voodooman
09-05-2003, 09:03 PM
Webmasters heading to Arizona next week might want to reconsider. A Florida judge handed over documents of Fraud in refernce to NetManagement/TrafficcashGold,etc , to the proper authorities. # 7 says it ALL,and #13 is embarrasing.....
Mr. Bennett and Steve Workman look to be going "up river"....
What comes around goes around... You can read Dream Magazine in jail;-)))
JOSEPH B. ELKIND,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHN BENNETT, NET MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C., BREAKERS ASSET HOLDINGS, A.V.V., I-BILL.COM, INC., EPIC/PAYCOM, INC., CC BILL.COM, INC., STEVEN WORKMAN, KENNETH KNOX, FISHER & PHILLIPS, L.L.P., RICHARD J. ALAN CAHAN, and BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.,
Defendants.
________________________________/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 02-014594
MOTION FOR SANCTION AND TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF JOHN BENNET, LISA BENETT, BRIDGET SHAW, STEVEN WORKMAN AND OR OTHER RELEVANT WITNESS
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOSEPH ELKIND, by and through his undersigned counsel and moves this Court for an order compelling JOHN BENNET, LISA BENETT, BRIDGET SHAW, STEVEN WORKMAN AND OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF NET MANAGEMENT, INC. to submit to deposition and in support there of states:
1. The proposed witnesses were sued by Joseph Elkind or are employees of Defendants in this cause.
2. Judge Charles Greene granted a motion of the defendants to compel arbitration in the Bahamas.
3. The defendant, John Bennett has steadfastly refused to comply with the request of the Bahamian Arbitrator to complete the arbitration. That is the subject of another motion.
4. Sealed within the court file is a preliminary report of work product information turned over to the Assistant State Attorney prosecuting the State vs. Joseph Elkind criminal contempt matter, which details serial and pervasive illegality on the part of John Bennett, Steve Workman, Bridget Shaw and Lisa Bennett.
5. Bridget Shaw is the controller for the company who was formally John Bennett’s girlfriend. She has been instrumental in the providing of fraudulent and false financial statements to Joseph Elkind.
6. Lisa Bennett has been involved in the use of her home address to avoid having Elkind be aware of certain bank accounts through which John Bennett stole from Joseph Elkind.
7. Counsel for Plaintiff is in possession of two subsequent reports detailing this and other substantial information detailing the illegal and criminal conduct primarily of Bennett and Workman which he would present to the court for in camera inspection if the court so desires. Judge Greene sealed the report because it is part of a criminal investigative file of the State Attorney and/or other authorities .
8. John Bennett is currently under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division because of matters set forth in the complaint herein and because of matters set forth in the report which is sealed within the court file.
9. Judge Charles Green was so concerned when he read the nature of the evidence against Bennett that he conducted an in-camera hearing wherein he required counsel for Elkind and counsel for State to state on the record what disclosures they had made of this evidence, as required by Ethics Standards for Florida Lawyers. Moreover Judge Greene took testimony from Bennett’s lawyer Leonard Samuels in Elkind’s application for permission to travel freely to the Bahamas. Bennett objected. In overruling Bennett’s objection, the court noted that Samuel’s testimony conflicted with other independent evidence. Clearly the court, in its ruling, was not impressed with the credibility of attorney Leonard Samuels.
10. The business that is at issue in the case, has as its legal owner the Private Trust Corporation in Nassau, Bahamas. Mr. Bennett has been confronted with his illegal behavior by the Private Trust Corporation, and rather than answer to his Trustee who is also the Trustee for Joseph Elkind, Mr. Bennett simply hung up on the Private Trust Corporation and refused to answer questions. Mr. Bennett is in control of Net Management and the related entities of this off-shore structure all of which are beneficially owned 50/50 by Mr. Bennett and Mr. Elkind. Mr. Elkind is being starved by Mr. Bennett.
