In the Matter of:
Board of Supervisors of Durbin Crossing Community Devleopment

DISTRICT MEETING
December 18, 2017

ORANGE LEGAL

www.OrangeLegal.com
800-275-7991

MEETING, DISTRICT

1	DURBIN CROSSING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
2
IN THE MATTER OF:

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF DURBIN CROSSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MEETING
5
6
7
8
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
9
December 18, 2017
10
5:04 p.m. - 6:03 p.m.
11
145 South Durbin Parkway
12	Saint Johns, Florida 32253 13
14
Stenographically Reported By:
15	Stacia A. Harper, FPR 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

A P P E A R A N C E S:
SCOTT D. CLARK, ESQUIRE
DAVID DENAGY, DISTRICT MANAGER
PETER POLLICINO, CHAIRMAN
DANIEL LAUGHLIN
TIM BROWNLEE
JASON HARRAH

9	SARAH	GABLE-HALL	
10			
11			
12			
13			
14			
15			
16			
17			
18			
19			
20			
21			
22			
23			
24			
25			

DEBBIE DRISCOLL

******

MR. CLARK:	All right.	Let me note that it is
5:04.	We're convening the shade meeting of Durbin
Crossing Community Development District.	And on the
court reporter record, I want to take roll again, so
beginning there, if you will identify yourself for
the transcript.
MR. DENAGY:	Dave deNagy.
MR. POLLICINO:	Peter Pollicino.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Debbie Driscoll.
MR. BROWNLEE:	Tim Brownlee.
MR. HARRAH:	Jason Harrah.
MR. LAUGHLIN:	Daniel Laughlin.
MR. CLARK:	Scott Clark.	And Madam Court
Reporter if you would identify yourself as well.
THE COURT REPORTER:	Stacy Harper.
MR. CLARK:	Okay.	All right.	Thank you for
setting this up.	I think this will be useful.
MS. GABLE-HALL:	Hi.
MR. CLARK:	Come on in, Sarah.
MS. GABLE-HALL:	Sorry I'm late for the party,
but five o'clock is five o'clock.
MR. CLARK:	Sarah Hall, another one of the
board members came in and joined us in progress.
This is fairly informal in the way that I do
these.	I want to tell you some things that I think

and certainly answer any questions.	When we do
litigation like this, you have meetings and not much
really gets said to report the progress of the
matter because we don't really want to tell the
other side what we're thinking because they are
sometimes on the phone and always reading the
minutes when we have litigation like this.
And then the primary purpose of this is that we
have a scheduled mediation in January.	At your last
meeting you appointed your chairman to be your
negotiating representative at that.	And let me just
explain again, maybe it's repetition, how that
works.
As a public entity, you can only settle the
case at a public meeting in the sunshine where the
public is allowed to be present and you vote as you
would for anything else.	So the process we do is
that you appoint someone to negotiate in good faith,
is what the rule says, on your behalf and to come
with a settlement that he thinks would be suitable
to the Board, and then you discuss it and then you
vote on it.
Of course to do that, you need to have a
conversation with him and with all of us present so
that we get an idea of what we want to accomplish

and what some parameters might be when we go into
that settlement.	Let me -- I'm going to pass some
things around that I will refer to.	I hope I made
enough of those.	I'll continue to talk while those
are being passed.
So we filed a complaint at the end of March
against U.S. Bank and Durbin Crossing CDD Holdings,
which is the special purpose entity created by the
bondholder and essentially our complaint was looking
for recovery of a million one eighty-five and some
change which is the interest forgiveness.
In addition, we have alleged that we are
entitled to more damages on top of that because you
have now refunded your bonds and you're paying
interest on the extra amount.	So we have retained
an expert witness, Hank Fishkind, and he will be
calculating damages and is also doing some analysis
on some of the monetary issues.
There are some other things that have come to
light as I'm receiving and looking at documents, and
I will discuss those in a minute, that are going to
cause me to make some amendments to the complaint
and seek a greater amount of damages than we have
been seeking up to now.
Right now in the litigation, we are in the

discovery process, and I would say that our other
parties are kind of slow walking that for whatever
strategy purposes, they've got things that they
really don't want to give us.	But early on, I did a
Chapter 119 public record request to the holdings
entity, and that's primarily run by an outfit called
Lerner Real Estate and Associates.	I probably got
that name wrong.	You may be familiar with them
because you worked with them in the course of the
tri-party agreement and some other things.
They are a real estate management and sales
company that bondholders like to hire to do work-out
situations.	And I got a lot of their documents.	I
got 20,000 pages of that, and there's -- what I have
given you is just some excerpts of things and
remarkably, there are some things that the trustee
took the position after this closing on December 15, 18	2015.
The trustee took the position that this Board
was not entitled to have those things in some
conversations with your manager.	They said, "Well,
this is a private transaction.	Essentially it's
none of your business."
That's not the words that they used, but it was
clearly the message.

And so I have gotten some of those things, and
there are some other things that you probably
already knew about and have seen, but I wanted to
just get a flavor of where I think our case is at, I
wanted to show you some things.
So flip for a minute past the closing
statement.	What you have next is the Greenberg
Traurig letter of December 14th.	I have highlighted
the language where I think they clearly said that
they contemplated forgiveness of 1,185,043.98 of
interest on the bonds.	And then they decided that
that's not what they meant early in 2016.
Among the documents -- and there are other
things like this if you look at the next page.	This
is a spreadsheet that was prepared by the Lerner
entity.	They were constantly forecasting the return
for the bondholder, and you will see that they
clearly put a line item there that I circled and
highlighted that said that they anticipated
forgiving 1,185,043.98 of interest.
There are some e-mails that Mike Eckert
exchanged with other parties where they said that
again that the bondholder would be waiving and
forgiving accrued interest on the bond side, that's
their attorney, Julio Apponte, and then on the next

page, Mike Dady, who worked for the Lerner entity
and was speaking on behalf of the bondholders said,
"That is our understanding of the bondholder
agreement regarding the deal."
So in their -- there are a number of other
things like this.	What I think they are trying
really hard for me not to see is the communications
between the bondholder, primarily Goldman Sachs, and
the Lerner folks that backed these up.	Because I
guarantee you that Mike Dady didn't -- on his own
authority -- say, "Yeah, that sounds like a good
idea."
He clearly had permission to say that, and that
is what they don't want to give me in my opinion.
Because I think it sort of blows the thing open if
it's not blown open already.
These documents and others I think are very
clear, and that's why early on, you know, when I
looked at some of these things and you asked me to
give you my impression on whether you should go
forth with this suit, I said, yes.	They clearly
told you they were going to do this, and then they
didn't do that.
Now, why did they not do that?	In my opinion,
and these are in the documents that they don't want

me to see, in my opinion, they realized after the
transaction closed and they had the money, that
"Well, we could just not forgive the interest."
Because there was enough money in the different
bond funds, there were some excess payments, and
they managed to just go ahead and pay their interest
and not forgive it.	And then they made a
calculation and said, "Well, we just won't give it
back and maybe they won't do anything."
That was a wrong call calculation because you
decided to do something.	Now they have to come up
with a story, and I haven't completely heard it yet,
but I think they're going to say, "Well, there were
monies there in different funds and under the trust
indenture, we have the authority to take the
monies."
But, of course, that ignores everything else
that they said after the trust indenture was signed.
But that's going to be their position.
What's interesting -- and I went back and read
this after I knew more.	It's the last thing in your
package.	There's a letter dated January 20, 2017,
and this was written by the trustee two-year
manager, and the letter came because Dave had
written the letter and attached a bunch of things

and basically said, "We want to refund our bonds.
We've got a problem here.	So what are you going to
do about this?"
So this letter, which was actually drafted by
Warren Bloom, I called him and asked him that
because I recognized his writing style.	And he
said, "Yeah."
And remarkably what they say, if you go to
what's page 3, the second sheet.	I have highlighted
that statement that said, "There was never any
intention on the part of the trustee or the 2005A
bondholders to provide the district with a cash
windfall or credit of a million one eighty-five,
etc., beyond the forgiveness described above in
connection with the D.R. Horton sale," which is
forgiveness of assessments.
So after the fact, even though they clearly
said, "You can forgive this amount of assessment
interest and there will be a corresponding
forgiveness of bond interest," they say, "Well, we
never meant that."
And so this is what in the law is a fraud.	If
you say something and when you said it you didn't
mean to do it, then it's not a mistake, it's a
fraud.	It's a lie.	And when you do something like

that purposefully, then you open the doors to
punitive damages.
And so between this and some other things that
I have already seen, I'm working on an amended
complaint, and it's -- one of the things that I'm
going to do is I'm going to seek punitive damages
against U.S. Bank for telling us something that they
never intended to do because that's what they said.
They said, "We never intended to give you the
interest forgiveness.	We just told you that because
we needed your estoppel letter.	We couldn't close
the Horton deal unless you released the estoppel
letter," and your attorney, Mr. Eckert, was smart
enough to say, "Well, before we release that, we
need some assurances here."
And they gave those assurances and your
attorney and staff said, "Okay, now, we'll release
it."	And then they just didn't perform.
The other thing that I have discovered is that
there's some problems I think in how the trustee at
the bidding of Lerner and the bondholder handled the
monies.	And if you look at the settlement
statement, I have highlighted some line items.	I
apologize for the tiny size of it.	But from the
proceeds -- really in my mind the money -- all the

