's what I was going to
 18      suggest.
 19           MS. GARCIA:  Because yeah, I'm --
 20           THE COURT:  Okay.  You -- do you both agree to
 21      it?  Could you just file the written closing
 22      arguments in the Court file, but also provide a
 23      courtesy copy of the division AO to the CAD?
 24           MS. GARCIA:  Yeah.  On E courtesy?
 25           THE COURT:  Not the E courtesy, the -- scan it
00236
 1       and e-mail it to Chambers.
 2            MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 3            THE COURT:  Just make sure that the other side
 4       is copied on it so that everybody has it because
 5       otherwise it takes a couple days before it's
 6       docketed before I'd be able to see it.
 7            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  How about if we both do it at
 8       5:00 on the 13th?
 9            THE COURT:  You can do that.  However you want
 10      to do it.  Just -- I'll keep my eye out for those.
 11      And then once I receive those, I will enter an
 12      order.
 13           MS. GARCIA:  And then.  Your Honor, if there's
 14      any -- would you like to provide copies of the case
 15      is also there or statutes, or just cite them?
 16           THE COURT:  If there's something that's
 17      relevant and germane to your argument, you want me
 18      to review it, you can provide it to me like a
 19      briefing book.
 20           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
 21           THE COURT:  I do have -- I have access to
 22      Westlaw so I can look it up, but if it's something
 23      that's very important, you may want to provide me a
 24      copy of this.
 25           MS. GARCIA:  Okay.
00237
 1            THE COURT:  Okay.  Okay.
 2            MR. SWEETAPPLE:  Thank you for hearing us,
 3       Judge.
 4            THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you all.
 5            UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thank you.
 6            MS. GARCIA:  We do appreciate your time and
 7       your patience, Your Honor.  Thank you.
 8            THE COURT:  All right.  Have a nice --
 9             (HEARING CONCLUDED AT 5:16 P.M. ET)
 10  
 11  
 12  
 13  
 14  
 15  
 16  
 17  
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25  
00238
 1                     C E R T I F I C A T E
 2   
 3   STATE OF FLORIDA)
 4   COUNTY OF ORANGE)
 5   
 6        I, FLOR LOPEZ, Court Reporter and Notary Public for
 7   the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I
 8   was authorized to and did report the foregoing
 9   proceeding, and that said transcript is a true record of
 10  the said proceeding.
 11  
 12       I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not of counsel for,
 13  related to, or employed by any of the parties or
 14  attorneys involved herein, nor am I financially
 15  interested in said action.
 16  
 17  Submitted on:  February 5, 2025.
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22                 ______________________________
 23                 FLOR LOPEZ
 24                 Court Reporter, Notary Public
 25  
