Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
AN UNKNOW N QUANTITY,etc.,
ln Rem Defendant,
VS.
M OTIVATION,m C.,
Claimant.
Thiscaseinvolvesjustsuchafraud.W hatthisCourtdescribedastheSslegalfinaletoathree-year
opera with a sturming libretto''m ore than two years ago has come back for an even more
stunning--encore.
M otivation, Inc. seeks to invoke this Court's irlherent power to sanction bad-faith
litigation conductone ofthealleged perpetratorsorenablersofthe fraud,PlaintiffJTR'Soutside
generalcounsel,attorney Bruce L.Silverstein.1
1
M otivation also soughtsanctionsagainsttw o otherrespondents:M r. Silverstein's
D elaw are law fil'm ,Y oung Conaw ay Stargatt& Taylor,LLP,and JTR investorand advisory
board m em berPaulSullivan.A fterC laim antM otivation rested its case-in-chief,the Court
granted M r.Sullivan and YCST'SM otionsforlnvoluntary Dismissal,finding thatM otivation
hadfailedtopresentsufficientevidenceatthattimeon(i)Sullivan'ssubstantialinvolvementin
theunderlyinglitigation,or(ii)eitherSullivan'sorYCST'Ssubstantialinterestintheoutcomeof
thelitigation.DE #528.M r.Silverstein isthe onlyremainingrespondent.
1. Background
Spanishtreasureofthousandsofjtmkemeraldspreviouslyplantedonthebottom oftheoceanto
belaterStdiscovered''asnewly discoveredres,subjecttotheadmiraltyjurisdiction oftheUnited
StatesDistrictCourt,wastoobtainajudicialdecreeawardingtheconspiratorsnotonlytitleto
thepreviouslyplantedemeralds,butalsoan injunctiveorderpreservingtothecriminalsthe
exclusiverightto continuesearching the fake,im aginary siteofthesdiscovery,''thuspreserving
theopportunityto continuetoissalt''thesitewithjunktreasureforsaletoinnocentvictims
(purchasersandinvestors)whohadbeenmisled intobelievingthediscoverywastl'ueand
genuine based on theCourt'sadm iralty decree.
Although thef'
uturevictim softhe conspiratorswould have been thepurchasersofthe
fakegem sand theinvestorswho wereexpectedto investin the continued salvageoperationsof
the fake discovery,the immediatevictim wasthe United StatesDistrictCourtand the Am erican
s'
ystem ofjustice.TheentryofafinaldecreeassoughtbyPlaintiffwouldhavelendedcredence
to theconspirators'outrageously falseclaim sofanew discovery.
Thecorruptcriminalconspiracy ofthefalsediscovery ofan eighteenth century Spanish
treasure galleon and thetsling ofatotally false,fictitiousadm iralty casequickly gained anumber
ofsupporterswillingto believetheincredibleliesoftheoriginatorsofthe fraud,Jay M iscovich
andSteveElschlepp(thediverswhoreportedthediscoveryofthepreviouslyplantedjunk
emeralds).Amongthesesupporterswhoenthusiasticallycommencedtopromotethefraudwere
fam ily membersand theirbusinessassociates,private investors,largecorporate 1aw firm s,local
various1aw firmshaveinvestedlegalservices(somepaid,someunpaid)ofseveralmillion
dollarsin attom eys'feesand costsoflitigation.Thecase hasadditionally spawned hundredsof
hoursofjudiciallaborinthethreetrialsthathavethusfarbeenconducted.2
Thenumerouspartiesand entitiesarelisted intheforegoingparagraphs. Som eare
conduct.Thisistheissueofthispart(thethirdtrial)ofwhatappearstobeanever-endingseries
oftrialsand evidentiary hearingsflowing outfrom theoriginaladm iralty case.3 W ho knew?
W hatdidthey know? W hen didthey know? Didthey participatewith theknowledge and intent
KeyW est,Florida(theSlAdmiraltyAction''),andthefirstsanctionstrialontheoriginal
oceansubjecttosanctionsfordeliberatelyclosingtheireyestothefraudbeingcommittedin
deliberateindifference to theharm theiractivitieswere causing? Istheproofin thisrecord
substantialenoughtoprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethatsuchindividuals(ifanylareto
be sanctioned? lsita legaloffense forsuch an individualto defend on abasisthatt$Ineverknew
thatthe conspiratorspurchasedfakeem eraldsand planted them on thebottom ofthe ocean since
theynevertold m ethat''? Should they,iftheevidenceisclearand convincingthatJay and Steve
wereobviously lying aboutm aking adiscovery oflosttreasure,havewithdrawn from the
conspiracyatthetime itbecam eknowntothem ormadethefactsofthe fraud known to the
couh?
Court's jurisdiction to sanction parties who have notpersonally been served or appeared in
litigation pending beforetheCourtpriorto sanctionsbeing soughtagainstthatperson orentity.
each willbe reproduced verbatim herein.As Judge M oore succinctly put it,kdltqhe factual
nan'
ative in this matter has two versions:the talltale and the tnzth.''Judge M oore's Sanctions
O rder,DE #445 at2.
Order- beginswith the alleged discovery by two treasurehuntersofa cache ofjewelson the
bottom oftheGulfofM exico offofKey W est,Florida:
Jay and Steve were not searching the area by happenstance. As professional
m aritim e treasure hunters, Jay and Steve were following a lead purportedly
provided by a map purchased from Jay's o1d acquaintance M ike Cunningham , a
destitute handym an from Pennsylvania.1 For three days straight, Jay and Steve
went out on a boat to the area of the ocean shown on the map,to search for
treasure.
Overthe next few m onths,Jay and Steve went back outrepeatedly to retrieve
m ore ofthe stones.Steve testified he wentalone on a num berofoccasions and,
dump the stonesin the boat,then rettmzto the bottom,''recovering ttliln about
fourhours...eighty poundsofemeralds''thatfirstday.Thisaccountsubstantially
differsfrom Jay and Steve'stestim ony thatthey simply filled theirfoursandwichsized plasticbagsand then,outofair, returned home.
1d.at4(internalcitationsomitted).Nevertheless,thetalecontinues'
.
The stoneswert subsequently scattered acrossthe country, and indeed,theworld.
Jay and Steve'sfirstmovewasto bring stonesto New York City and W ashington,
DC,where they showed the stones to potentialinvestors as wellas gem ologists
and otherexperts,including an officialfrom the Sm ithsonian. Jay gave stonesto a
Admiralty Rule C(4). Two claimants respond and filed timely appearances:
Clawdb LLC,Azalp LLC,Darn LLC,and M Ventures LLC filed a SfM otion to
f#.at5-8(internalcitationsandfootnotesomitted).