money that was left over should have gone to pay
down bonds.
You had this default, and you want to pay as
much as you can off of the bonds.	And so on the
front page, you see that 367,000 almost is put over
into the reserve account, which we choose later to
pay interest -- I think partially the interest that
they were supposed to forgive -- they fairly
generously paid Lerner.	There is a real estate
commission.	That's probably okay.	And then a
$50,000 success fee, their monies to the trustee.
They pay closing fee to the trustee.	Another
348,000 of your money, sales proceeds, went to pay
the 2006 bondholders, and then another 261,000 went
into an escrow account to pay the next two years of
interest on behalf D.R. Horton.
That wasn't ever in the deal that you agreed to
that you were going to pay Horton's interest.
Horton should have paid their interest.	And the
deal that was written up and that you agreed to in a
resolution that you passed was that the -- that
money to the 2006 bondholders, because that's the
impact fee issue and something had to be paid to
them for delinquent interest, but D.R. Horton agreed
to pay a third of it, which they did; they increased

their price.	And the 2005A bondholders agreed to
absorb a third of it.	Well, they didn't.	What they
did was that they had you pay their third of it
after they agreed to absorb it.
Beyond that, there are about $2,600,000 of
transfers that came out of the reserve account for
the 2005A bonds.	And why that's important is when
you go to refund the bonds, that reserve account is
money that should be available for you to pay them
down.	So to the extent that the reserve account has
been spent on something else, then that money is not
available.
Now, you agreed in one of the indenture
amendments to spend -- to allow up to 2.5 million of
the reserve account to be spent to do certain
things.	And there were certain defined things.	The
big thing was to acquire tax certificates and redeem
the tax deed on the DOA GMAC properties so that it
wouldn't be tossed because of the tax deed's issue,
your recovery gets very difficult.
In addition, they agreed some monies would come
to you -- and I don't think all of it did -- to pay
your O&M.	They paid Lerner's bills; they paid a lot
of bills to Lerner, which haven't yet been justified
to me.	They paid quite a few bills a Lakeland law

firm called Peterson & Myers, which was doing some
undefined work for the Crossings entity.	I don't
think that's something we agreed to do.	And they
paid a lot of bills to Greenberg Traurig for doing
what we don't yet know.
And so there was lot of money that went out of
that debt service reserve account, which I don't
think you agreed to, and that's money that should
have reduced your bond refunding number.	And I
think it's at least half million dollars without
having all the backup that I'm requesting.	I think
it's at least about a half million dollars.
And so I propose prior to our mediation, to
file this amended complaint, which we're going to
seek punitive damages, and to add that into the mix,
that additional money that I think they essentially
misappropriated.	They directed it to the wrong
place.
The other reason that becomes significant is
right now, we don't recover our attorney'sfees if we
win because in the law you have to have a contract
or a statute that does that.	The tri-party
agreement has an attorney'sfee clause, and the
tri-party agreement says that they would hold the
property on behalf of the District and the

bondholders, and it says that when the property was
sold, they would disperse the money in accordance
with the trust indenture and the tri-party
agreement.
So to the extent that they did things that they
weren't allowed and we win that, I think we recover
attorney'sfees.	And then in all complex litigation,
putting the attorney'sfees on the table is something
that helps you a lot.	Because right now, I think
their posture is:	Our worst day is a million one
eighty-five plus what we have to pay our attorneys.
And they're holding the million one eighty-five
so I think part of their strategy is:	At the end of
the day, we just have to give it back, but maybe we
can give half of it back, and then we'll be that far
ahead.
So going into the mediation, I want to try to
convince them that it's not that, that they could
actually dig into their own pockets and pay some
significant funds.
So that I think kind of transitions us into,
you know, what do we want to accomplish at the
mediation?	What's our posture going to be?
Probably before I do that, I want to quit
talking now for a minute because I've said a lot of

things, and you probably have questions.	So I want
to just stop and entertain any questions that you
have.
MR. BROWNLEE:	Didn't they make an offer for
settlement of some dollar amount at some point?
MR. CLARK:	$600,000 was the last offer.
MR. BROWNLEE:	But they did offer to settle,
which kind of reinforces the fact that they owe us
the money.
MR. CLARK:	The history of litigation for the
bondholders and for U.S. Bank is that they fight to
the death, and they just try to outspend you.	So if
you go over to, I think it's Lee County, you'll find
a case called Fiddlers Creek where a district sued
U.S. Bank, and it's been going on for, I think, six
years.	And there are 1,500 entries in the Court
docket if you go online.	So I can only imagine the
types of money that both sides have spent.
So that's their posture.	That's what they
usually do.	For them to offer significant money up
front before we even filed, you know, tells me that
they know they are going to pay something.
MR. BROWNLEE:	Are they now trying to wear us
down?
MR. CLARK:	I think so.

MS. DRISCOLL:	Yes.
MR. POLLICINO:	Deep pockets.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Yeah.	I was going to say.
Well, and also their attorney'sare salaried
attorney'spotentially or employees of that.
MR. CLARK:	They are using Akerman Senterfitt.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Oh, they are?
MR. CLARK:	Their attorney'sare not cheap.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Okay.
MR. CLARK:	But their attorney'sare not doing a
lot.	They haven't sent me any discovery.	So I
think their posture is just stalling.
MS. DRISCOLL:	It seems to be.
MR. CLARK:	Your directive is to make this take
as long as possible and make them spend as much as
possible.	In strategy it works.
MR. POLLICINO:	They know we're nonprofit.
They know we don't have deep pockets.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Exactly.
MR. POLLICINO:	They know our attorney's on an
hourly basis.	So that's -- I mean, if I was on
their side, I would do the same thing, right?	Wear
down, delay, delay, incur costs, force us into a
settlement that maybe we're not happy with.	But we
want to put it behind us and just be done with it.

So, you know, I think we just hold the course.
One of the things I want to talk to you about
is, you know, in preparing for these things, I
always like to fully understand where the other side
is going to come in in the mediation.	The word that
concerns me the most in their response is
"windfall."	That they keep saying it's a windfall
to the CDD if they give you this money.	And I read
there three points they made in their letter.
What arguments can they make or will they make
to support the fact that if they do reimburse us the
$1.1 million dollars, it is, indeed, a windfall to
the CDD?
MR. CLARK:	Here's the way they view windfall.
This is how they regard the money held by the
trustee.	In fact he's uses this language --
MR. POLLICINO:	That's why I raised it.	I
don't like the word.
MR. CLARK:	A couple of times in the letter he
-- I say "he" because it's Warren Bloom but
Kathy Broker signed it.	So she says that the
bondholders did all these wonderful things for you
and that they paid it with their own money, the
bondholders own money.	That's the way that they
view the monies that sit in the hands of the

trustee.	But it's not their money.	It's, you
issued bonds and you're obligated to pay it back.
So it's your money.	It's just like borrowing money
from a bank.	When you borrow money from a bank,
it's not the bank's money.	It's your money, but you
have to pay it back.
And so that's the argument that they're making
that it's a windfall.	So we covered all these
obligations for you and we worked so well and have
been so cooperative with you that it would be a
windfall for you to walk away with a check for a
million one eighty-five.
And it's simply not true because the reserve
account money is your money.	I mean, if you
default, if you don't pay your interest, then they
get to take it, but you paid your interest.
MR. POLLICINO:	It's semantics.	In prepping
for the mediation, you know, I mean, I'm sure we'll
be able to rebut the windfall argument.	Depending
on how you spin it, it could be presented in a
compelling way, right, to a mediator.	It's like,
yeah, guys, this is a windfall, right.	It's not --
but I see your point.
MR. HARRAH:	That's what I was wondering too.
I mean, do they have the opportunity to ask us, what

are you going to do with the money when we give it
to you?	Is it, you know, a luxury pool, which they
consider may be a windfall as a mediator?	We're
going to take --
MS. DRISCOLL:	Is that income consequential?
What is going to be done with the money?
MR. HARRAH:	I just don't know how that plays
with the mediator.
MS. DRISCOLL:	True.
MR. HARRAH:	If we said, "No, we wanted to pay
down our debt," that's what we would've done if we'd
had the money up front.	We would've had less
interest over time.
MR. CLARK:	I think the best answer to that
question is no, we want to be in the situation that
we should have started in.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Exactly.
(Simultaneous cross talk.)
MR. CLARK:	We pay our debt down and lessen the
obligation of our residents.
MR. HARRAH:	That's not cash windfall.	That's
what we're owed.
MS. DRISCOLL:	That's not a windfall.	Exactly.
MR. BROWNLEE:	The residents are going to be
funding our reserve going forward, and if we're able

to reduce that to them, we're more or less refunding
the money to the residents that are still here.
MR. POLLICINO:	There's really two components,
right, of my approach at the mediation.	It's what's
owed in the agreement, right, or what we understood
was forgiven, the 1.1 under the contract that went
back and forth with the bondholders, and two, what
you spoke about with Chris Kind is the detrimental
reliance of the CDD on what we did with that letter,
talked about the refinancing, the increased interest
rates, right, the market conditions changed
significantly over that summer where --
MS. DRISCOLL:	Because we had to push off on
the vote because of that.
MR. POLLICINO:	Right.	The rates were going
up.	There was a lot of missed opportunities and of
course the punitive, right?	So if we can convince
the -- well, not so much the mediator but if we can
convince the other side that there's risk if they
don't settle, that we can be successful in punitive
damages, you know, that's good for us.
But, you know, speaking with Scott he can
expand upon this, you know, the way the dealings go
down, I have a feeling there's no way the gentleman
-- what's the gentleman's name that wrote the letter

that we were going to depose?
MR. CLARK:	Warren Bloom.
MR. POLLICINO:	Warren Bloom.
-- wants to come in and answer question with
Scott for, you know, six hours under oath and put
letters in front of him.	So it's very challenging
for them.
MR. CLARK:	They have actually got a really
sensitive problem because Julio Aponte wrote the
letter at the urging of the bondholders, essentially
saying, "We will forgive the interest."
I sent a request for admission saying admit
that Julio Aponte had authority to say that on
behalf of the trustee, and they said, no.	Which was
a remarkable position for them to take since
Cathy Broker was copied on the letter and didn't
pick up the phone and say, wait, wait, your -- this
is all wrong.
So I don't know what is going on on there, but
they have been really tight with Greenberg since I
have been doing this stuff.	So that's got my head
spinning, and Julio Aponte, who no longer works at
Greenberg, I think left in unpleasant circumstances.
I don't know that till I take his deposition, but
he's the first deposition.	I'm really trying to see