11. In that regard, counsel will produce an email from Steven Workman to this court which shows that it was the intent of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Workman (Mr. Workman is the General Counsel to Net Management) to starve Mr. Elkind. The response the has been forth coming from the defense on this issue is that this is a “stolen” email.
12. This statement which has been made repeatedly by Leonard Samuels is one which is simply without merit and Mr. Samuels knows this because one can not “steal” that which is his. Mr. Bennett and Mr. Elkind own each and every one of these emails and databases 50/50. Moreover the Private Trust Corporation will confirm that should this court wish to take evidence on the point. In a related matter, Net Management brought suit against Joseph Elkind in front of Judge Jeffery Streitfeld. Depositions were scheduled to be taken in that case of the proposed parties in this case, yet rather than submit for deposition, and after having withheld from Judge Streifeld the material fact that Joseph Elkind was an owner of Net Management, Net Management took a voluntary dismissal of that claim.
13. Most recently, in this case Net Management has filed a counterclaim for which a motion for referral to arbitration to the Bahamas was denied. In that counterclaim, Net Management claims among other things, that is has lost income as a result of the actions of Joseph Elkind. The purpose of the counterclaim was to enjoin Elkind from disseminating emails, which Elkind owns to third parties. It is believed that there was a misrepresentation of the damages sustained to the court in that the true reason for the counterclaim was that the emails that were being disseminated by Joseph Elkind revealed nothing but embarrassing information about John Bennett. For example, Bennett repeatedly refers to himself in emails between him and various women as “Viagra Man.” He also makes compelling statements about the business that are contrary to the positions he has taken in this litigation.
14. The injunction proceeding is now on appeal and it is also the subject of the counterclaim being brought by Net Management against Joseph Elkind. Elkind seeks to take the deposition of these witnesses on the issues raised in the counterclaim.
15. Elkind is quite certain that once this court enters an order requiring Bennett and these witnesses to submit to depositions, the claims being made in the counterclaim will be dismissed. The reason for this is simple. Once it becomes inevitable that Bennett will have to answer questions under oath that will be probing and direct, dealing with issues of his criminality, and illegality, he will do everything to keep from sitting for deposition.
16. However, there is pending before this court a claim against Kenneth Knox and Fisher & Phillips, P.A. for selling out his client Joseph Elkind and causing his “firing” and exclusion from the business. That case has not been stayed, but rather remains an active pending litigation. Mr. Knox most recently gave a deposition in that regard and even without the counterclaim, the testimony of these particular witnesses is relevant to that pending case.
17. The lengths to which Mr. Bennett and his counsel will go to prevent any discovery are, to be certain without limits. Most recently, Leonard Samuels, Esquire, went to Judge Patty Henning and misrepresented to her the reason a protective order needed to be granted for a deposition pertaining to a third party witness. Mr. Samuels went to Judge Henning on the day he had a hearing with Elkind’s counsel before Judge Streitfeld. After that hearing was over, counsel for Mr. Bennett was walking out of the courthouse with counsel for Mr. Elkind, the two lawyers parted company and Mr. Samuels turned around and went and got an emergency ex-parte order in front of Judge Henning. Mr. Samuels simply failed to mention to counsel for Mr. Elkind who was present at the time in the courthouse that he would be applying for an order. His behavior is unethical and dishonest and reeks of a “win at all costs” mentality.
18. For all of the foregoing reasons, the court should order an immediate deposition of John Bennett, Steven Workman, Lisa Bennett and Bridget Shaw. Moreover the court should clarify that all discovery relevant to either the counterclaim or the claim pending against Kenneth Knox is appropriate to go forward as there is no reasonable basis to say that these depositions can not occur. It is also clear that there is no reason to refuse discovery on issues that are to be arbitrated in the Bahamas.
WHEREFORE, JOSEPH ELKIND moves for an order in accord with this motion.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via United States mail on this ___ day of September 2003 to: all parties on the attached mailing list.
MINEO & DELLAPINA, P.A.