The standard procedure for Admiralty cases in the Southern D istrict of Florida is for
establish in rem jurisdiction over the material.A warrant for an arrestofthe res issues,a
substitute custodian is appointed,and afler publication of Plaintiffs claim is m ade, anyone
having aclaim m ay so stateand beheardattrial.
LL at12.
untilthe Courtcould determ ine the legalsufficiency ofM otivation's claim . DE #55;DE #69.
Aftertestresultsrevealing the presence ofmodern epoxy on som e ofthe emeralds were finally
revealed to the CourtDE #82,filed April 18, 2012,and afterM otivation amended its claim to
change itstheory from tloating barrelsto intentionaltheh from theAtocha site(DE #94, filed
July 3,2012),the Courtordered JTR to produce the emeraldsforinspection by M otivation's
difficulty in achieving thedelivery ofthe res into thejurisdiction ofthe Southern Districtof
Florida,''which saw theresistsvemonthsinto thisaction Eifnotlater)...apparently scattered
between Key W est, New York, Pennsylvania, France, Switzerland, and Colum bia, if not
elsewhere.''1d.at 9-10.This fscaused a m arked deviation from this Court's prior and wellestablished procedures''so m uch so that, as Judge King found in the substantively entered
tloorand...contained (inlthereJ....''1d.
This Court's Opinion and Final Order, entered at the conclusion of the trial held
December3 through December21,2012,denied any reliefto PlaintiffJTR Enterprises,lnc.on
a1lclaim s,holding:
The law of salvage calls for a m arine peril.This elem ent m ay be satisfied by an
fancient,abandoned shipwreck.''Santa M argarita decision,556 F.supp.at1340.
W hen there is a shipwreck involved,Plaintiffcan provide docum entation ofthe
ship, its cargo, dates, etc. which allows the Court to make certain logical
1d.at18-19.
to exploitation oftheresforpersonaluse.''Id.at20.
As forJTR'Sclaim fortitle underthe 1aw offnds,thisCourtfirstlaid outthe elements
(e.g.theinvestorwhoreceivedthreestonesandgaveatleastonetohiswife,Jay's
older brother who kept them ovem ight forphotographs and sprayed them with
cooking spray,Jay'syoungerbrotherwho shuttled them around Hawaii,and Jay's
younger brother's wife who canied some stonesto a bank in Hawaii,to name a
few) to rule out interference with, or replacement of, the stones.It is also
im possible forthe Courtto be certain thata11ofthe stoneseventually arrived back
to K ey W estfor thatsam e reason.This issue casts a not-insignificant shadow of
doubtoverthepossession elem entsofaclaim underthelaw offinds.
local flora or fauna that is indigenous to the area of retrieval. The testim ony
indicatesthatthe res iscomprised ofstones which are notindigenousto the bed
ofthe Gulfof M exico.Therefore,the Courtmovesto the other option:whether
the res has been lostand abandoned by its originalowner. In other words,the
Courtmustaddress the elephant in the room :how did these stones come to be
sitting on theocean floorin January of20107
The court in Columbus-America Discovery Group is quite firm on the
requirem entforclearand convincing evidenceofabandonm ent, butcarvesoutan
exception forcasesin which there isEdan ancientand longlostshipwreck''and no
owner files a claim . 974 F.2d at 464-65. In such cases,the court m ay infer
abandonment. This record is devoid of any evidence of any shipwreck, 16th
Century Spanish Galleon,orany proofofabandonmentby apriorowner. The res
has appeared seem ingly outofthin air, withoutproofof the source oforigin,of
transportation orpriorownership.Plaintiffhasfailed in thisessentialelementof
broughtitintocourt(JTR,Jay,andSteve),andexpresslymadeSdnofindingastothetype, source,
value,provenance,ororiginofthestonescomprisingthereJ.''f#.at23.
tl-uth begins.
B.TheTruth-JudgeMoore'sSanctionsTriaR videntiaryHearin/
Afternearly ayearofdiscovery into the issueofsanctions, Judge M oore'sthree-day trial
4
JudgeM oorewasassigned the firstsanctionsheming/trialby ChiefJudge M oreno during
Judge King'sabsencethe firstw eek ofJuly 2012. The case wasreassigned to Judge K ing aher
In the closing argum ents of the sanctions heming, Janssen & Siracusa,JTR 'S
counstl,adm itted JTR'Swrongdoing.They admitted thatftthe scheme to defraud
wasto representem eraldsofacertain quality ashaving a higherquality based on
theirorigin from an antique shipwreck.''JTR'Scounseladm itted thattheSsartifice
to defraud''wasto use theDistrictCourtto grantfithe im prim aturorthe blessing
or the Good Housekeeping seal of approvalto say that . . . these are antique
em eralds.''
1d.atl4.(internalcitationsomitted).
Accordingly,Judge M oore found (by clear and convincing evidence, that a fraud has
been committed upon this Court,''5 id.at 16, and thattsM iscovich was clearly the m astermind
behind thiswhole schem e.''1d.at18. Judge M oore imposed sanctionsagainstJay in the amount
of M otivation's fees incurred from October 16, 2011,the date M otivation entered the case,
should apply when deciding w hether to im pose sanctions pursuant to the Court's inherent
authority forfraud upon the Court. However,other courts have required thatwhen imposing
attolmey'sfeesassanctionspursuantto theirinherentauthority,the conductbe proven by clear
and convincing evidence.''
As Plaintiff JTR'S adm iralty counsel, Horan believed he had a duty to the Courtto
disclose the testresults,eonsidering his previous representations to the Courton the possible
origin ofthe em eralds contained in a reportHoran filed on October 18, 2011.1d.at 11.This
reporq authored by archaeologist R. Duncan M athewson, III and titled Slunderwater
Archaeological lnvestigations of the Em erald Site off the Florida Keys Research Design
the stones by another lab with CBS'S assistance.1d.JTR filed a isecond Status Report''on
January 6,2012,thatonly revealed thattesting wasongoing and resultswouldbesharedwith the
Courtioncealloftheseanalysesarecompleted ...and JTR isin possession offnalreportsfrom
each oftheGIA,the French and Swisslabs.''DE #54 at3.JTR didnotrevealtheresultsofthese
tests to the Courtor to M otivation for a period of four and a half months from when it first
learned ofthe probableresults in early Decemberof2011,untilApril18,2012,when itfiled its
irhird StatusReport.''DE #82.Judge M oore held thatonce JTR tirstlearned this infonnation,
iwhich indicated thatthe Emeralds were notfrom the Atocha or the M argarita,',JTR f'had an
obligation atthatpointto disclose thisinform ation to the Court.''DE #445 at17.Judge M oore
that inform ation.The fact thatJTR told 60 M inutes in no way dim inishes its
obligation to this Court. ln fact, it demonstrates thatJTR knew that something
was going on and that these reports would have a substantial impact on the
Id.atn.16.