if we can do that before mediation, but they'll
stall that off I'm pretty sure.
MR. DENAGY:	Scott, what about the bondholder
or holders?	They have the vested interest in this.
MR. CLARK:	It's interesting because I have had
a couple of conversations with an attorney in New
York City who has been hired by Goldman to deal with
my document request, and we talked recently about
the documents and, you know, resolved some issues or
I thought, but I still haven't seen the documents.
And she said, "Hey, I may be talking out of
school here because it's not my case, but why hasn't
this matter settled?	I thought we made a pretty
robust settlement offer."
And I said, "Robust is in the eye of beholder.
It was real money, but it obviously wasn't robust
enough.	And I said that and you guys quit
negotiating so we filed suit."
That's where we are.
MR. POLLICINO:	My last question that I have,
and again, if I'm off base, just tell me, but I'm
just reflecting on my insurance litigation
experience.	In insurance we are allowed to make a
mistake.	If one of my adjusters sends out a letter
and it's incorrect or they made a mistake, hey, this

claim is covered, turns out not to be covered, we
could retract the mistake, but we have to make good
on the error that we made.
So if you strip away all the legalities of this
issue, if they come in to the mediator, "You know
what, we made a mistake.	We didn't mean to issue
that letter.	It was confusion.	We're sorry.	It's
clearly a mistake."
How does Florida case law respond to if they
step away and say, "Yep, you're absolutely right.
We screwed up.	We made a mistake.	We will offer
you a couple of hundred dollars for your trouble,
but that letter should have never been issued"?
MR. CLARK:	Okay.	So here in legal theories,
because complaints deal with different legal
theories so I could use several.	One of them is
fraud, which is a lie.	It was intentional on your
part.
Another one is called negligent
misrepresentation, and that's the mistake thing.	So
it says even if that was a mistake, even if you said
it and you didn't mean to say it, or you were
careless saying it, we still relied on it.	I mean
once we have relied on it, then you can't take it
back.

And the other theory is something called
promissory estoppel, which says you promised to do
something, and we relied on it.	And you did.	You
as a District made a lot of concessions to get this
stuff done.	You gave up, I think it was four years
of O&M on this property just to get it done.	And
you gave up a lot of money out of your reserve
account that could have been used to redeem bonds.
And so in my mind, no, legally they don't get
to say no harm no foul --
MS. DRISCOLL:	That they made a mistake.
MR. CLARK:	-- because there's harm.
MR. POLLICINO:	Right.	My point is if they
say, "Yes, we made a mistake.	We're not paying you
back 1.1 million but we will pay your detrimental
reliance cost.	Tell us what they are," is there any
way they could successfully disengage the 1.1, say
that was mistake, sorry about that, but we will pay
your detrimental reliance on the demand letter?
MR. CLARK:	My answer to that is when people
make mistakes, they own up to them and instead of
that, they have stalled us on getting basic answers
for almost a couple of years now.	I mean, it's been
a couple of years since the transaction closed.
They sent him an e-mail and said, "This is none of

your business basically.	This is a private
transaction.	You're not a party to it."
So it's hard to come back -- it's like all the
stuff in the news with the sexual harassment.
People now come out and say, I really regret that.
That's not who I am.
Well, yeah, it is who you are.	You got caught.
So now you feel bad about it.	That's my take on it.
You got caught.	You were counting on us not filing
this lawsuit, and we did.	So now you're going to
have to react to it.
MR. POLLICINO:	Yeah.	I just want to make it
impenetrable from our perspective that they don't
come back and play that later, that, yeah, my bad.
MR. CLARK:	Our mediator is a sharp guy.	I
don't think he's going to let that --
MR. BROWNLEE:	Do we know who the mediator is
going to be?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	He's a guy name Jay Cohen
and is considered the very best in the Orlando
marketplace and beyond.	He's got a pretty good
success rate, and he carries himself in a way that
you're just not going to BS him.	He's not going to
put up with it.
MR. BROWNLEE:	Do we have to abide by what the

mediator says?
MR. CLARK:	No.	No.	Mediation -- and I should
have explained it better.	It's a purely voluntary
thing.	He's going to try to work both parties
because that's his job.	So he's going to go in
between rooms.	He's going to tell them, you really
have a problem here.	And he's going to come tell us
that we have a problem.	Because his job is to move
the parties together.
MS. DRISCOLL:	So it doesn't go to court.
MR. CLARK:	But at any time in the process, we
can say, no, we're not going to move from where we
are.	And then it's over.
MR. DENAGY:	Scott, what's the best case
scenario we can hope for in the mediation?	What is
our hope to achieve in January.
MR. CLARK:	By putting more on the table, I
want to put them more in a mood where they will give
the whole million one eighty-five back or something
closer to that.	I think we'd be naive to think that
we will walk out of that meeting with the whole
thing without compromising somewhat.	Because if
people are going to pay what's their worst day in
court, they will just go to court.	So they are
looking for something less than that, which is why

I'm trying to --
MR. POLLICINO:	Raise the middle.
(Simultaneous cross talk.)
MR. CLARK:	--make them think that their worse
day may be two million.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Got it.
MR. BROWNLEE:	How soon can we do that?
MR. CLARK:	That will be done before the
mediation.	I'm working on it right now.
MR. BROWNLEE:	An amended complaint?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	I've already got it in
draft --
MS. DRISCOLL:	And they can't push back the
mediation from that?	After they get the amended
complaint can they request...
MR. CLARK:	They can try.	They can file any
motion that they want to.	They threatened to and
they haven't yet but they could use that as an
excuse to do it, but I don't think the judge will
like that.
MR. DENAGY:	Can the mediation be continued?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	And that actually happens
frequently.	If you're making progress but you just
can't get there, a lot of cases settle after
mediation is over.	More settle after mediation than

at mediation because a negotiation doesn't really
get good till somebody walks out in my opinion.
Especially on something this big.
MR. HARRAH:	Real quick, let me ask you:	In
all the research you've done, this 1185, you haven't
found anything that we have sent via e-mail,
letters, that says the District forgoes the $1.1
million?	There's nothing crystal clear on their
part that they can come after us?
MR. CLARK:	I haven't seen it.
MR. HARRAH:	You haven't seen e-mails, letters,
nothing?
MR. CLARK:	I think that they would've been
more eager to give that to me.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Because it would've ended
everything in the beginning.
MR. HARRAH:	And then number two, for the stuff
you've requested in discovery, what's the deal with
that if you don't get it?	I mean, what is your next
-- you're probably not going to get it before
mediation because they don't want -- it will weaken
the case for them, right?
MR. CLARK:	Well, let me back up.
MR. HARRAH:	Because a smoking gun sounds like
it's out there.	It's just getting it.

MR. CLARK:	Here's their excuse.	They said,
"You've requested more than a million documents, and
it's just too much.	And if you want that much, then
you need to bear part of the cost."
And so I said, "Give me your spreadsheet that
shows the documents."	So we have been talking about
that.	So it turns out that the million documents is
everything that eight different people have on their
computers.
So I said, "Did you insert the word Durbin as a
filter?"
"No, we didn't do that."
Okay.	Well, that was kind of obvious.	So that
suddenly came down from a million-something to
42,000 documents.	And I said, "Well, that's
manageable.	Give me those 42,000 documents."
And I filed a motion that said, "Judge, they
are stalling."
And we're required to try to work it out, and
we worked on that last week.	And by the end of last
week, they were to have an answer, and it's now
Monday of this week.	So in the morning, I plan to
file that, and I have told them that, unless we have
a satisfactory answer, I'm going to file it and set
it for hearing.

They probably don't really want that.	It
doesn't look good for them to go to the judge and
for me to be saying, "But they haven't even given us
one, and we're coming on four months for this
request, and surely they could've found one document
that was relevant to this to give to me and they
haven't."
So it's a game.
MR. HARRAH:	So what's the judge's play if they
keep stalling to provide it?	Can he -- what
latitude does he have to force --
MR. CLARK:	Order them to do it, sanction them,
make them pay our attorney fees for having to bring
the matter before the Court.	But worse than that is
your reputation.	The progress of a case is really a
relationship between the attorney'sand the judge.
So part of the way you win a case is by making the
judge like both your position and the way that you
put it forward.	And so if they come in and are just
being obstinate, that doesn't help them very much.
MR. HARRAH:	My last question, sounds like you
have dealt with U.S. Bank in the past.	You've had
other --
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	I have been doing bond
defaults since 2001.