Trial Lawyers Building, Suite 4F
633 Southeast Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
By: _______________________________
PETER MINEO JR.
Florida Bar No: 328928
Mr. Bennett and Steve Workman look to be going "up river"....
What comes around goes around... You can read Dream Magazine in jail;-)))
JOSEPH B. ELKIND,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JOHN BENNETT, NET MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C., BREAKERS ASSET HOLDINGS, A.V.V., I-BILL.COM, INC., EPIC/PAYCOM, INC., CC BILL.COM, INC., STEVEN WORKMAN, KENNETH KNOX, FISHER & PHILLIPS, L.L.P., RICHARD J. ALAN CAHAN, and BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.,
Defendants.
________________________________/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 02-014594
MOTION FOR SANCTION AND TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF JOHN BENNET, LISA BENETT, BRIDGET SHAW, STEVEN WORKMAN AND OR OTHER RELEVANT WITNESS
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOSEPH ELKIND, by and through his undersigned counsel and moves this Court for an order compelling JOHN BENNET, LISA BENETT, BRIDGET SHAW, STEVEN WORKMAN AND OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF NET MANAGEMENT, INC. to submit to deposition and in support there of states:
1. The proposed witnesses were sued by Joseph Elkind or are employees of Defendants in this cause.
2. Judge Charles Greene granted a motion of the defendants to compel arbitration in the Bahamas.
3. The defendant, John Bennett has steadfastly refused to comply with the request of the Bahamian Arbitrator to complete the arbitration. That is the subject of another motion.
4. Sealed within the court file is a preliminary report of work product information turned over to the Assistant State Attorney prosecuting the State vs. Joseph Elkind criminal contempt matter, which details serial and pervasive illegality on the part of John Bennett, Steve Workman, Bridget Shaw and Lisa Bennett.
5. Bridget Shaw is the controller for the company who was formally John Bennett’s girlfriend. She has been instrumental in the providing of fraudulent and false financial statements to Joseph Elkind.
6. Lisa Bennett has been involved in the use of her home address to avoid having Elkind be aware of certain bank accounts through which John Bennett stole from Joseph Elkind.
7. Counsel for Plaintiff is in possession of two subsequent reports detailing this and other substantial information detailing the illegal and criminal conduct primarily of Bennett and Workman which he would present to the court for in camera inspection if the court so desires. Judge Greene sealed the report because it is part of a criminal investigative file of the State Attorney and/or other authorities .
8. John Bennett is currently under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division because of matters set forth in the complaint herein and because of matters set forth in the report which is sealed within the court file.
9. Judge Charles Green was so concerned when he read the nature of the evidence against Bennett that he conducted an in-camera hearing wherein he required counsel for Elkind and counsel for State to state on the record what disclosures they had made of this evidence, as required by Ethics Standards for Florida Lawyers. Moreover Judge Greene took testimony from Bennett’s lawyer Leonard Samuels in Elkind’s application for permission to travel freely to the Bahamas. Bennett objected. In overruling Bennett’s objection, the court noted that Samuel’s testimony conflicted with other independent evidence. Clearly the court, in its ruling, was not impressed with the credibility of attorney Leonard Samuels.
10. The business that is at issue in the case, has as its legal owner the Private Trust Corporation in Nassau, Bahamas. Mr. Bennett has been confronted with his illegal behavior by the Private Trust Corporation, and rather than answer to his Trustee who is also the Trustee for Joseph Elkind, Mr. Bennett simply hung up on the Private Trust Corporation and refused to answer questions. Mr. Bennett is in control of Net Management and the related entities of this off-shore structure all of which are beneficially owned 50/50 by Mr. Bennett and Mr. Elkind. Mr. Elkind is being starved by Mr. Bennett.
11. In that regard, counsel will produce an email from Steven Workman to this court which shows that it was the intent of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Workman (Mr. Workman is the General Counsel to Net Management) to starve Mr. Elkind. The response the has been forth coming from the defense on this issue is that this is a “stolen” email.