The Courtimposed this sanction because JTR had withheld the epoxy results from the
Courtand M otivation,and awarded M otivation its attorneys'fees incurred from December2,
2.
011,through April18,2012. The Courtimposed this sanction because Plaintiffhad withheld
the epoxy results from the Courtand M otivation.1d.at 18. Itwasnotimposed for Jay's lies
aboutthe alleged tdiscovery.''
During JudgeM oore'sSanctionsTrial,and afterthe fraud on the courthad been revealed,
the Courtgranted M otivation leave to file an Amended M otion for Sanctions to be directed at
any otherpartiesM otivation thoughtresponsibleforcomm itting thisfraud.Judge M oorefurther
completeperjurybytheoriginalconspiratorsJayM iscovichandSteveElchlepp.
II.FindingsofFact
a. Prologue- TheG enesisofaFraud
appraisers,jeweltrs,fnmily,friends,thegeneralpublic,andmanyothers,includinginvestigative
reporters from CBS' 60 M inutes,that he had discovered and recovered thistreasure from the
BruceSilverstein haspracticed law atthe Delaware 1aw firm ofYoung Conaway Stargatt
whichtookylaceon 11/19/14,asfsl-learingTr.1.''ThisportionofthetranscriptisDE#543.The
Courtwillclte to Day 2 ofthe sanctions hearing,w hich took place on 11/20/14,as dfllearing Tr.
Silverstein received a phone callfrom HawaiiattorneysM ark Davisand M ike Livingston ofthe
Litigation boiled down to Sfthere'sbeen this am azing and valuable em erald fnd and people are
fightingoverwho ownsit.''1d.at124.
Silverstein testifed that,in addition to the phone callfrom Davis and Livingston about
YCST'Spossible retention in the Dtlaware Litigation,on the snme day he also received aphone
calland an em ailfrom New Orleansattom ey Lou Fislunan aboutYCST'Spossible retention in
2,''which can befound atDE #544.Day 3,on 11/21/14,willbecited asdfllearing Tr.3,'5and can
be found atDE #545.Day 4,on 11/24/14 willbe cited as sl-learing Tr.4,5'and can be found at
DE #567.Day 5,on 11/25/14 w illbe cited as tillearing Tr.5,9'and can be found atDE //554.D ay
6,on 12/4/14 willbe cited asSdl-learing Tr.6,''and can be found atDE #546.Day 7,on 12/5/14
willbe cited a.
s tsl-learing Tr.7,''and can be found atD E #547.D ay 8,on 12/8/14 w illbe cited as
(iHearing Tr.8,59and can be found atDE #548.Day 9,on 12/9/14 willbe cited astsllearing Tr.
9,5'Imd can be found atD E #549.D ay 10,on 12/10/14 w illbe cited as 'H earing Tr.10,''and can
be fbund atD E #550.D ay 11,on 12/15/14 w illbe cited as l-learing Tr.11,''and can be found at
DE #552.Day 12,on 12/16/14 willbe cited astsl-learing Tr.12,''and can be found atDE #551.
And Day 13,on 2/2/15 willbecited asftllearing Tr.13.''
sseem s consistentwith the idea thatthese emeralds were on the seatloor associated with gold
objects for some period of time.'' Silverstein Ex. 1. Silverstein and YCST accepted the
representation and were engaged by Jay,Steve, and Scott for their defense in the Delaware
Litigation.HearingTr.6 at117-18.
In addition to Davis and Livingston of DLL, Jay, Steve, and Scott were also being
advised by Paul Sullivan, Scott's neighbor and friend in Hawaii and a self-styled political
organizer who worked on the campaigns of Presidents Carttr and Clinton.1d.at 8.Sullivan
becnme involved with Jay and Steve through Jay'sbrotherScottsometim ein early 2010.1d.at9.
Sullivan testified that,in additionto acting asan advisorto Jay,Steve,and Scott,in Decem berof
2010 he had traveled to Colom bia atJay's request and m etwith the presidentofColombia to
convey Jay's offer of 70% of the em eralds in exchange for the government of Colombia's
physically running the salvageoperation.Hearing Tr.10 at113-14.Sullivan furthertestified that
he made asecond trip to Colombia in M arch of2011 forfurtherdiscussionswith theColombian
presidentialcabineton this issue.1d.at 115.Silverstein testified thathe wasaware ofSullivan's
tripstoColombia,made both before and shortly afterhewasretained in theDelaware Litigation,
and thathefound itStinconceivable ...thatJay M iscovich would notonly allow,butsupportthis
processifthese werenotemeraldsthathad been found in the GulfofM exico and were genuine
Colombian emeralds.''HearingTr.9 at22.
Shortly afterbeing retained in the Delaware Litigation,in late January of2011 and into
February of2011,Silverstein began to review many documentsrelated to thatcase.TheVerified
Com plaintin the Delaware Litigation,which the New York investors filed againstJay,Steve,
and Scott on January 19,2011,w as filed by law yers atthe N ew York 1aw 51131 W illkie Farr &
Gallagher (ssW ilkie Farr'').Silverstein Ex.7.Further,the New York Investors had filed on
January 11,2011,anotherV erified Com plaintagainstJay and Steve in the CircuitCourtforthe
18
16thJudicialCircuitin and forM omoe County, Florida,in which case the New York Investors
were represented by both the Florida law firm Colson HicksEidson as wellasby W illkie Farr.
Silverstein Ex.4.Filed along with this complaint were aftidavits by two of the New York
lnvestors, M r.Dean Barr and M r.Neil Ash. Silverstein Ex. 5; Silverstein Ex.6.In these
affidavits,these New York Investorsstated thatJay had m ade a discovery ofdtsunken treasure,
namely emeralds and other gemstones.''1d.These affidavits,dated January 10, 2011, further
stated thatthese New York Investors had invested approximately two million dollars in Jay's
discovery.1d. Silverstein rtceived and rtviewed a copy ofthis com plaintand these affdavits
shortly aherhe wasretained in theDelaware Litigation.Hearing Tr. 6at142.Silverstein testified
that Stthe factthat (the Ntw York Investors) were represented by these lawyers and were
spending a lot ofmoney to takt controlofthe emeralds''contributed to his own beliefin the
legitimacy ofJay'sfind.1d.at 158.Further,Silverstein testified thathe believed theN ew York
lnvestors'investmentsand selection ofthese expensive,respected,and high-powered 1aw tsrm s
said alotabouttheirown assessmentofthe veracity ofJay'sstory and the value ofthe em eralds.
f#.at135,160.