MR. HARRAH:	Crystal ball, how does this play
out in January?	I'm just trying to see where do you
think it's going to come to?
MR. CLARK:	I think they will move north of the
600.	I don't know how far north.	Before we filed
this, I think we wanted to be around nine
thereabouts.	And now you have spent money, and I
don't know if that's a good number anymore but
that's part of what we're here to talk about.
MR. HARRAH:	And that's what I was going to get
at.	I mean, do we need to give the chairman our
opinions of what that value is?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	He needs to know -- although
we're not going to vote on it --
MS. DRISCOLL:	It's a matter of opinion.
MR. CLARK:	-- it's not binding.	It's just
discussion, but I think he needs to have some idea
of a range.
MR. HARRAH:	And for the 900, I mean, as you
say it's almost like back and forth horse trading
between the rooms, I mean, could it be as much as
900 plus our attorney fees?	Would the mediator look
favorably on that?
MR. CLARK:	They won't quantify it that way.
MR. HARRAH:	But we will have that value of

attorney fees to date that we can bring into the
discussion?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	When we start the mediator
says -- looks at me and says, "What do you want?"
And I will have a sheet or PowerPoint or however I
present it.	And say:	Well, here is what we think
we're entitled to."
And that number is going to be a high number.
We're going to through all the stuff -- like when
you buy a car, throw some dealer fee --
MS. DRISCOLL:	And you're going to go with the
punitive damages as well as part of all of that too?
MR. POLLICINO:	I think the level of
sophistication -- I mean, my opinion, you know, the
settlement point with the mediator -- says, listen,
we're on the board.	We volunteer.	We represent the
residents.	We've been taken advantage by a
multinational corporation, right, that's strong
arming us in this situation where we're just looking
out for the best interest of our residents.	And,
you know, we relied on the information that was
provided to us.	Our residents were hurt by it.
Here's how much they were hurt by it.	And, yeah,
1.1 is great starting point, but these are real
damages --

MR. HARRAH:	That would be good to know --
MR. POLLICINO:	-- to report to the mediator.
Listen, these are real residents, real people --
MR. HARRAH:	Well, how much does the 1.1 equate
to per resident?	That would be interesting to know.
To put it in perspective, look, this is how much
each resident is out because of this.
MS. DRISCOLL:	But it's more than that now
because there's also the attorney'sfees, and it's
also the other damages --
MR. HARRAH:	That's what I'm saying.
MS. DRISCOLL:	-- that we could've refinanced
at a different rate.	So the damages are more than
just the 1.1.
MR. DENAGY:	Scott will Hank be at mediation?
MR. CLARK:	He's got it on his calendar.	I
don't want to have him there as window dressing
because he charges money, but he's working on trying
to quantify these damages.	And if he's in a place
where I think he's ready to do that, then it's
valuable to have him present the number instead of
me.
MS. GABLE-HALL:	How many homes do we have? 24	2100?
25	MR. HARRAH:	Let me ask you this then, Scott:

Let's assume we go to mediation.	Peter, you guys go
back and forth and ultimately at the end of the day
agree to disagree, we can't come to a fair price,
walk me through hearing dates -- I mean, how long of
a timeline are we looking to be in front of a judge?
Will the judge ask you to go back to mediation again
or something.
MR. CLARK:	She can.	That doesn't usually
happen but she can.	Our timeline right now is
looking for a court date toward the end of next
year.	There is noise that the judge assignments are
going to shift and the court divisions are going to
shift a little bit January 1st.	And I'm almost
certain it's going to push us back.
MR. HARRAH:	So at least a year before we get
in front the judge then?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	It will be more than a year.
MR. HARRAH:	So that's what I'm looking at.	I
don't know what our monthly rate is or what we're
spending, but, I mean, if it stretches out for
another year, I mean, it has to come into the
account of reducing from the 900 or whatever that
value is.
MR. POLLICINO:	That would be their strategy,
right?

MS. DRISCOLL:	Well, it is their strategy.	He
already just said that that's been their strategy
before.
MR. POLLICINO:	No.	It's a good strategy then,
right?
MR. HARRAH:	I deal with it every day.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Yeah, it's a great strategy.
MR. POLLICINO:	If I were them, I would be
doing the same thing.
MR. HARRAH:	They're paying hourly fees to some
law firm too, right?	I mean they got a firm on the
books that say in house U.S. Bank attorneys.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Yeah.	That's what I thought it
would be.
(Simultaneous cross talk.)
MS. DRISCOLL:	Peter, have you thought, like,
of a number in your head at this point in time?
MR. POLLICINO:	It's so hard.	You know, you
guys know me.	I won't leave a penny on the table,
but I think it really just comes down to how
compelling the opening argument is and the reaction
of the mediators to the opening argument.	Like
Scott says, I have been to thousands of these
mediations.	He's exactly right.	They're going to
come back.	They're going to beat us up.	Right?

And say, you guys are going to lose.	And then
they'll go back to them and say, you guys are going
to lose.
It really comes just down to how willing they
are and if we're ready to go.
MR. HARRAH:	And I understand that from the
aspect of the 1.1 to 1.7 whatever that 500 delta we
add to that is --
MS. DRISCOLL:	Right.
MR. HARRAH:	I understand that.	The mediator
to think that we should agree to anything less than
exactly -- I mean, it's down to the penny.	We're
talking .98 is an exact amount.	So that -- we think
we owe less than that --
MS. DRISCOLL:	We're owed less than that.
That's my thought process.
MR. POLLICINO:	It's going back to what we said
before.	They're going to come back and be like, "We
made a mistake.	We didn't mean it.	The letter was
sent erroneously," you know, "but I'll tell you
what, we'll give you 900 grand."
MS. DRISCOLL:	Well, if the letter was sent
erroneously, then at some point in time there
should've been an e-mail back saying, my mistake on
the previous e-mail.

MR. POLLICINO:	All stuff -- hopefully the
mediator is sharp enough and say, "Look guys, this
is the starting point."
MR. CLARK:	The mediator is going to -- he's
going to listen to a little bit of that, and he's
going to say, you know, "You're talking to the wrong
guy.	If you want to argue with each other, then
schedule a hearing and go argue in front of the
judge.	I'm just here to see if you want to settle
the case.	Don't tell me how badly you're going to
beat them up.	Tell me what you want to do today."
MR. POLLICINO:	His argument is going to be
like, your day in court is coming.	Right.	Come up
with a number you can both hate basically, right?
That's what it comes down to.
MR. HARRAH:	And that's what it is.	The 1.7
number or whatever we come up with, that's our
18	January 2019 court date number.	Right?	But our
mediation in January 2018 number is we simply want
our money back.	That's it.	We're not asking for a
dollar more.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Right.	But I think you go into
it with the larger amount and then the negotiating
power, this is what we want.	We want some money
back, to the penny, that amount.

MS. GABLE-HALL:	Why can't you just say pay
that amount in January or we want this amount the
following January.
MR. POLLICINO:	That's the plan.
MR. CLARK:	That's what we're saying.
MR. POLLICINO:	I have been to a number of
these.	They are not going to offer the 1.1 out of
the gate.
MS. DRISCOLL:	No way.	Why would they?	It's
like going to buy a car.
MR. HARRAH:	How much would you presume
attorney fees we would incur between now and January
2019, just ballpark?	If we wanted to come off the
1.1 and reduce by that amount attorney fees, 15	100,000 --
MR. CLARK:	I think you're going to pay about
ten thousand a month until you get close to trial.
When you start preparing for trial, then those
numbers just -- you've seen it before --
MR. HARRAH:	Yeah.
MR. CLARK:	-- they exponentially --
MR. POLLICINO:	The worst thing that can happen
in this case is we stonewall, we stonewall, the day
of trial, Scott give us a call and says, "Hey, you
know, they're offering 975 to settle, and I think we

should take it because X, Y, and Z."	We'll we
could've got a 975 a year earlier without spelling
100 grand in legal fees.	So we just have to be
smart about it.
MR. CLARK:	There was a speech that I always
give because it's remarkable how many cases settle
on the court steps for the last number that was on
the table at the mediation.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Absolutely.
MR. CLARK:	It's remarkable how much it happens
except that now it's not as good a number because
you've spent a lot more.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Because you've spent money
getting to that number.
MR. HARRAH:	Okay.	So the 1185 -- if you take
150,000 that's projected to spend, we're right at
million bucks even.	So I think 900 is still a valid
number.	I can't imagine -- if we could spend
$150,000 and go to court and if we would do that, do
you think based on your experience, would the 1.1 be
a settlement or do you think we would get somewhere
between 1.1 and 1.7 if we held out till January '19?
MR. CLARK:	The key to that will be --
MR. HARRAH:	I'm just trying to see where we
stand.

MR. CLARK:	-- the key to that will be whether
we can make the punitive damages claims stick.	Here
is why I say that:	In Florida you can't -- you have
to get permission from the Court after a hearing to
seek punitive damages.	Okay.	So in the amended
complaint, all the magic words will be in there, but
there's a point in which you go to a hearing and
present some of the evidence that you found and say,
"Judge, this is why we think we're entitled the
punitive damages because what they have done is not
just wrong it's outrageous, it shocks the conscious
so much that they should be punished for doing
this."
MR. HARRAH:	I mean, if they come back with a
600, 700, I mean, do you have a number that you
would advise Peter that you feel comfortable with
that you think -- based on everything that's
forecasted to go on, that you feel that would be a
good number?
MR. CLARK:	I think my thought is the 900 to a
million range.

22	MS.	DRISCOLL:	Yeah.	That's exactly what I was	
23	thinking	too.	
24	MR.	HARRAH:	That's my thought.	It really is.	
25	MR.	POLLICINO:	I'm there.	

MR. HARRAH:	I think the 900 -- I would --
anything less -- 6- 700,000, I would rather spend
150 and take it court in January of '19.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Because now you're looking
double of that in January.	I agree with that.
MR. POLLICINO:	We have to feel out the
mediator.	It's hard to assess until you go in there
because, I mean, you know, we can make an extremely
compelling argument, and if the mediator is as good
as he claims to be --
MR. HARRAH:	They still have to agree.
MR. POLLICINO:	We can still make an argument
that, look, you may pay a couple bucks more than the
base demand, but you're putting it away.	And the
CDD has a really good argument to make against
punitive damages and detrimental reliance but it
just depends.
MR. BROWNLEE:	The amended complaint is going
to include the punitive damages, which may be touch
and go at this point, but it also includes the money
that they spent out of the reserve, which is very
clear in my opinion --
MS. DRISCOLL:	Correct.	Wrongdoing.
MR. BROWNLEE:	-- so I don't think we should
just write that off.

