Update on JoeE vs JB case.

voodooman · 12-11-2003

JOSEPH B. ELKIND,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

JOHN BENNETT, Individually

Defendant.
________________________________/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 02-020046

JUDGE: EADE

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AS TO DEFENDANT JOHN BENNETT

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOSEPH ELKIND, by and through his undersigned counsel and moves this Court for an order holding JOHN BENNETT in Contempt of Court and issuing a writ of bodily attachment for him ,and as grounds therefore states:
1. Joseph Elkind, through counsel has gone through exhaustive argument before this Court on a number of occasions for issues related to discovery herein.
2. Plaintiff has been before the Court in an attempt to take the depositions of both John Bennett and Steven Workman. Objections were made and overruled.
3. Plaintiff has been before the Court in an attempt to get accounting documents from Malluh Furman, the company’s accountants. Objections were made and overruled.
4. The Court has opined that the dispute between the parties is one that needs the “sanitizing light of discovery”. The Court could not have been any more correct.

5. The documents that have been provided by the accountants revealed an $8,000,000 discrepancy in net income that was reported to Elkind by Bennett. Bennett through the trustee, has reported net income of $5,000,000. The accountants have reported net income $13,000,000.
6. The Court has ordered Workman to appear for deposition on Thursday December 4, 2003. Workman did so appear but did not complete his deposition.
7. John Bennett was ordered to appear for deposition on Friday, December 5, 2003. Rather than take the deposition at that time, the parties agreed to meet for a settlement conference on Saturday December 6, 2003. The conditions of the meeting were that, in the event no settlement was reached, John Bennett would authorize a joint distribution from the parties’ offshore structure of $300,000 - $150,000 each and Mr. Bennett would submit to deposition on Tuesday December 9, 2003. The settlement did not occur.
8. The deposition was confirmed as being on with Mr. Bennett’s counsel by personal contact and email on Monday, December 8, 2003. Mr. Bennett’s counsel was courteous enough to the undersigned to inform that his client would not be showing up for the deposition. He was informed then that this motion would be filed.
9. This Court should do the following:
- Issue a Writ of Bodily Attachment for John Bennett and hold him in custody until the completion of his deposition.
- Find John Bennett in willful contempt of this Court and order appropriate sanctions including reasonable attorney fees and costs.

- Order John Bennet to forthwith execute the agreed upon authorization for the promised distribution under pain of an immediate judgement being entered against John Bennett and in favor of Joseph Elkind for which execution should issue forthwith.
WHEREFORE, JOSEPH ELKIND moves for an order in accordance with this Motion.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via hand delivery on this 11th day of December 2003 to: Leonard K. Samuels, Esquire, Berger, Singerman, et al, 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1000,Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

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

Naughty · 12-11-2003

nice numbers

Dravyk · 12-11-2003

I know if Serge were here, he'd say something profound about the "Bodily Attachment".

cj · 12-11-2003

Voodoo, JoeE, can I count on your vote?!

http://www.isjustanasshole.com

Winetalk.com · 12-17-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Dravyk@Dec 11 2003, 07:03 PM
I know if Serge were here, he'd say something profound about the "Bodily Attachment".

thanks God I wasn't here
;-))))

12-11-2003	#2
Naughty Members Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 349	nice numbers __________________ Everybody is a fan of cash

12-11-2003	#3
Dravyk Easy Like Sunday Morning Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Behind a couch, somewhere in Philly Posts: 7,628	I know if Serge were here, he'd say something profound about the "Bodily Attachment". __________________ All Of 'Em Mainstream Webmasters New: WebmasterConventions.com

12-11-2003	#1
voodooman Members Respin bullshit press Your Comments Are Welcomed Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,695	JOSEPH B. ELKIND, Plaintiffs, vs. JOHN BENNETT, Individually Defendant. ________________________________/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 02-020046 JUDGE: EADE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AS TO DEFENDANT JOHN BENNETT COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOSEPH ELKIND, by and through his undersigned counsel and moves this Court for an order holding JOHN BENNETT in Contempt of Court and issuing a writ of bodily attachment for him ,and as grounds therefore states: 1. Joseph Elkind, through counsel has gone through exhaustive argument before this Court on a number of occasions for issues related to discovery herein. 2. Plaintiff has been before the Court in an attempt to take the depositions of both John Bennett and Steven Workman. Objections were made and overruled. 3. Plaintiff has been before the Court in an attempt to get accounting documents from Malluh Furman, the company’s accountants. Objections were made and overruled. 4. The Court has opined that the dispute between the parties is one that needs the “sanitizing light of discovery”. The Court could not have been any more correct. 5. The documents that have been provided by the accountants revealed an $8,000,000 discrepancy in net income that was reported to Elkind by Bennett. Bennett through the trustee, has reported net income of $5,000,000. The accountants have reported net income $13,000,000. 6. The Court has ordered Workman to appear for deposition on Thursday December 4, 2003. Workman did so appear but did not complete his deposition. 7. John Bennett was ordered to appear for deposition on Friday, December 5, 2003. Rather than take the deposition at that time, the parties agreed to meet for a settlement conference on Saturday December 6, 2003. The conditions of the meeting were that, in the event no settlement was reached, John Bennett would authorize a joint distribution from the parties’ offshore structure of $300,000 - $150,000 each and Mr. Bennett would submit to deposition on Tuesday December 9, 2003. The settlement did not occur. 8. The deposition was confirmed as being on with Mr. Bennett’s counsel by personal contact and email on Monday, December 8, 2003. Mr. Bennett’s counsel was courteous enough to the undersigned to inform that his client would not be showing up for the deposition. He was informed then that this motion would be filed. 9. This Court should do the following: - Issue a Writ of Bodily Attachment for John Bennett and hold him in custody until the completion of his deposition. - Find John Bennett in willful contempt of this Court and order appropriate sanctions including reasonable attorney fees and costs. - Order John Bennet to forthwith execute the agreed upon authorization for the promised distribution under pain of an immediate judgement being entered against John Bennett and in favor of Joseph Elkind for which execution should issue forthwith. WHEREFORE, JOSEPH ELKIND moves for an order in accordance with this Motion. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via hand delivery on this 11th day of December 2003 to: Leonard K. Samuels, Esquire, Berger, Singerman, et al, 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1000,Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. 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

12-11-2003	#4
cj Members Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Down Under Posts: 5,202	Voodoo, JoeE, can I count on your vote?! http://www.isjustanasshole.com