Also am ong those documents that Silverstein reviewed around the tim e he was first
retained in late January of 2011 was anotherem ail,dated July 13,2010,sent by Barrto Bob
received and reviewed inform ation on the appraised value of certain ofthe stones. 1d.at 135.
Among these appraisals was a report (dated December 9, 2010) by Josh Lents of the
(JemologicalAppraisalLaboratoryofAmerica(the$GAL'').Silverstein Ex.2.Accordingtothe
GAL,which in preparing itsappraisalhad only evaluated the characteristicsand value ofa sm all
emeraldSrincludingonesthatgLentsqpreviouslyhad appraised.''?Id.at138.Finally,Silverstein
testified thathe personally broughtcertain em eraldsto Sotheby's in New York City,where he
metwith thepresidentofSotheby'sand itshead gem ologist.1d.at 174.Accordingto Silverstein,
other things,admiralty and eustom s issues.''M 25.This agreem ent listed Silverstein as Jay's
people,but before being retained in early M arch 2011, M r.Horan,an 'accomplished diverr''
wenton whathehascalled asanity check''dive with Steveatthe siteofthe find. H earing Tr.1
at142;DE #372 at100-10.Horan testifed thatduring thissanity check dive he found a number
ofemeraldsand am ethysts,with severalofthe stonesbeing ('impacted''in them ud underseveral
inchesofsilt,which indicattd to him thatthey had been down thereforsome tim e. H earing Tr.1
at57,141--42.Horan testitied thathe then became interested in this case, saying Swhen you
pullup a handfulofem eralds,you getinterested.''DE #372 at 109- 10.Horan wasretained as
admiralty counselaherthisdive.1d.at110.
22
mentions Tobia's Edmisconception that (the treasure! was found in a treasure chest on land
nd ...(but)becauseitisin
would tlow from theirsupporting afalse admiralty filing (includingthepossibility ofjail), and
that itwillbe very easy to determ ine whetherthe treasure truly com es from the site they have
identitied.Nonetheless,they both supportm aking the admiralty filing, so thatthey can proceed
to obtain titleto thetreasure.''1d.
The nextmorning,at10:27 a.m.on August20, 2011,Silverstein sentan emailto Tobia.
Silverstein Ex. 10 at4.Silverstein referenced their brief encounter atthe courthouse the day
before,and told Tobiathat
you truly believe thatJay and Steve are comm itting a fraud and/orothercriminal
m isconduct.On the other hand, if you do not have a legitim ate basis for your
claim s,lencourage you to form ally retractthem now , before any harm befallsmy
clients as a result of your assertions. O ne w ay or another, you m ust stop
threatening to reveal what you claim to be the truth in the absence of Jay's
agreem entto honor what you claim to be your arrangement for an ownership
interestin thediscovery.
Silverstein concluded this em ailwith a requestthat, should Tobia wish to discuss this
issue further,he reply to this em ail and Silverstein will call him . 1d.W ithin the next forty
minutes,Silverstein and Tobia spoke, prompting Silverstein to send a second em ailat 11:07 a
m.
thanking Tobia forthe calland asking Tobia to speak with him again at
some pointthatday
revealing thatthey wereableto speak again ashe had requested. 1d.at2.Silverstein'sem ailfirst
statesthat
I understand from our call earlier today that you continue to contend that the
Treasure Jay discovered was notdiscovered in intem ationalwaters offthe coast
ofFlorida,asJay insists to be the case. M oreover,Ifurtherunderstand thatyou
believe the Treasure to have been discovered tion land in Florida--orsomething
ve to you:
youronly objective.
Finally, although you told m e that you are not represented by an attorney in
connection with this matter,you did tellm e thatyou had,atsom e point,spoken
infonnation (beyond his now debunked story about The Kirby Group), I
encouragehim to come forward with hisinform ation,and notto make any further
threatsto interferewith Jay'sendeavor.
1d.at2-3.
August21,2011,statingthat1)hehadcallsintothreeattorneysbuthadn'theardbackfrom any
ofthem,itbeingaweekend;2)M r.Hesswasgoingto seekpermission from theKirby Group to
alsorepresentTobia;and3)someonewouldcontactSilversteinsoon.1d.
the tm ails between Silverstein and Tobia in Silverstein Ex.10,to Jay,Steve, Sullivan,Scott,
Davis,Livingston,and Horan.1d.
stock in Tobia's assertions. Hearing Tr. 6 at 198.$To the contrary,'' Silverstein testified,
Sieveryone thatIspoke with took the position thatTobiaw asnottobebelieved and wastrying to
neverprovidedanyinformationandhis'abjectrefusal''todosowastelling.1d.at199.
Prior to January 19,2011,the date on which the Delaware Litigation was filed and
Silverstein wasretained,and asdiscussed previously,two oftheNew York lnvestors,Dean Barr
and NeilAsh,executed affidavits--each dated January 10,201l- in a case filed by the New
York Investors against Jay and Steve in the State CircuitCourtin M onroe County,Florida.
Silverstein Ex.5,
'Silverstein Ex.6.ln addition to stating thatmillionshad been invested by the
tim ethose affidavitswerefiled,theaffdavitshad attached asan exhibita schedule dated August
26
ugust20,2011,hedid not
Tobia did not acceptJay's offer, nordid he recanthis claim thatJay did notfind the
em eraldswherehesaid he did.
Two days aher Silverstein talked to Tobia, on August21,2011,he received additional
e w as nota
person to betrusted.''1d.
In Octoberof2011, afterthis admiralty case wasfiled JTR agreed to settle with Tobia
,
,
granting him a 3.25% equity interest.3 Hearing Tr. 9 at 72.Silverstein testified thathe was
againstthedecision to enterinto any agreementwith Tobia butthathe wason vacation with his
,
Priorto the filing oftheAdmiralty Action, Jay wasadvised by the New York Investors
and others thatbecause the emeraldshad been fotmd in internationalw
discovery to a foreign country to obtain title ratherthan the Courtsofthe United States
Atthe
Adm iralty Trial,Jay testified thathe wasiadvised, forthe firstyearand ahalf from atleast20
,
admiralty attorneys,notto file in (the U.SJ and to take the action to another country
.
Gibraltar,theDom inican Republic, theCaym an lslands.''Jay M iscovich 12/4/12 Adm iralty Trial
Testimony,M otivation Ex.M -41at25.