MR. CLARK:	What's not clear is that I have not
quantified that because I lack some of the records
that I should have by now, but it's pretty clear to
me that they have overstepped what we agreed by a
few hundred thousand dollars.
MR. BROWNLEE:	It's more than that --
MS. DRISCOLL:	Oh, it is way more.
MR. HARRAH:	We keep saying the word "punitive
damages" for the additional 500, but really this
1185 is wrong.	Do you know what I mean,
theoretically?
MR. BROWNLEE:	Well, if the 500 is punitive.
We're talking about something different here.
Totally different.	This is money that came out of
the reserve.
MR. HARRAH:	Oh, I thought you were talking
with everything else you would add another 500 to 18	the 1.1.
MR. CLARK:	No.	That's the money from the
reserve when I say 500.
MS. GABLE-HALL:	What money came out of the
reserve?
MS. DRISCOLL:	They used money out of the
reserve to compensate Lerner --
MS. GABLE-HALL:	Oh, that's what that statement

was?
MR. BROWNLEE:	It was used inappropriately.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Inappropriately to pay bills.
MS. GABLE-HALL:	So that's what that statement
was, right?
MR. BROWNLEE:	That should be in my opinion
included in the 185.	Maybe not the 500, but if we
say 900, then we're foregoing a million four.
MR. HARRAH:	Yeah.	And just real quick I want
to ask you is there was letters signed, money
released, I mean, in my profession, professional
licensure, broker, licensure whatever, is there
something else into this that was mishandled that
will be discussed or is that -- you know what I
mean?	It sounds like you kept using the word
"fraudulent."	When I send a wire of money to
someone else, I have to make damn sure that
everything is straight before I do it or I could
lose my license.
MR. CLARK:	I think they're breaking their
promise on the million one eighty-five is
fraudulent.	That's my analysis.
The other stuff is the cowboy mentality that
U.S. Bank and bondholders have in every one of these
deals and I have seen it over and over again, as

soon as they get involved with their default
department, they think the money is all theirs, and
they spend it the way they want to spend it.	That's
what the Fiddler's Creek litigation is all about
because they just started bleeding money that was in
a construction account and paying trustees and
paying attorneys, and it got to be a couple million
dollars and the CDD sued them.	Nobody had ever done
that before.
MR. DENAGY:	Scott, what do you need from the
Board tonight to direct Peter at the mediation.
MR. CLARK:	I think Peter needs a range and
there are a couple of different opinions I have
heard, and one is if we get 900, let's put it in the
bank and go.	And then there's the thought of why
settle for that if it's more than that?
MR. HARRAH:	Do you just want to go through
each one of us and try to get a consensus?	Or how
do you want to do it?
MR. CLARK:	I think so.	Let me say this first:
You will not walk out of that mediation with more
than a million one eighty-five.
MR. HARRAH:	I absolutely agree.
MR. CLARK:	That's not going to happen.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Why would they?	Yeah.	I get

that.
MR. CLARK:	They don't have incentive to cave
in that much.	Can we push the 900 to a million, a
million fifty?	I don't know.	We will see how good
a job I do, I guess.
I think you need to give him some authority so
he can make an assessment kind of on the ground
watching the interaction, which you're not going to
have the benefit of, and say I think 900 is the best
we're going to do.	And then have the ability -- if
that's what he thinks -- to come back to you and
say, I think we are going to settle for 900 now, or
we're going to go another year with this and spend
more money.
You can still reject it at that time.	It will
still be your decision when a vote is taken to say,
"No, I really like a million two or a million
three."
But I think you do need to give him a floor so
that we can try to get something done.
MS. DRISCOLL:	I would like to see nine or
better.	I mean, I trust your judgment based on how
the circumstances go and how the mediation goes, and
if it's below that, I know it would be close.	But I
know how you negotiate, so -- I mean, I would like

to get the full amount, but you go the route you
need to go.
MR. BROWNLEE:	I don't think 900 is enough.	I
don't think we should settle for 900.	In my
opinion, we shouldn't settle for anything else less
than a million based on what I've heard tonight.
MR. HARRAH:	Mine is based on litigation that
I've been through and how this could get extended,
my number is 800 or above, Peter, based on what I
think.
MR. POLLICINO:	Okay.
MS. GABLE-HALL:	I mean, I don't want to drag
it out because it's going to rack up fees.	So I
would say nine or better.
MR. POLLICINO:	Okay.	Like I said, I will do
my best.	Just the expectation is they're not going
give us punitive damages in mediation.
MS. DRISCOLL:	Absolutely not.	They're going
to want that to go to court.
MR. POLLICINO:	They'll be like, "We're not
going to give punitive until the judge or a jury
tells us we have to."
MR. BROWNLEE:	Clark, can you get back to us
with that other number that you said you need to
finish some calculations on as far as --

MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	It's not going to be
tomorrow but I can -- before we go to mediation --
MR. BROWNLEE:	Sometime in early January?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.
MR. HARRAH:	Do you want these back today?
MR. CLARK:	Yeah.	I'm glad you mentioned that.
I don't want you to walk out of here with anything
that becomes a public record.
MR. HARRAH:	I just want to say I appreciate
everything you have done --
MS. DRISCOLL:	I agree.
MR. POLLICINO:	Yep.	Good work.
MR. HARRAH:	-- great work so far.
MS. DRISCOLL:	You even uncovered more than we
asked.	Do you recall the date as January 6 for
that?
MR. CLARK:	17th.
MR. BROWNLEE:	Do we call this meeting over or
do we just go back in there?
MR. CLARK:	What we do is on this record, we'll
indicate the time and indicate that we are
adjourning the shade meeting.
This will be transcribed, and if you would send
it to me in the ordinary course.	No rush on that.
It will be sealed in my files until this litigation

is over.	So until then, everything that we've said
will be confidential, but it will become part of the
District's record.
And so indicate that it's 6:03, 59 minutes.	A
good productive session and we will recess the shade
meeting at this time and the board will reconvene.
(This proceeding was concluded at 6:03 p.m.) 8		******
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1	CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
STATE OF FLORIDA	) 3	)
COUNTY OF ST. JOHNS	)
4
5
I, Stacia A. Harper, FPR, Notary Public, State of
Florida, I was authorized to and did stenographically
report the foregoing proceedings; and that the
transcript, pages 3 through 49, is a true and accurate
record of my stenographic notes.
11
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, or
employee, or attorney, or counsel of any of the parties,
nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'
attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I
financially interested in the action.
Dated this 28th day of December, 2017.
18
19
20
21	STACIA A. HARPER, FPR 22
23
24
25

$

$1.1  18:12 29:7
$150,000 40:19
$2,600,000 13:5	2001 31:25
2005A 10:11 13:1,7
2006 12:14,22
2015 6:18
2016 7:12	
9

900 32:19,22 35:22
37:21 40:17 41:20
42:1 44:8 45:14
46:3,9,12 47:3,4	
$50,000 12:11	2017 9:22	975 39:25 40:2	
$600,000 16:6	2018 38:19	98 37:13	
 	
-

--make 28:4

1

1,185,043.98 7:10,
20
1,500 16:16
1.1 21:6 25:15,17
33:24 34:4,14 37:7
39:7,14 40:20,22
43:18
1.7 37:7 38:16 40:22
100 40:3
100,000 39:15
1185 29:5 40:15
43:10
119 6:5
14th 7:8
15 6:17
150 42:3
150,000 40:16
17th 48:17
185 44:7
19 40:22 42:3
1st 35:13
 	
2

2.5 13:14
20 9:22
20,000 6:14	2019 38:18 39:13
2100 34:24
261,000 12:14
 	3 3 10:9
348,000 12:13
367,000 12:5

4

42,000 30:15,16
 	
5

500 37:7 43:9,12,17,
20 44:7
59 49:4
5:04 3:2

6

6 48:15
6- 42:2
600 32:5 41:15
6:03 49:4,7
 	
7
 	
700 41:15
700,000 42:2
 	8 800 47:9	 	
A

abide 26:25
ability 46:10
absolutely 24:10
40:9 45:23 47:18
absorb 13:2,4
accomplish 4:25
15:22
accordance 15:2
account 12:6,15
13:6,8,10,15 14:7
19:14 25:8 35:22
45:6
accrued 7:24
achieve 27:16
acquire 13:17
add 14:15 37:8 43:17
addition 5:12 13:21
additional 14:16
43:9
adjourning 48:22
adjusters 23:24
admission 22:12
admit 22:12
advantage 33:17
advise 41:16
agree 35:3 37:11
42:5,11 45:23 48:11
agreed 12:17,20,24
13:1,4,13,21 14:3,8
43:4	

agreement 6:10 8:4
14:23,24 15:4 21:5

ahead 9:6 15:16
Akerman 17:6
alleged 5:12
allowed 4:16 15:6
23:23
amended 11:4 14:14
28:10,14 41:5 42:18
amendments 5:22
 	
13:14
amount 5:15,23

10:18 16:5 37:13
38:23,25 39:2,14

47:1
analysis 5:17 44:22
answers 25:22
anticipated 7:19

anymore 32:8

apologize 11:24
Aponte 22:9,13,22
appoint 4:18
appointed 4:10
Apponte 7:25
approach 21:4
argue 38:7,8
argument 19:7,19
36:21,22 38:12 42:9,
12,15

arguments 18:10
arming 33:19
aspect 37:7
assess 42:7
assessment 10:18
46:7
assessments 10:16
assignments 35:11
Associates 6:7

assume 35:1
assurances 11:15,16

attached 9:25
attorney 7:25 11:13,
17 23:6 31:13 32:22
33:1 39:12,14
attorney's 17:20
attorney'sand
31:16
attorney'sare 17:4,
8,10
attorney'sfee 14:23
attorney'sfees
14:20 15:7,8 34:9
attorney' spotentially 17:5
attorneys 15:11
36:12 45:7
authority 8:11 9:15
22:13 46:6