12. This statement which has been made repeatedly by Leonard Samuels is one which is simply without merit and Mr. Samuels knows this because one can not “steal” that which is his. Mr. Bennett and Mr. Elkind own each and every one of these emails and databases 50/50. Moreover the Private Trust Corporation will confirm that should this court wish to take evidence on the point. In a related matter, Net Management brought suit against Joseph Elkind in front of Judge Jeffery Streitfeld. Depositions were scheduled to be taken in that case of the proposed parties in this case, yet rather than submit for deposition, and after having withheld from Judge Streifeld the material fact that Joseph Elkind was an owner of Net Management, Net Management took a voluntary dismissal of that claim.
13. Most recently, in this case Net Management has filed a counterclaim for which a motion for referral to arbitration to the Bahamas was denied. In that counterclaim, Net Management claims among other things, that is has lost income as a result of the actions of Joseph Elkind. The purpose of the counterclaim was to enjoin Elkind from disseminating emails, which Elkind owns to third parties. It is believed that there was a misrepresentation of the damages sustained to the court in that the true reason for the counterclaim was that the emails that were being disseminated by Joseph Elkind revealed nothing but embarrassing information about John Bennett. For example, Bennett repeatedly refers to himself in emails between him and various women as “Viagra Man.” He also makes compelling statements about the business that are contrary to the positions he has taken in this litigation.
14. The injunction proceeding is now on appeal and it is also the subject of the counterclaim being brought by Net Management against Joseph Elkind. Elkind seeks to take the deposition of these witnesses on the issues raised in the counterclaim.
15. Elkind is quite certain that once this court enters an order requiring Bennett and these witnesses to submit to depositions, the claims being made in the counterclaim will be dismissed. The reason for this is simple. Once it becomes inevitable that Bennett will have to answer questions under oath that will be probing and direct, dealing with issues of his criminality, and illegality, he will do everything to keep from sitting for deposition.
16. However, there is pending before this court a claim against Kenneth Knox and Fisher & Phillips, P.A. for selling out his client Joseph Elkind and causing his “firing” and exclusion from the business. That case has not been stayed, but rather remains an active pending litigation. Mr. Knox most recently gave a deposition in that regard and even without the counterclaim, the testimony of these particular witnesses is relevant to that pending case.
17. The lengths to which Mr. Bennett and his counsel will go to prevent any discovery are, to be certain without limits. Most recently, Leonard Samuels, Esquire, went to Judge Patty Henning and misrepresented to her the reason a protective order needed to be granted for a deposition pertaining to a third party witness. Mr. Samuels went to Judge Henning on the day he had a hearing with Elkind’s counsel before Judge Streitfeld. After that hearing was over, counsel for Mr. Bennett was walking out of the courthouse with counsel for Mr. Elkind, the two lawyers parted company and Mr. Samuels turned around and went and got an emergency ex-parte order in front of Judge Henning. Mr. Samuels simply failed to mention to counsel for Mr. Elkind who was present at the time in the courthouse that he would be applying for an order. His behavior is unethical and dishonest and reeks of a “win at all costs” mentality.
18. For all of the foregoing reasons, the court should order an immediate deposition of John Bennett, Steven Workman, Lisa Bennett and Bridget Shaw. Moreover the court should clarify that all discovery relevant to either the counterclaim or the claim pending against Kenneth Knox is appropriate to go forward as there is no reasonable basis to say that these depositions can not occur. It is also clear that there is no reason to refuse discovery on issues that are to be arbitrated in the Bahamas.
WHEREFORE, JOSEPH ELKIND moves for an order in accord with this motion.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via United States mail on this ___ day of September 2003 to: all parties on the attached mailing list.
MINEO & DELLAPINA, P.A.
Trial Lawyers Building, Suite 4F
633 Southeast Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
By: _______________________________
PETER MINEO JR.
Florida Bar No: 328928