On August 18,2011,Horan sentan em ail to Jay, Steve, Scott, Sullivan,Davis and
,
Livingston,notcopying Silverstein, and attached a draftofthe Admiralty Com plaint
which he
said he was tsready to file.''M otivation Ex.M 1-7.Horan further Ststronclv recomm ended''that
JTR Sdm eetwith a professional salvage organization who have the persormel, experience and
equipmentto do itright.''1d. Citing sim ilarities between Jay's find and thatof another case
Horan was familiarwith (e.g.,very little shipwreck materialand lotsofvaluable items lying
exposed on the sea tloor),Horan described the salvage company in thatcase- odyssey
as
having done Ssit correctly from the start.''1d.Horan wenton to warn everyone copied on the
emailthati'Spain will,1'm sure, intervenein ourcase and claim thatwearehiding the identity of
8
Therecord isunclearasto how orwhy Tobia'sinterestwasincreased from hisinitial3%
interest.
28
copyingJay,Steve,Sullivan,
Scott,Davis, and Livingston, telling Horan that both Jay and Steve are in favor of a U
.S.
Admiralty filing.Silverstein Ex. 9.M r.Silverstein continueddtlalslunderstandthings
,
the only
thing that currently stands in the way ofa tiling this M onday (, August22,2011,!is the
possibilitythatOdyssey willpersuadeJay thatGibraltar(oranothercountry)isabetteroption
Although I would have preferred to see the custom s filing made m any m onths
ago,David Horan washired to have responsibility forthatissue,and he did not
see a need to follow through untilnow .I did preferto see the Admiralty filing
awaitthe settlem enthearing in Delaware,butlalso agreed thatthe fling should
be earlier than that if D avid H oran believed that it w as necessary to m ake the
filing soonerin orderto protectJay's interestin the D iscovery.
A s of Yesterday, l understand that you are considering new dfadvice'' from
Odyssey thata custom sfling isnotnecessary ifthe Discovery iswithin acertain
guarantee that you are doing the tsright thing''(assuming the Treasure was
discovered how,where and when Jay and Steve say itwasdiscovered)without
regard to the risksattendantto such a filing. Any othercourse ofaction isfraught
with legal,financial,and practicalrisk.
lcontinuetoencourageyou to steerthe coursethatwassetpriorto thesettlement
hearing in Delaware,and proceed with a custom s filing and Admiralty Court
filing tom orrow .As Itold you yesterday, ifyou pursue a differentcourse, 1will
wish you the best,and Iwillbe availableto providem oralsupportand guidance
arrangement,butwhichlwilldo,nonetheless).
hi.at1-2.
Afterreceiving both Horan'swam ing aboutthe potentialforSpain to m ake aclaim,and
this tm ailfrom Silverstein,butpriorto the com mencemtnt ofthe Adm iralty Action, Jay and
Steve showed up atHoran's office with a number ofcoins,none ofwhich were Spanish,and
asked Horan,liwell,would thisprove thatthis is nota Spanish Galleon orhave anything to do
w'
ith Spain?''Testimony of David Horan,Hearing Tr. 1 at 64-65.Horan testified that upon
looking atthese coins,which herecallsasbeingDutch,English andFrench,he
said something affirmative (to Jay and Stevejlike,tldo notbelievein any way
thatthese came from the area where you are finding emeralds.Ido notbelieve
they have ever been in the water.And I certainly understand the concern you
m ighthavewith regardto tryingto proveitsnotSpanish,butthisisnotthe way to
do itand take those coinsoutofm y office and don'teverletme see them again.
. . . It
old them thatlunderstood whatwould motivatethem to makethatkind ofa
claim because of the fear of Spain com ing into it,butthatw as notthe w ay this
case was going to proceed and thatIwanted them to confirm to me that,in fact,
30
they had notrecovered these coins.They did confirm thatto me and then they left
m y office.
1d.at70-71.
Silverstein was not present at this meeting, but Horan testified that he then called
Silverstein and Sullivan to reportthis incident.1d.According to Silverstein, tlay's story about
the non-spanish coinsdid give me reason to beskepticalaboutJay'sveracity.Againstthe then-
existing evidence supporting the veracity ofJay's accounting ofhis discovery ofthe em eralds
31
been found atthe site and would have to be included in the res butthatthey hadn'ttold him
,
aboutthem before because dthey were stillworried aboutSpain com ing in and th
ey had held
these back so thatifSpain cnme in, they would stillhave something left.''1d. However,Horan
initially Sdid notbelieve those emeralds had been recovered by them because based upon my
dives on the site,they would have been tmderneath abouta four-inch overburden ofvery light
like m ud and crushed up shells and things like this and itwould take, to (his) recollection,
something like a year ofbeing on the bottom,much less being 60 feetdeep, to recover that
Silverstein testified
DE #7.Thisstatus
atdtthemajority ofthe
recovered item s are in those boxes. The remaining recovered item sare in a bank vaultin New
York and arrangements are being m ade to transportthem to a bank i
n South Florida.''1d.The
repcd furtherstated thatthirty-six ofthe stoneswere atthe Smithsonian.
ed $$(i)sthata viable
33
option in the adm iralty proceeding?''1d.On Decem ber 1,2011,Horan filed JTR'S M otion to
Dism iss M otivation's claim arguing thatits fatally flawed legal basis and facially implausible
Prior to filing the Admiralty Action,Horan advised JTR to retain the services of a
Professional Salvage company (see Motivation Ex.M 1-7) to assist with the recovery and
m arketing ofthe em eralds,Hearing Tr.1 at 81,and,as discussed previously,Jay and Steve
and inform ed them ofthese findings, who were similarly sum rised
discussed previously, the Sm ithsonian had examined a num ber of the eme
ralds in July and
Septemberof2010 and did notdiscoverany residue on th
e emeralds.Silverstein Ex. 1.And the
December9,2010, GAL analysisspecifcally stated thateach and every stone ith
ad exnmined
was iuntrtattd - No Evidtnce ofOilorResin.''Silverstein Ex.2. No reportdisclosing these
resultswasfiled with theCourtatthistime.