B

back 9:9,20 15:14,15
19:2,6 21:7 24:25
25:15 26:3,14 27:19
28:13 29:23 32:20
35:2,6,14 36:25
37:2,17,18,24 38:20,
25 41:14 46:11
47:23 48:5,19
backed 8:9
backup 14:11
bad 26:8,14
badly 38:10
ball 32:1
ballpark 39:13
bank 5:7 11:7 16:11,
15 19:4 31:22 36:12
44:24 45:15
bank's 19:5
base 23:21 42:14
based 40:20 41:17
46:22 47:6,7,9
basic 25:22
basically 10:1 26:1

38:14
basis 17:21
bear 30:4
beat 36:25 38:11
beginning 3:5 29:16
behalf 4:19 8:2
12:16 14:25 22:14
beholder 23:15
benefit 46:9
bidding 11:21

broker 18:21 22:16
44:12
Brownlee  3:10 16:4,
7,23 20:24 26:17,25
28:7,10 42:18,24
43:6,12 44:2,6 47:3,
23 48:3,18
BS 26:23
bucks 40:17 42:13
bunch 9:25
business 6:23 26:1
buy 33:10 39:10

changed 21:11
Chapter 6:5
charges 34:18
cheap 17:8
check 19:11
choose 12:6
Chris 21:8
circled 7:18
circumstances
22:23 46:23

company 6:12
compelling 19:21
36:21 42:9
compensate 43:24
complaint 5:6,9,22
11:5 14:14 28:10,15
41:6 42:18
complaints 24:15
completely 9:12
complex 15:7
components 21:3

corporation 33:18
Correct 42:23
cost  25:16 30:4
costs 17:23
could've 31:5 34:12
40:2
counting 26:9
County 16:13
couple 18:19 23:6
24:12 25:23,24
42:13 45:7,13

big  13:17 29:3	 	

City 23:7

compromising

court 3:4,13,15

bills 13:23,24,25

C	claim 24:1

27:22

16:16 27:10,24

14:4 44:3	 	

claims 41:2 42:10

computers 30:9

31:14 35:10,12

binding 32:16
bit  35:13 38:5
bleeding 45:5
Bloom 10:5 18:20
22:2,3
blown 8:16
blows 8:15
board 3:23 4:21
6:19 33:16 45:11
49:6
bond 7:24 9:5 10:20
14:9 31:24
bondholder 5:9
7:17,23 8:3,8 11:21
23:3
bondholders 6:12
8:2 10:12 12:14,22
13:1 15:1 16:11
18:22,24 21:7 22:10
44:24
bonds 5:14 7:11
10:1 12:2,4 13:7,8
19:2 25:8
books 36:12
borrow 19:4
borrowing 19:3
breaking 44:20
bring  31:13 33:1

calculating 5:17
calculation 9:8,10
calculations 47:25
calendar 34:16
call  9:10 39:24 48:18
called  6:6 10:5 14:1
16:14 24:19 25:1
car 33:10 39:10
careless 24:23
carries 26:22
case 4:15 7:4 16:14
23:12 24:9 27:14
29:22 31:15,17
38:10 39:23
cases  28:24 40:6
cash  10:12 20:21
Cathy 22:16
caught 26:7,9
cave 46:2
CDD 5:7 18:8,13
21:9 42:15 45:8
certificates 13:17
chairman 4:10
32:11
challenging 22:6
change 5:11

Clark 3:1,13,16,19,
22 16:6,10,25 17:6,
8,10,14 18:14,19
20:14,19 22:2,8 23:5
24:14 25:12,20
26:15,19 27:2,11,17
28:4,8,11,16,22
29:10,13,23 30:1
31:12,24 32:4,13,16,
24 33:3 34:16 35:8,
17 38:4 39:5,16,21
40:5,10,23 41:1,20
43:1,19 44:20 45:12,
20,24 46:2 47:23
48:1,4,6,17,20
clause 14:23
clear 8:18 29:8
42:22 43:1,3
close 11:11 39:17
46:24
closed 9:2 25:24
closer 27:20
closing 6:17 7:6
12:12
Cohen 26:19
comfortable 41:16
commission 12:10
communications
8:7
Community 3:3

concerns 18:6
concessions 25:4
concluded 49:7
conditions 21:11
confidential 49:2
confusion 24:7
connection 10:15
conscious 41:11
consensus 45:18
consequential 20:5
considered 26:20
constantly 7:16
construction 45:6
contemplated 7:10
continue 5:4
continued 28:21
contract 14:21 21:6
convening 3:2
conversation 4:24
conversations 6:21
23:6
convince 15:18
21:17,19
cooperative 19:10
copied 22:16

38:13,18 40:7,19
41:4 42:3 47:19
covered 19:8 24:1
cowboy 44:23
created 5:8
credit 10:13
Creek 16:14 45:4
cross 20:18 28:3
36:15
Crossing 3:3 5:7
Crossings 14:2
crystal 29:8 32:1

D

D.R. 10:15 12:16,24
Dady 8:1,10
damages 5:13,17,23
11:2,6 14:15 21:21
33:12,25 34:10,13,
19 41:2,5,10 42:16,
19 43:9 47:17
damn 44:17
Daniel 3:12
date 33:1 35:10
38:18 48:15
dated 9:22
dates 35:4

Dave 3:7 9:24
day 15:10,14 27:23
28:5 35:2 36:6 38:13
39:23
deal  8:4 11:12 12:17,
20 23:7 24:15 29:18
36:6
dealer 33:10

difficult 13:20
dig 15:19
direct 45:11
directed 14:17
directive 17:14
disagree 35:3

32:15 33:11 34:8,12
36:1,7,13,16 37:9,
15,22 38:22 39:9
40:9,13 41:22 42:4,
23 43:7,23 44:3
45:25 46:21 47:18
48:11,14
Durbin 3:2 5:7
30:10

evidence 41:8
exact 37:13
excerpts 6:15
excess 9:5
exchanged 7:22
excuse 28:19 30:1

fight 16:11
file 14:14 28:16
30:23,24
filed 5:6 16:21 23:18
30:17 32:5
files 48:25
filing 26:9

discovered 11:19	 	

expand 21:23

filter 30:11

dealings 21:23
deals 44:25
dealt 31:22
death 16:12
Debbie 3:9
debt 14:7 20:11,19
December 6:17 7:8
decided 7:11 9:11
decision 46:16
deed 13:18
deed's 13:19
deep 17:2,18
default 12:3 19:15
45:1
defaults 31:25
defined 13:16
delay 17:23
delinquent 12:24
delta 37:7
demand 25:19 42:14
denagy 3:7 23:3
27:14 28:21 34:15
45:10
department 45:2
Depending 19:19
depends 42:17
depose 22:1
deposition 22:24,25
detrimental 21:8
25:15,19 42:16
Development 3:3

discovery 6:1 17:11
29:18
discuss 4:21 5:21
discussed 44:14
discussion 32:17
33:2
disengage 25:17
disperse 15:2
district 3:3 10:12
14:25 16:14 25:4
29:7
District's 49:3
divisions 35:12
DOA 13:18
docket 16:17
document 23:8 31:5
documents 5:20
6:13 7:13 8:17,25
23:9,10 30:2,6,7,15,
16
dollar 16:5 38:21
dollars 14:10,12
18:12 24:12 43:5
45:8
doors 11:1
double 42:5
draft 28:12
drafted 10:4
drag 47:12
dressing 34:17
Driscoll  3:9 17:1,3,
7,9,13,19 20:5,9,17,
23 21:13 25:11
27:10 28:6,13 29:15

 	E

e-mail 25:25 29:6
37:24,25
e-mails 7:21 29:11
eager 29:14
earlier 40:2
early 6:4 7:12 8:18
48:3
Eckert 7:21 11:13
eighty-five 5:10
10:13 15:11,12
19:12 27:19 44:21
45:22
employees 17:5
end 5:6 15:13 30:20
35:2,10
ended 29:15
entertain 16:2
entitled 5:13 6:20
33:7 41:9
entity 4:14 5:8 6:6
7:16 8:1 14:2
entries 16:16
equate 34:4
erroneously 37:20,
23
error 24:3
escrow 12:15
essentially 5:9 6:22
14:16 22:10
estate  6:7,11 12:9
estoppel 11:11,12
25:2

expectation 47:16
experience 23:23
40:20
expert 5:16
explain 4:12
explained 27:3
exponentially 39:21
extended 47:8
extent 13:10 15:5
extra 5:15
extremely 42:8
eye 23:15

F

fact 10:17 16:8
18:11,16
fair 35:3
fairly 3:24 12:8
faith 4:18
familiar 6:8
favorably 32:23
fee 12:11,12,23 33:10
feel 26:8 41:16,18
42:6
feeling 21:24
fees  31:13 32:22 33:1
36:10 39:12,14 40:3
47:13
Fiddler's 45:4
Fiddlers 16:14
fifty 46:4

find 16:13
finish 47:25
firm 14:1 36:11
Fishkind 5:16
flavor 7:4
flip 7:6
floor 46:19
Florida 24:9 41:3
folks 8:9
force  17:23 31:11
forecasted 41:18
forecasting 7:16
foregoing 44:8
forgive 9:3,7 10:18
12:8 22:11
forgiven 21:6
forgiveness 5:11
7:10 10:14,16,20
11:10
forgiving 7:20,24
forgoes 29:7
forward 20:25
31:19
foul 25:10
found 29:6 31:5 41:8
fraud 10:22,25
24:17
fraudulent 44:16,22
frequently 28:23
front 12:5 16:21
20:12 22:6 35:5,16
38:8

full 47:1
fully 18:4
funding 20:25
funds 9:5,14 15:20
G GABLE-HALL
3:18,20 34:23 39:1
43:21,25 44:4 47:12
game 31:8
gate 39:8
gave 11:16 25:5,7
generously 12:9
gentleman 21:24
gentleman's 21:25
give  6:4 8:14,20 9:8
11:9 15:14,15 18:8
20:1 27:18 29:14
30:5,16 31:6 32:11
37:21 39:24 40:6
46:6,19 47:17,21
glad 48:6
GMAC 13:18
Goldman 8:8 23:7
good  4:18 8:11 21:21
24:2 26:21 29:2 31:2
32:8 34:1 36:4 40:11
41:19 42:9,15 46:4
48:12 49:5
grand 37:21 40:3
great 33:24 36:7
48:13
greater 5:23
Greenberg 7:7 14:4
22:20,23
ground 46:7
guarantee 8:10
guess 46:5
gun 29:24
guy 26:15,19 38:7
guys 19:22 23:17
35:1 36:19 37:1,2

38:2

H

half 14:10,12 15:15
Hall 3:22
handled 11:21
hands 18:25
Hank 5:16 34:15
happen 35:9 39:22
45:24
happy 17:24
harassment 26:4
hard 8:7 26:3 36:18
42:7
harm 25:10,12
Harper 3:15
Harrah  3:11 19:24
20:7,10,21 29:4,11,
17,24 31:9,21 32:1,
10,19,25 34:1,4,11,
25 35:15,18 36:6,10
37:6,10 38:16 39:11,
20 40:15,24 41:14,
24 42:1,11 43:8,16
44:9 45:17,23 47:7
48:5,9,13
hate 38:14
head  22:21 36:17
heard  9:12 45:14
47:6
hearing 30:25 35:4
38:8 41:4,7
held 18:15 40:22
helps 15:9
hey 23:11,25 39:24
high 33:8
highlighted 7:8,19
10:9 11:23
hire 6:12
hired 23:7
history 16:10

hold 14:24 18:1
holders 23:4
holding 15:12
holdings 5:7 6:5
homes 34:23
hope 5:3 27:15,16
horse 32:20
Horton 10:15 11:12
12:16,19,24
Horton's 12:18
hourly 17:21 36:10
hours 22:5
house 36:12
hundred 24:12 43:5
hurt 33:22,23

I

idea 4:25 8:12 32:17
identify 3:5,14
ignores 9:17
imagine 16:17 40:18
impact 12:23
impenetrable 26:13
important 13:7
impression 8:20
inappropriately
44:2,3
incentive 46:2
include 42:19
included 44:7
includes 42:20
income 20:5
incorrect 23:25
increased 12:25
21:10
incur 17:23 39:12
indenture 9:15,18
13:13 15:3

informal 3:24
information 33:21
insert 30:10
insurance 23:22,23
intended 11:8,9
intention 10:11
intentional 24:17
interaction 46:8
interest 5:11,15
7:11,20,24 9:3,6
10:19,20 11:10 12:7,
16,18,19,24 19:15,16
20:13 21:10 22:11
23:4 33:20
interesting 9:20
23:5 34:5
involved 45:1
issue 12:23 13:19
24:5,6
issued 19:2 24:13
issues 5:18 23:9
item 7:18
items 11:23

J

January 4:9 9:22
27:16 32:2 35:13
38:18,19 39:2,3,12
40:22 42:3,5 48:3,15
Jason 3:11
Jay 26:19
job 27:5,8 46:5
joined 3:23
judge  28:19 30:17
31:2,16,18 35:5,6,
11,16 38:9 41:9
47:21
judge's 31:9
judgment 46:22
Julio 7:25 22:9,13,22
jury 47:21

justified 13:24

K

Kathy 18:21
key 40:23 41:1
kind 6:2 15:21 16:8
21:8 30:13 46:7
knew 7:3 9:21

L

lack 43:2
Lakeland 13:25
language 7:9 18:16
larger 38:23
late 3:20
latitude 31:11
Laughlin 3:12
law  10:22 13:25
14:21 24:9 36:11
lawsuit 26:10
leave 36:19
Lee 16:13
left 12:1 22:23
legal 24:14,15 40:3
legalities 24:4
legally 25:9
Lerner 6:7 7:15 8:1,
9 11:21 12:9 13:24
43:24
Lerner's 13:23
lessen 20:19
letter 7:8 9:22,24,25
10:4 11:11,13 18:9,
19 21:9,25 22:10,16
23:24 24:7,13 25:19
37:19,22
letters 22:6 29:7,11
44:10
level 33:13

license 44:19
licensure 44:12
lie 10:25 24:17
light 5:20
listen 33:15 34:3
38:5
litigation 4:2,7 5:25
15:7 16:10 23:22
45:4 47:7 48:25
long  17:15 35:4
longer 22:22
looked 8:19
lose 37:1,3 44:19
lot  6:13 13:23 14:4,6
15:9,25 17:11 21:16
25:4,7 28:24 40:12
luxury 20:2

meant 7:12 10:21
mediation  4:9 14:13
15:17,23 18:5 19:18
21:4 23:1 27:2,15
28:9,14,21,25 29:1,
21 34:15 35:1,6
38:19 40:8 45:11,21
46:23 47:17 48:2
mediations 36:24
mediator 19:21
20:3,8 21:18 24:5
26:15,17 27:1 32:22
33:3,15 34:2 37:10
38:2,4 42:7,9
mediators 36:22
meeting  3:2 4:10,15
27:21 48:18,22 49:6
meetings 4:2
members 3:23

missed 21:16
mistake 10:24
23:24,25 24:2,6,8,
11,20,21 25:11,14,18
37:19,24
mistakes 25:21
mix 14:15
Monday 30:22
monetary 5:18
money  9:2,4 11:25
12:1,13,22 13:9,11
14:6,8,16 15:2 16:9,
18,20 18:8,15,23,24
19:1,3,4,5,14 20:1,6,
12 21:2 23:16 25:7
32:7 34:18 38:20,24
40:13 42:20 43:14,
19,21,23 44:10,16
45:2,5 46:14

noise 35:11
nonprofit 17:17
north 32:4,5
note 3:1
number 8:5 14:9
29:17 32:8 33:8
34:21 36:17 38:14,
17,18,19 39:6 40:7,
11,14,18 41:15,19
47:9,24
numbers 39:19
O O&m  13:23 25:6
oath 22:5
obligated 19:2
obligation 20:20

owe 16:8 37:14
owed 20:22 21:5
37:15

P

p.m. 49:7 package 9:22 pages 6:14
paid 12:9,19,23
13:23,25 14:4 18:23
19:16
parameters 5:1
part  10:11 15:13
24:18 29:9 30:4
31:17 32:9 33:12
49:2
partially 12:7

 		mentality 44:23
 	M	mentioned 48:6

monies 9:14,16
11:22 12:11 13:21
18:25

obligations 19:9
obstinate 31:20

parties 6:2 7:22
27:4,9
party 3:20 26:2

Madam 3:13
made 5:3 9:7 18:9
23:13,25 24:3,6,11
25:4,11,14 37:19
magic 41:6
make  5:22 16:4
17:14,15 18:10
23:23 24:2 25:21
26:12 31:13 41:2
42:8,12,15 44:17
46:7
making 19:7 28:23
31:17
manageable 30:16
managed 9:6
management 6:11
manager  6:21 9:24
March 5:6
market 21:11
marketplace 26:21
matter 4:4 23:13
31:14 32:15

message 6:25
middle 28:2
Mike 7:21 8:1,10
million 5:10 10:13
13:14 14:10,12
15:10,12 18:12
19:12 25:15 27:19
28:5 29:8 30:2,7
40:17 41:21 44:8,21
45:7,22 46:3,4,17
47:6
million-something
30:14
mind 11:25 25:9
Mine 47:7
minute 5:21 7:6
15:25
minutes 4:7 49:4
misappropriated
14:17
mishandled 44:13
misrepresentation
24:20

month 39:17
monthly 35:19
months 31:4
mood 27:18
morning 30:22
motion 28:17 30:17
move 27:8,12 32:4
multinational
33:18
Myers 14:1

N

naive 27:20
needed 11:11
negligent 24:19
negotiate 4:18 46:25
negotiating 4:11
23:18 38:23
negotiation 29:1
news 26:4

obvious 30:13
offer 16:4,6,7,20
23:14 24:11 39:7
offering 39:25
online 16:17
open  8:15,16 11:1
opening 36:21,22
opinion 8:14,24 9:1
29:2 32:15 33:14
42:22 44:6 47:5
opinions 32:12
45:13
opportunities 21:16
opportunity 19:25
Order 31:12
ordinary 48:24
Orlando 26:20
outfit 6:6
outrageous 41:11
outspend 16:12
overstepped 43:4

pass 5:2
passed 5:5 12:21
past 7:6 31:22
pay  9:6 12:1,3,7,12,
13,15,18,25 13:3,9,
22 15:11,19 16:22
19:2,6,15 20:10,19
25:15,18 27:23
31:13 39:1,16 42:13
44:3
paying 5:14 25:14
36:10 45:6,7
payments 9:5
penny 36:19 37:12
38:25
people 25:20 26:5
27:23 30:8 34:3
perform 11:18
permission 8:13
41:4
perspective 26:13
34:6
Peter 3:8 35:1 36:16

41:16 45:11,12 47:9
Peterson 14:1
phone 4:6 22:17
pick 22:17
place 14:18 34:19
plan 30:22 39:4
play 26:14 31:9 32:1

price 13:1 35:3
primarily 6:6 8:8
primary 4:8
prior 14:13
private 6:22 26:1
problem 10:2 22:9
27:7,8

push 21:13 28:13
35:14 46:3
put 7:18 12:5 17:25
22:5 26:24 27:18
31:19 34:6 45:14
putting 15:8 27:17
42:14