W ithin a couple days ofreceiving the firstindications ofmodern enhancem ents on the
stones,Silverstein had a telephoneconversation with Horan in which Silverstein asked Horan if
hewouldbewillingtoidoanotherdivetoretrieveemeraldsthat(Horanjselectedinthewater
. .
bring them outofthewaterin seawater, encapsulated in seawater,and send them to the GIA to
beexam ined.''Hearing Tr.7 at30-31;Hearing Tr. 1at154.Silverstein had informed CBS ofthe
French and Swiss 1ab results,and had gotten CBS to agree to pay for further testing by the
1,too,am troubled by w hatIam told the Swissand French labshave found,m ost
of which 1 stillhave not seen.Inm not,however, convinced thatwhat l have
heard isdispositiveproofthatJay hasbeen untruthfulregarding anything stated in
theverifed filingsin the admiralty proceeding,orin the filingsin Delawareorthe
Settlem entA greem entin D elaware,forthatm atter.Thatis w hy I have in courage
I intend to discuss the current situation further with CBS, and see what, if
anything,they can do to facilitatethenextleveloftesting.Iffurtherinvestigation
Silverstein testified that,on the aftem oon ofDecember 13,2011,he and Sullivan had a
telephoneconversation with Jay and Steve atHoran'srequest.Hearing Tr.7 at25.Thatevening,
Silverstein sentan em ailto Horan,copying Jay,Steve,Scott,Sullivan,Davis,and Livingston,
summ arizing the contents of that telephone conversation.M 1-16.According to Silverstein's
JayandStevebothstated/confirmedthefollowing(nmong otherthings):
1. A l1m aterialthat is currently in JTR 'S safe depositboxes atCentennialB ank
3. NeitherJay norSteve has any knowledge of any one else having placed the
Admiralty Resatthe Treasure ReefSite forJay and Steve to 'find.''In other
words,they know ofnobody else havingsalted thesite.
Silverstein then repeated his suggestion that, as the source of the epoxy remains a
mystery,the emeraldsatthe Sm ithsonian be sentto the GlA fortesting, and thatHoran dive the
site and bring up new,uncleaned em eralds to be sentfortesting atthe GIA , which would also
testarandom sampling ofpreviously salvaged m aterial. 1d.at2.
In an emaildated December 16,2011,M cAllister recom mended to Horan thatthe test
resultsbtdisclosed publicly Ssvery soon,tom orrow ortheday after.'' M otivation Ex.M 1-18 at 5.
He also stated,$iIendorse the decision taken to resend further sam ples to the GIA lab in New
Yolk butwhateverkind of results they m ightproduce,the European results so far are, by a11
tecimical standards, rock solid.''
M cAllisterofthe plan to send emeraldsto the GIA from the Smithsonian and from a new dive,
aswellastheirintentto havetheFrench and Swisslab emeraldssenttothe GIA .1d.Silverstein's
em ailclosed w ith a requestthatthe French and Sw iss labs cease their current testing, asthose
'tcover-up''ofthetestresults.ld.at2.Hisemailwentontostatethat,Stlojbviously,onedoesnot
work with CBS Newsand 60 M inuteswith any expectation thatthe resultsofthatinvestigation
wouldnotbemadepubliconcetheinvestigation isproperlyconcluded,''andftlolncewehavea1l
the facts,we intend to disclose them to the Courtthrough an appropriate filing.Untilthattim e,
and untila1lthefactsare in,itwould beinappropriateforany ofusto comm entpublicly.''1d.at
2-3.
the D iscovery Site. Sam ples previously sent to the Sm ithsonian lnstitute have
been sentto G1A foranalysis.Once alloftheseanalyses are com pleted,and JTR
38
isin possession offinalreportsfrom each ofthe GIA and French and Swisslabs,
JTR intendsto fileacopy ofthosenalreportswith thisCourtin connection with
a furtherStatusReport.
17E #54at!5.
39
which forthefirsttim erevealedto theCourtthatm odem epoxieshad been found on some ofthe
emeraldsmonthsbefore,and thatthe salvaged materialmighthave com e from amore tsm odtrn''
shipwreck.DE #82.Priortothefinalversion being filed,Silverstein edited and circulated several
thetestsfrom them (asopposed to from someone else).Id.Silvtrsttin also wrote that,in tht
absence of new investment in JTR,there were no funds to continue to pay Horan under his
currentagreem entasofM arch 1.1d.Silverstein commented thatHoran may electto withdraw or
to renegotiate the term s of hisengagement,butthatif Horan elected to withdraw they would
need to have substitute counselin place,which substitution Silverstein said he believed could be
accomplished by the end ofthatweek orsoonerifnecessary.Id 'iunlessand untila decision is
m ade as to who is going to be representing JTR in the adm iralty proceedings,''Silverstein
and inform the court.''Id Horan also wrote,slslometime ago you made the mistake of
threatening me with litigation. l hope l made myself clear on that point.''Id Silverstein
responded that while he agreed that Horan could tdwithdraw at any tim e if you have lost
confidence in your clientss'' H oran's proposed course of action t'would be actionable in
D elaware.''Id at 16. Silverstein cautioned him not to reveal confidential inform ation, ending
withdraw ifthe epoxy resultswere notreleased to the court,Silverstein said he was tnot sure
that'saccurate.''Hearing Tr.9 at105:5-9.
Silverstein stated that Horan had been expressing his desire to w ithdraw ssince February
orM arch when he stopped receiving hisretainer(i.e.when Silverstein told him he would no
longerreceiveitin responsetoHoran'sinsistenceon filingtheThird StatusReport),andhehad
beenraising thoseissuesfrom timeto tim e.''Id at150:23-25.
42
idlwlithin the tirst 30 to 60 days of our reprtsentation of Jay M iscovich in the Delaware
litigation.''Hearing Tr. 9 at12:14-15.Silverstein'smem oryofwhatJay told him isthataherJay
Id
1tt 12:16-20.iDean Barrthen setJay up with Dean Barr'saccountant NeilA sh,and M r.Ash
,
Silverstein rem embers Jay telling him thathe was in Latrobe, Pennsylvania,when ((a
young associate from theProskauerfirm dictated areleaseto him overthe telephone lthink he
-
said itwasapay phone- and Jay wrote itdown and then typed itup and then atsome pointm et
with''Cunningham .ld at 13:14. Jay said he paid $50,000 forthe release with money thathad
43
AGREEMENT
1,M1 Cunningham, dohee byrelease
,r
ellnqui
s:andconveytoJay
M vloh,alINght,e e,cl
aim orinterestlmayhavein
a map ofthe ocean
and yclaim efany natu whafM everIn an
yjewels,stones,coins,
antl
qi
tie8,goldorsllverbars, musket.weapons
,x l
ectibles,oranyother
ltem worththatmayarlse e m theuse
ofsald map.D isreleaseiu
madeforand i
nconsidqrationofthepaymentcf51 thousanddollae .the
executlonhere
of. lsrelease i
s toad asafull, 5na1and com pbete rel
easo ofa1Iri
ghts
and cl lmstheundersigned mayhaveofanynatur.
, whe eratI
aw orin
ease and
>
Mlke
nnlngham
2010.
<'
Jay E i
acovleh
o,
ao k- 4
X .pvr
jhu...,
f=..X s g
ar
j,v s
.j
Ze W I
N #;t NevrA
s.. .,
,J.