Q

recently 23:8
recess 49:5
recognized 10:6
reconvene 49:6
record 3:4 6:5 48:8,
20 49:3
records 43:2

report 4:3 34:2
reporter 3:4,14,15
represent 33:16
representative 4:11
reputation 31:15
request  6:5 22:12
23:8 28:15 31:5

plays 20:7

problems 11:20	 	

recover 14:20 15:6

requested 29:18

pockets 15:19 17:2,
18
point 16:5 19:23
25:13 33:15,24
36:17 37:23 38:3
41:7 42:20
points 18:9
Pollicino 3:8 17:2,
17,20 18:17 19:17

proceeding 49:7
proceeds 11:25
12:13
process 4:17 6:1
27:11 37:16
productive 49:5
profession 44:11
professional 44:11

quantified 43:2
quantify 32:24
34:19
question 20:15 22:4
23:20 31:21
questions 4:1 16:1,2
quick 29:4 44:9
quit 15:24 23:17

recovery 5:10 13:20
redeem 13:17 25:8
reduce 21:1 39:14
reduced 14:9
reducing 35:22
refer 5:3
refinanced 34:12

30:2
requesting 14:11
required 30:19
research 29:5
reserve 12:6 13:6,8,
10,15 14:7 19:13
20:25 25:7 42:21
43:15,20,22,24
resident 34:5,7

21:3,15 22:3 23:20

progress  3:23 4:3	 	

refinancing 21:10

25:13 26:12 28:2
33:13 34:2 35:24
36:4,8,18 37:17
38:1,12 39:4,6,22
41:25 42:6,12 47:11,
15,20 48:12
pool 20:2
position 6:17,19
9:19 22:15 31:18
posture 15:10,23
16:19 17:12
power 38:24
Powerpoint 33:5
prepared 7:15
preparing 18:3
39:18
prepping 19:17
present 4:16,24 33:6
34:21 41:8
presented 19:20
presume 39:11
pretty 23:2,13 26:21
43:3
previous 37:25

28:23 31:15
projected 40:16
promise 44:21
promised 25:2
promissory 25:2
properties 13:18
property 14:25 15:1
25:6
propose 14:13
provide 10:12 31:10
provided 33:22
public 4:14,15,16
6:5 48:8
punished 41:12
punitive 11:2,6
14:15 21:17,20
33:12 41:2,5,10
42:16,19 43:8,12
47:17,21
purely 27:3
purpose 4:8 5:8
purposefully 11:1
purposes 6:3

 	R

rack 47:13
Raise 28:2
raised 18:17
range 32:18 41:21
45:12
rate 26:22 34:13
35:19
rates 21:11,15
react 26:11
reaction 36:21
read  9:20 18:8
reading 4:6
ready 34:20 37:5
real 6:7,11 12:9
23:16 29:4 33:24
34:3 44:9
realized 9:1
reason 14:19
rebut 19:19
recall 48:15
receiving 5:20

reflecting 23:22
refund  10:1 13:8
refunded 5:14
refunding 14:9 21:1
regard 18:15
regret 26:5
reimburse 18:11
reinforces 16:8
reject 46:15
relationship 31:16
release 11:14,17
released 11:12
44:11
relevant 31:6
reliance 21:9 25:16,
19 42:16
relied 24:23,24 25:3
33:21
remarkable 22:15
40:6,10
remarkably 6:16
10:8
repetition 4:12

residents 20:20,24
21:2 33:17,20,22
34:3
resolution 12:21
resolved 23:9
respond 24:9
response 18:6
retained 5:15
retract 24:2
return 7:16
risk 21:19
robust 23:14,15,16
roll 3:4
rooms 27:6 32:21
route 47:1
rule 4:19
run 6:6
rush 48:24

S

Sachs 8:8
salaried 17:4

sale 10:15
sales 6:11 12:13
sanction 31:12
Sarah 3:19,22
satisfactory 30:24
scenario 27:15
schedule 38:8

shocks 41:11
should've 37:24
show 7:5
shows 30:6
side 4:5 7:24 17:22
18:4 21:19
sides 16:18

spinning 22:22
spoke 21:8
spreadsheet 7:15
30:5
Stacy 3:15
staff 11:17
stall 23:2

suit 8:21 23:18
suitable 4:20
summer 21:12
sunshine 4:15
support 18:11
supposed 12:8
surely 31:5

thousands 36:23
threatened 28:17
throw 33:10
tight 22:20
till 22:24 29:2 40:22
Tim 3:10
time 20:13 27:11

scheduled 4:9

signed 9:18 18:21

stalled 25:22	 	

36:17 37:23 46:15

school 23:12
Scott 3:13 21:22
22:5 23:3 27:14
34:15,25 36:23
39:24 45:10
screwed 24:11
sealed 48:25
seek 5:23 11:6 14:15
41:5
seeking 5:24
semantics 19:17
send  44:16 48:23
sends 23:24
sensitive 22:9
Senterfitt 17:6
service 14:7
session 49:5
set 30:24
setting 3:17
settle 4:14 16:7
21:20 28:24,25 38:9
39:25 40:6 45:16
46:12 47:4,5
settled 23:13
settlement 4:20 5:2
11:22 16:5 17:24
23:14 33:15 40:21
sexual 26:4
shade 3:2 48:22 49:5
sharp 26:15 38:2
sheet 10:9 33:5
shift 35:12,13

44:10
significant 14:19
15:20 16:20
significantly 21:12
simply  19:13 38:19
simultaneous 20:18
28:3 36:15
sit 18:25
situation 20:15
33:19
situations 6:13
size 11:24
slow 6:2
smart 11:13 40:4
smoking 29:24
sold 15:2
sophistication
33:14
sort 8:15
sounds 8:11 29:24
31:21 44:15
speaking 8:2 21:22
special 5:8
speech 40:5
spelling 40:2
spend  13:14 17:15
40:16,18 42:2 45:3
46:13
spending 35:20
spent  13:11,15 16:18
32:7 40:12,13 42:21
spin 19:20

stalling 17:12 30:18
31:10
stand 40:25
start 33:3 39:18
started 20:16 45:5
starting 33:24 38:3
statement 7:7 10:10
11:23 43:25 44:4
statute 14:22
step 24:10
steps 40:7
stick 41:2
stonewall 39:23
stop 16:2
story 9:12
straight 44:18
strategy 6:3 15:13
17:16 35:24 36:1,2,
4,7
stretches 35:20
strip 24:4
strong 33:18
stuff 22:21 25:5 26:4
29:17 33:9 38:1
44:23
style 10:6
success 12:11 26:22
successful 21:20
successfully 25:17
suddenly 30:14
sued  16:14 45:8

T

table 15:8 27:17
36:19 40:8
talk 5:4 18:2 20:18
28:3 32:9 36:15
talked 21:10 23:8
talking 15:25 23:11
30:6 37:13 38:6
43:13,16
tax 13:17,18,19
telling 11:7
tells 16:21 47:22
ten 39:17
theoretically 43:11
theories 24:14,16
theory 25:1
thereabouts 32:7
thing 8:15 9:21
11:19 13:17 17:22
24:20 27:4,22 36:9
39:22
things 3:25 5:3,19
6:3,10,15,16,20 7:1,
2,5,14 8:6,19 9:25
11:3,5 13:16 15:5
16:1 18:2,3,22
thinking 4:5 41:23
thinks  4:20 46:11
thought 23:10,13
36:13,16 37:16
41:20,24 43:16
45:15
thousand 39:17
43:5

48:21 49:6
timeline 35:5,9
times 18:19
tiny 11:24
today 38:11 48:5
told 8:22 11:10
30:23
tomorrow 48:2
tonight 45:11 47:6
top 5:13
tossed 13:19
Totally 43:14
touch 42:19
trading 32:20
transaction 6:22
9:2 25:24 26:2
transcribed 48:23
transcript 3:6
transfers 13:6
transitions 15:21
Traurig  7:8 14:4
tri-party 6:10
14:22,24 15:3
trial 39:17,18,24
trouble 24:12
true 19:13 20:9
trust 9:14,18 15:3
46:22
trustee 6:16,19 9:23
10:11 11:20 12:11,
12 18:16 19:1 22:14

trustees 45:6
turns 24:1 30:7
two-year 9:23
types 16:18

Warren 10:5 18:20
22:2,3
watching 46:8
weaken 29:21

Y

year 35:11,15,17,21
40:2 46:13

 		wear 16:23 17:22

years 12:15 16:16

U

U.S. 5:7 11:7 16:11,
15 31:22 36:12
44:24
ultimately 35:2
uncovered 48:14
undefined 14:2
understand 18:4
37:6,10
understanding 8:3
understood 21:5
unpleasant 22:23
urging 22:10

V

valid 40:17
valuable 34:21
vested 23:4
view 18:14,25
voluntary 27:3
volunteer 33:16
vote 4:16,22 21:14
32:14 46:16

W

wait 22:17
waiving 7:23
walk 19:11 27:21
35:4 45:21 48:7
walking 6:2
walks 29:2
wanted 7:3,5 20:10
32:6 39:13

week 30:20,21,22
win  14:21 15:6 31:17
windfall  10:13 18:7,
12,14 19:8,11,19,22
20:3,21,23
window 34:17
wire 44:16
wonderful 18:22
wondering 19:24
word 18:5,18 30:10
43:8 44:15
words 6:24 41:6
work  14:2 27:4
30:19 48:12,13
work-out 6:12
worked 6:9 8:1 19:9
30:20
working 11:4 28:9
34:18
works 4:13 17:16
22:22
worse 28:4 31:14
worst 15:10 27:23
39:22
would've 20:11,12
29:13,15
write 42:25
writing 10:6
written 9:23,25
12:20
wrong 6:8 9:10
14:17 22:18 38:6
41:11 43:10
Wrongdoing 42:23
wrote 21:25 22:9

25:5,23,24
York 23:7