''
,SK
%%'
''.t
.
-, .
P'CF.r4.,A$'C.. % *W
W 5 J'
O '
TAlI$
J* V%
a
?'l
yW
ja
.. '
. **
, :..,.
--'
a-7:.)* '
.:.%'
u
-s .z.;
f2
? '
? 7:
l
.:'
r
jj
'
.;
)
.
'
.Jw
;
k
ve..
.
x '1'
..
.
.,
, ,,
.
y.w..
!
.
. . v*'*
.:
s. ..
,.,.
.:..,
'
77:.>..',.,
' .w.
44
other docum ents to contirm that he had paid $50,000 to Curmingham Id at 118:11-15.
.
Silverstein stated that,asfarashe understood, the release tshad nothing to do with . . . anything
thatwasgoing on in Florida.''Id at97:1-23.
Thesubjectofthereleasecameup approximatelytwoweeksbeforetheadmiraltytrial, in
a chain ofemails between Silverstein, M iscovich,Janssen,and Siracusa. 12j
d Jay
anssen presse
fbrbank statem entsindicating thathewithdrew $50,000 from hisPNC bank account M otivation
.
Ex.M 2-54 at 9.As far as Janssen could tell, the withdrawals leading up to the date ofthe
Cotl
rt....'').Siracusa chimed in,stating thattdthe money going outof your (Jay's)account
leadinguptoyouragreementwithM ikegcurmingham)isnotenoughtopayM ikethe$50K and
yourexpensesforthatmonth.Ifyou did notpay $50K to M ike,itscriticalweknow now before
we go to trial - we cannot properly representyou if we did not know this.'' 1d at 7. Jay
.
responded,explaining thathe kepta 1otofcash athom e,enough to have paid the difference,
because ofhisworry thatifhe kept a lotof money atthe barlk, various creditors or potential
creditors would be able to getit.1d.at4.Janssen fired back:is-l-hen why did you have no issue
leaving the 10k in the bank atthe end ofthem onth when you had lessthan $100 atthe start?
10
Silverstein testined that Jay told him the reason the release was dictated, rather than
drawn up and sentto him ,was because Jay Sswas living from place to places he didn'thave a
placeto live,he couldn'tafford aphone,he didn'thavea working printerorcom puter, and that
w asthe w ay ithad to be done.''1d.at96:10-13.
Silverstein said itwould have been inappropriate forhim to do so becauseJay, Scott,and
Steve were contem plating bringing legalaction againstProskauer. Id at97:3-9.
and Siracusa thoughtthe map story and the paymentwere untrue;rather,he understood that
Janssen and Siracusa iwere concerned that they didn't have enough proof to presentthat in
court.'' Hearing Tr.9 at163:2-6.W hen asked on crossexamination,Silverstein acknowledged
that Janssen and Siracusa were saying that dtthe bank records did not supportJay's account.''
llearing Tr.10 at22:18-20.
Atthe adm iralty trial,Jay testified generally to the sam e story aboutM ike Cunningham
thatSilverstein sayshe heard from Jay,though attrialJay provided m uch more detailthan the
record shows Silverstein to have been aware of previously.Jay revealed M ike Cunningham 's
twenty years from unknown sources.(Jay testised that his cellphone would always show
idwithdrawn''when Cunningham called).Cunningham's twenty-year tradition of bi-weekly
anonymous callsceased after Jay paid him the $50,000,ata barin Latrobe,Pennsylvania,and
gothim to sign therelease;Jayhadn'theard from him since.1d.at130:1-3.
12
Jay made no mention ofthe release being dictated, even in the face of questions by the
parties....I didn'tknow this lawyerat all.''1d.at 137:15-22. W hen asked forthe attom ey's
interjected,informedtheCourtthatPlaintiffdidhaveacopyofit,andproducedit.Id at139:23140:20.
read the transcript.I skimm ed the transcriptwhen I received itand Ido not recallwhatM r.
M iscovich said in histestimony.''Hearing Tr.9 at160:25-161:5.Silverstein stated thefollowing
M -8 at70.
As we now know,Jay's story about M ike Cunningham was fiction. W ithin weeks of
Jay'srevealing Cunningham 's name atthe adm iralty trial, M otivation found Cunninghnm and
deposed him . Silverstein leam ed in January 2013 that M otivation had found a M ike
Siracusa testified thatidthis (was)the firsttime that 1had personally caughtJay (inljusta
boldfaced lie.''1d.at51:4-5.
48
Siracusa then called Silvtrstein and told him that they had to withdraw for ethical
17,2013 (DE //287).Judge Moore denied the motion upon considering thatPlaintifflacked
additionalcounselofrecord.See DE #291.Judge M oore noted that,StBefore a renewed motion
willbe granted asto Plaintiff,replacem entcounselmustfileanotice ofappearance,''butJTR did
notobtain replacem entcounsel.Id,.see also Hearing Tr.2 at55:11-14.Siracusa latertestifed
that,upon hearing Rodriguez's testim ony,he knew he had really been fooled;but when he
moved to withdraw on October 12,2013,in his mind he had reached a pointwhere he knew or
should haveknown thatsomething waswrong and thathe had an ethicalobligation atthatpoint
to withdraw.Id at83:22-84:2.Notthathe necessarily believed the find to be false,buthe did
believe thatthe Cunningham story was made up,swhich certainly cutagainstthe actualfind
itself.''1d.at84:5-10.
Ultim ately,afterthe fraud on the courtwas revealed,Judge M oore allowed Janssen &
Siracusa to withdraw .DE #433.Janssen & Siracusa settled Stany potential settlement claim s''
with M otivation on February 28,2014.DE #406.
Ill.conclusion:ofLaw
A. L ezalStandard
a. The N ature and Scope ofInherentPow ers:
1386.1388-1389,8L.Ed.2d734(1962).
requires a finding ofbad faith.''In re M roz, 65 F.3d 1567,1575 (11th Cir.1995).An attorney
17.3d 1230,1242 (11th Cir.2006).Asa sanction forbad faith conduct,the Courtmay assess
attom eys'fees.
gAJ courtmay assess attorney's fees when a party has Siacted in bad faith,
vexatiously,wantonly,or for oppressive reasons. ''' . . . In this regard,if a court
courtand maklingl the prevailing party whole for expenses caused by his
opponent'sobstinacy.''Ibid.
C/xr
lzl:eru
v.NASCO,Inc.,501U.S.32,45-46(1991)(footnoteomitted).Suchan assessmentof
attorneys'feesisan exception to the Am erican Rule,which generally prohibitsfee-shifting.The
13
The parties have also highlighted the doctrine of willful blindness, under which
isknowledge can be imputed to a party who knows ofa high probability of illegalconductand
extent of a court's inherent powers dfmust be delimited with care, for there is a danger of
overreaching when one branch ofthe Government,withoutbenefitofcooperation orcorrection
In affirm ing sanctions for a party's bad-faith litigation conduct,the Chambers Court
explainedthatSltlheimpositionofsanctionsinthisinstancetranscendsacourt'sequitablepower
concem ing relations betw een the parties and reaches a court's inherent pow er to police itself,
to determine whether it has been the victim of a fraud.''Chambers, 501 U .S. at44 (citing
UniversalOil,328U.S.at580).TheUniversalOilCourtexplainedthescopeofthispower:
The power to unearth such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively.
Accordingly,a federalcourtmay bring before itby appropriate m eans allthose
who may be affected by the outcome of its investigation. . . . No doubt,if the
courtfindsaheraproperhearing thatfraud hasbeen practiced upon it, orthatthe
is,'
the Courtdid notuse tiguilty parties''asa term of artl.Chambers does notdepartfrom
UniversalOil.Rather,Cham bers reaffirmed itsvalidity,ashas the Eleventh Circuit. See In re
Further supporting the Court's inherent power to sanction non-parties is the fact that
Chambersaffirmed sanctionsagainstChambers foractshe com mitted beforehebecam e aparty
orwassubjectto anycourtorder,andmentionedwithoutcommentthatthedistrictcourthadalso
sandioned non-pm ies. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 40 n.5. And the Eleventh Circuit recently
affirmed adistrictcourt'simposition ofsanctionson a non-party.Sciarretta v.fincoln Nat. Lfe
/?;,
&.Co.,- F.3d- ,No.13-12559,2015W L 795593 (11th Cir.2015).AndwhiletheEleventh
Circuit, in In re Novak,held that a district court lacked the inherent power to compel an
employee ofa non-party insurance company to attend a settlem entconference where to do so
was 'fneitherauthorized by Congress nornecessary forthe courtto perform its duties.''932 F.2d
52
court to perform its duties,'' an implication consistent with Chambers's admonition'4 that
available statutory mechanism s should be used before a court resorts to its inherent power.
Chambersn501U .S.at50.
A court's inherentpower sis both broader and narrowerthan other m eansof imposing
itsauthority,toholdresponsiblethosewho defiledthetempleofjustice,reacheshim.Thatheis
a.non-party means only thatthe powerto sanction him falls within those Stinterstices''between
m echanisms otherwise available to the Court. See,e.g.,Odyssey M arine Exploration, lnc. v.
Unidentsed Shi
pwrecked Vessel,979 F.Supp.2d 1270,1272 (M .D.Fla.2013)(sanctioning
treasuresalvagecompanyPlaintiffsgeneralcounselpursuantto28U.S.C.j1927wheregeneral
counsel had nlade an appearance in the case on Plaintiffs behalf and was found to have
vexatiouslymultipliedproceedingsinunderlyinglitigation).
c. H eiahtened Burden ofProof:
Second,M otivation m ust prove its allegations by clear and convincing evidence. See
proofbeyond areasonabledoubt.'''Kenyeresv.Ashcroh,538U.S.1301,1305(2003)(quoting
Adtlingtonv.Texas,441U.S.418,425(1979)).
The Courttherefore decrees that M otivation must prove by a standard of clear and
convincing evidencetheallegationsofitsM otionforSanctions.
B. D iscussion and C onclusions ofLaw
a. Silverstein.a non-pao .can be reached bv this CourtunderH elm ac
A s a preliminary m atter,the Court finds that M otivation has established that though
technically a non-party,and an attorney who did notformally appearin this case,Silverstein is
w ithin reach ofthisCourt'sinherentpowerto sanction bad-faith litigation conduct,ifM otivation
provessuch conduct.
investmentand his equity interests in JTR,both personally and through his law firm ,gave M r.
54
Further, the evidence overwhelm ingly shows that Silverstein substantially controlled
JT1k'sactionsin these proceedings. For starters,the retaineragreementbetween Jay, JTR,and
Horan designates Silverstein as JTR'S fsgeneraloutside counsel,''and requires Horan to seek
will now address whether M otivation has proved by clear and convincing evidence that
Silverstein should be sanctioned.After nearly twelve days of taking evidence, including the
testimony ofeightwitnessesand thousandsofpagesofdocumentary evidence,15M otjvatjon jaas
been unable to presentany evidence thatSilverstein had actualknowledge ofJay's scheme to
IS
M ostofthisdocum entaly evidence took the form ofconfidentiale-m ailcommunications
believed to be covered by the attom ey-clientprivilege atthe tim e they were m ade, the future
piercing ofwhich privilege by application ofthe crim e-fraud exception could notreasonably
have been foreseen atthe tim e.
55
commita fraud upon theCourtpriorto thatschem ebeing revealed on January 13, 2014,the first
day of the sanctions hearing in front of Judge M oore. Therefore, the Court m ust tum to
M otivation'sitRed Flags''in orderto determ ine whether Silverstein acted in bad faith i.e.,that
M otivation chiefly relieson six events in their claim that Silverstein acted in bad faith:(1)
Silverstein's encounter with Peter Tobia at the settlement ofthe Delaware Litigation and the
ofhow he cam e to purchase the m ap and subsequent$50,000 paymentfora release from M ike
thatthe evidence presented by M otivation does notm tetthe standard ofclear and convincing
evidence required to sanction Bruce Silverstein,eitherwhen viewed individually orwhen taken
curnulatively.
As set forth above,the Courttsnds that M otivation has not established by clear and
convincing evidence eitherthatSilverstein knew ofthe scheme to defraud the court,orthathe
acted in bad faith by continuing his involvem ent with the case recklessly or with willful
blindnesstothefraud.Accordingly,M otivation having failed to m eettheirburden,theCourtwill
notsanction Silverstein.
IV .C O NC LU SIO N
AmendedMotionforSanctions(DE #407)be,andthesameisherebyDENIED.
IT IS FU R TH ER O RD ER ED A N D A D JUD G ED thatthis m atter is R EFER RED to
the United States Attorney for the Southem District of Florida, for such action as in his
discretion hedeemsappropriate.
DONE and O RDERED in Cham bersattheJamesLawrence King FederalJustice
ilding and United StatesCourthouse,M iami-Dade,Florida,this16thday ofM arch, 2015.
I3u.
t
>
.j.
u..
..>K
..>*'
''
>''--
....
w-
M ES LAW RE CE IN G
ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
58
..e
.'
,'